My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL MINUTES 09211976
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
1976
>
PL MINUTES 09211976
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 3:19:20 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 3:19:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
15
SP Name
PL MINUTES 09211976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
• Mr. Richard Cooper, 3908 Macalaster Drive, indicated he too was <br /> against the Hedlund proposal. <br /> The Public Hearing was closed at 8 :55 P.M. <br /> Motion .by Mr. Cowan and seconded by Mr. Letourneau to recommend to <br /> the Council denial of the request to rezone the west 187 feet of Lot <br /> 10, Block 6 , Mounds' 'V°iew Acres for the '.Gold Tiara Beauty Shop because <br /> it would result in spot .zoning from -the present residential to service <br /> office usage. <br /> Mr. Marks wanted the motion amended to reflect the - Board' s feeling <br /> that the entire undeveloped property owned by Mr. Hedlund should be <br /> planned for -on a unit basis to provide a .proper buffer between the <br /> residential area to the east and the commercial development across <br /> Silver Lake. Road. Mr. Cowan said< he would not accept that amendment <br /> to his motion since .he .did- not. feel it was up to the Board to prede- <br /> termine the disposal of Mr. Hedlund' s property. Mr. Letourneau agreed <br /> that a denial of .this specific request was all that was necessary. <br /> Mr. Johnson felt there should -be some stipulation made to indicate the <br /> City.'s willingness to work with Mr. Hedlund to develop that particular <br /> parcel in a manner which will' be `to the advantage of both the City <br /> and the developer. He wanted the .City staff to make themselves avail- <br /> able to work with .Mr. Hedlund on such planning. <br /> • Mr. Cowan then called for a vote on the motion. <br /> Voting whether to vote on the motion: <br /> Aye:. Johnson, Letourneau.,: ;H.iebel, Bowerman and Cowan. <br /> Nay: Marks and Rymarchick. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> The- motion. to deny Mr. Hedlund' s request then carried unanimously. <br /> A debate on whether it is proper to involve .the City staff in the de- <br /> velopment of private property and whether such services are not -normal- <br /> ly available to any resident who needs help .in formulating a request <br /> dealing with the development of such property resulted in the following <br /> motion: <br /> Motion by Mr. Johnson and seconded, by Mr. Marks to recommend to the <br /> Council that the City staff be madeavailable to Mr'. Hedlund, at his <br /> convenience, to provide reasonable City input into the comprehensive <br /> development of .hi's property -consistent with existing zoning ordinances <br /> and responsible land use. <br /> Voting on the motion: <br /> • Aye:. Johnson, Bowerman, Rymarchick, Cowan and Marks <br /> Nay: Hiebel and Letourneau <br /> -4- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.