My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL MINUTES 09151987
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
1987
>
PL MINUTES 09151987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 5:50:26 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 5:50:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
21
SP Folder Name
PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1987
SP Name
PL MINUTES 09151987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
1 indicated no such provision had been made in St. An- <br /> 2 thony' s Ordinance because the community grew from the <br /> 3 start as a residential suburb; <br /> 4 said some municipal ordinances are "cumulative" to allow <br /> 5 any use which is permitted in a residential district to <br /> 6 be used in a commercial zone and anything which is <br /> 7 allowed in a lower classification to be allowed in a <br /> 8 light industrial zoned area; <br /> 9 indicated St. Anthony' s is generally considered to be an <br /> 10 "exclusive" Ordinance, which allows only one exclusive <br /> 11 use in each different zoning category, but is not com- <br /> 12 pletely exclusive because it allows single family homes <br /> 13 or duplexes to be built in areas zoned for single family <br /> 14 homes and then imposes exclusive zoning for commercial <br /> 15 and light industrial; <br /> 16 said he perceived no major problems had been created by <br /> 17 allowing such a mix as long as issues like parking, <br /> 18 access, and codes had been addressed; <br /> 19 said he wasn' t certain it would be wrong to allow an <br /> 20 unused 1,000 square feet of space in the back of a ware- <br /> 21 house to be used for living space for someone who would <br /> 22 keep an eye on the property for the owner as long as <br /> •23 there was adequate parking and access and the space was <br /> 24 brought up to code for that purpose; <br /> 25 told Chair Franzese he perceived that whether that was a <br /> 26 good or bad thing was a value judgment she would have to <br /> 27 make in terms of how she viewed her community and what <br /> 28 land uses she thought were right or wrong in different <br /> 29 zoning districts. <br /> 30 Werenicz indicated he personally perceived that because Mr. Solie <br /> 31 had reported having less vacancies in his property than <br /> 32 was the norm, there had been little hardship demonstrated <br /> 33 to justify a drastic step like changing the Zoning <br /> 34 Ordinance to improve that business. <br /> 35 when the Chair said she perceived the Commission was being re- <br /> 36 quested to change the Zoning Ordinance to provide a second resi- <br /> 37 dence for a caretaker and yet she wasn' t hearing that it was- <br /> 38 really going to be for a caretaker, Mr. Solie told her that the <br /> 39 only purpose for remodeling the unit would be for use as a second <br /> 40 caretaker residence and that his firm would not be renting to the <br /> 41 general public now that they had been made aware that doing so <br /> 42 would pose a problem for the Ordinance. <br /> 43 Commissioner Wingard commented that he understood the Commission <br /> • 44 was only being asked to change the Ordinance to allow two rather <br /> 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.