My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 12142004
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2004
>
CC PACKET 12142004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 7:49:14 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 7:48:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
29
SP Folder Name
CC PACKETS 2001-2004
SP Name
CC PACKET 12142004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br /> October 26, 2004 <br /> Page 3 03 <br /> 1 <br /> 2 Councilmember Faust stated he believed because this was an R-1 zoning, it would have <br /> 3 conditions. Mr. Momson replied R-1 zoning was residential uses. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Mr. Stromberg stated he believed this was a broader issue then just Sunset. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Councilmember Horst stated it appeared to him that it appeared they were trying to set the <br /> 8 zoning for cemeteries and this appeared to be a broader topic than they were willing to grasp <br /> 9 right now. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Motion by Councilmember Horst, seconded by Councilmember Stille, to extend a 60-day time <br /> 12 limit. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Councilmember Stille stated this was difficult to know what was down the road and to put all of <br /> 15 the pieces together. He stated it troubled him that nobody would come in and ask for rezoning <br /> 16 for the City's good and he did not understand this. He indicated he would approve the extension <br /> 17 process,but asked the Planning Commission to obtain more information as to what the <br /> 18 applicant's intention is, including the demolition of the.chapel, signage, and rezoning. He stated <br /> 19 he wanted to see the full scope of what the applicant's plan was. He indicated he wished they <br /> 20 had more time than 60 days. He asked when they would need to make a decision. Mr. Momson <br /> 21 replied the 60 days stated running on September 9. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 Councilmember Faust stated the reason he did not like this 60-day extension was because it has <br /> 24 been his experience a 60-day extension would not be sufficient and he did not believe they knew <br /> 25 all of the facts. He suggested they deny this and come back when they have had sufficient time <br /> 26 to discuss this with no legal requirements pending. He stated this would send a strong message <br /> 27 that the Council wanted to know what it was that the applicant was intending to do. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Councilmember Horst stated he did not disagree, but without a 60-day extension,would they <br /> 30 need to make a decision by November 9. Councilmember Faust clarified it was his suggestion to <br /> 31 deny the request. <br /> 32 <br /> 33 Mr. Mornson stated Council could deny the request and did not have to take the Planning <br /> 34 Commission's suggestion. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Mayor Pro-tem Thuesen stated he was confused about this request and he would be in favor of <br /> 37 denying this request. He stated there were too many unanswered questions regarding this <br /> 38 property that they needed answers for. He stated he wanted to see a more clear indication of <br /> 39 what the long-term plans were for this property. <br /> 40 <br /> 41 Councilmember Stille asked the Planning Commission to look at all aspects of this if it was <br /> 42 brought forward again. <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Councilmember Horst requested the interest of the City and the interest of the applicant'are fairly <br /> 45 looked at, as well as preserve a piece of the City's history. <br /> 46 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.