Laserfiche WebLink
• Planning Commission Meeting <br /> May 18, 1993 <br /> Page 11 <br /> 1 Industrial and would never be considered for the subject <br /> 2 property. Its size would also prohibit a use like a <br /> 3 restaurant and there wouldn't be enough room for most <br /> 4 retail development. <br /> 5 <br /> 6 The Public Hearing was closed at 9 : 36 p.m. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Commissioner Werenicz indicated he favored rezoning to <br /> 9 Commercial since he could see no viable use for the <br /> 10 property if it were left residential. He thought its <br /> 11 classification should be changed to match the development <br /> 12 around it. He added that there would be plenty of <br /> 13 opportunities for the residents in the area to react to <br /> 14 any proposed development. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 Chair Faust said his first concern had been that a fast <br /> 17 food establishment might try to locate there. However Mr. <br /> 18 Urbia' s assurances to Mrs . Nelson that systems are in <br /> 9 place to prevent that from happening and to encourage the <br /> 0 type of service business which would be best for that <br /> 21 property had alleviated those concerns . <br /> 22 <br /> 23 Motion by Murphy, seconded by Madden to recommend the City <br /> 24 Council rezone to C (General Commercial District) the <br /> 25 following properties; <br /> 26 <br /> 27 * Lot 7, Block 7 of Mounds View Acres Second Addition <br /> 28 which is presently zoned R-4 (Multiple Family Residence <br /> 29 District) ; <br /> 30 <br /> 31 * Lot 8, Block 7 of Mounds View Acres Second Addition is <br /> 32 presently zoned R-2 (Two Family Residence District) ; <br /> 33 <br /> 34 * Lot 9, Block 7 of Mounds View Acres Second District <br /> 35 which is presently zoned R-2 (Two Family Residence <br /> 36 District) . <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Motion carried unanimously. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 VI. MISCELLANEOUS <br /> 41 <br /> 42 A. Discussion of Kenzie Terrace Area <br /> 43 <br /> 404 Chair Faust indicated the information the Management <br /> 5 Assistant had provided in the agenda packet was in <br /> 46 response to the Commission desire to take a more proactive <br />