My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 11162004
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2004
>
PL PACKET 11162004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 7:46:18 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 7:46:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
27
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 2000-2004
SP Name
PL PACKET 11162004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes <br /> October 19, 2004 <br /> Wage 5 <br /> 2 Mary Bauer, 4000 Foss Road, expressed her agreement with Mr. Cavanaugh. She stated that she <br /> 3 owned a house with her husband and their children went to school here. She stated that the <br /> 4 Sunset Memorial Park is a very historic location and should be protected. She stated that she <br /> 5 does volunteer work.driving the survivors of those in the cemetery through the cemetery in <br /> 6 addition to small tours of the property. She stated that many of the residents enjoy walking <br /> 7 through the area and noted the holiday programs that take place every year. She stated that it is a <br /> 8 picturesque place and should be kept that way. She expressed frustration and concern stating that <br /> 9 they do not need anyone coming in and taking over. She stated that this is ours and we insist on <br /> 10 keeping it that way. She assured the Commission that they would work very hard to keep Sunset <br /> 11 Memorial Park just the way it is. <br /> 12 <br /> 13 Chair Stromgren closed the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Commissioner Tillman agreed that a funeral home does not fit in an ROS. She referenced the <br /> 16 request to rezone stating that after reviewing both the R1 and ROS is appears that the ROS would <br /> 17 give the City more control over what could happen in terms of development. She asked the <br /> 18 Commissioners for their impression of the zoning impact in terms of what is and is not allowed. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Commissioner Hoska stated that he reviewed the tapes of the Commission meeting and took <br /> 21 some time to review the proposal on site. He agreed with Commissioner Tillman that the ROS <br /> would give the City more control. He noted the historical concerns stating that he does not like <br /> the idea of changing the grassy areas, as it already looks really nice. He stated that he would like <br /> 24 to keep it the way it is. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Commissioner Young asked for more background information as to why this cemetery and the <br /> 27 cemetery located on Stinson are zoned R1. She asked if they predate the current zoning code. <br /> 28 Ms. Hall confirmed that the cemeteries do predate the zoning code and reviewed with the <br /> 29 Commission. She stated that since then a code has been adopted and acknowledged that it does <br /> 30 not sync with the map. She explained that the R1 does include cemeteries, churches and public <br /> 31 buildings as permitted conditional uses noting that typically R1 is used for single family <br /> 32 residential. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Chair Stromgren asked what the zoning change would do to affect future development. He <br /> 35 agreed that through the ordinance the ROS would be a more appropriate zoning for the cemetery <br /> 36 as it would allow just as much control by the City with respect to future development of the area. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Commissioner Jensen asked if there is any other reasons for the ROS rezone request. Mr. Tyson <br /> 39 explained that the matter at hand is to modify and change the zoning from R1 to ROS. He stated <br /> 40 that they are here as a second part of the hearing and are looking forward to the future with a text <br /> 41 amendment for a conditional permitted use under the ROS. He stated that one of the basic <br /> 42 reasons they are requesting the rezone is because the current zoning is inconsistent with the <br /> 43 overall planning purposes of the zoning ordinance and because their use predates the existing <br /> ordinance. He stated that they are bringing this before the City in order to bring the property into <br /> 4� conformity so their use is consistent. <br /> 46 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.