Laserfiche WebLink
• RESOLUTION 77-045 <br /> A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CONCEPT OF A JOINT POWERS <br /> AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES IN <br /> THE CITY OF ST. ANTHONY <br /> Motion carried unanimously. <br /> Mr. Vickrey reported that his office had received most of the material <br /> necessary for the final platting of the Penrod Addition and although <br /> a few title problems remained, he anticipated they could be easily <br /> cleared in a short time. <br /> Councilmen Haik and Sundland wanted these questions solved before taking <br /> further action on the P.U.D. for the Hedlund property. <br /> Motion by Councilman Haik and seconded by Councilman Sundland to table <br /> action on the Final Plat review for the Hedlund P.U.D. <br /> Voting on the motion: <br /> Aye: Haik and Sundland <br /> Nay: Sauer, Stauffer and Miedtke <br /> Motion to table not carried. <br /> • Gordon Hedlund arrived accompanied by Thomas Brickner of Brickner <br /> Builders, 6245 Ben More Drive, who he said was interested in purchasing <br /> the entire section of the P.U.D. which had been designated as Residential. <br /> Mr. Hedlund contended the questions regarding title were minor and re- <br /> quested the plat be filed in the interest of saving time which he felt <br /> was running out for this construction season. The Attorney was con- <br /> cerned with relying on the County for clearance, however. <br /> Motion by Councilman Sundland and seconded by Councilman Stauffer to <br /> approve the final plat for Penrod Addition subject to review by Mr. <br /> Fornell and the Attorney with the City Clerk and Mayor directed not to <br /> sign the plat until these two have indicated their approval . <br /> Motion carried unanimously. <br /> Mr. Brickner then indicated this opposition to the chain link fence which <br /> is required in the P.U..D. to separate the residential from commercial <br /> areas. He felt such a fence would detract from the saleability of the <br /> homes in the price range which he intends to construct on that tract. <br /> He said he would prefer to give each purchaser a choice of type of <br /> fencing. The developer also thought "having two types of fencing or <br /> screening together would be ugly" . Considering the variation in grade <br /> elevations of the tract he felt the chain link fence was also not <br /> practical. <br /> Mr. Fornell said the Planning Board's reasons for requiring the chain <br /> link fence was to prevent the use of the residential property for a <br /> (2) <br />