PL MINUTES 02151977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• enforced, Mr. Dale agreed that the City did not have the vehicle for such constraints in its zoning ordinance but felt the most effective method of accomplishing this would be to amend the PUD classification to provide for restrictions on type of buildings and exterior finish. Mr. Fornell and the City Attorney then reminded the Board that though there were such possibilities under a PUD, the official purpose of the hearing was to consider Mr. Hedlund's request for rezoning. Mr. Bowerman asked what timetable could reasonably be expected to be followed with the construction as proposed and Mr. Daubney replied that is is Mr. Hedlund's intention to proceed at once with the sale of the lots along Penrod Lane for single family dwellings and might even participate in their construction. However he could offer no specific timetable for the construction of the commercial buildings which might be built by other developers . The attorney said Mr. Hed- lund was seeking concept approval of the proposal from the Board with the request that the Board suggest to the Council that revisions to the City zoning ordinance be made which would allow the concept to be practically accomplished. He said his client had no choice but to request the "C" zoning which was the only vehicle existing under the ordinance which would cover all the necessary uses contained in this proposal. None of the more than dozen residents present for the hearing spoke as proponents of the proposal but several voiced their opposition. • Mr. Pettijohn felt no rezoning should be granted until the Council had made a decision regarding changes in the zoning ordinance but it was his contention that "the ordinance should stay the same" . Mrs. Nelson added to her previously voiced objection to a restaurant as a permitted usage by saying "If you can 't uphold your PUD require- ments now, how will you be able to prevent further changes later?" She felt there was a great need for residential development in St. An- thony and could see no need for further commercial development in this particular area where there are now vacancies in both the shopping center and the medical center. Mrs. Kathy Cooper, 3908 Macalaster Drive, was opposed to any business which would stay open past 9 :00 P.M. , especially restaurants , because of the proximity to homes on Penrod and said she believed that, since none of the restrictions mentioned by the proponents were backed by legal written agreements , there could be not guarantee that undesirable uses wouldn't develop there later. Mr. Vickrey reminded the residents that the Board's only function is to make recommendations to the Council and there could be no permanent changes in the zoning ordinance made during this hearing. Marie Sult, 3909 Penrod Lane, saw no need for more commercial develop- ment in the area and felt there was no way of enforcing the architec- tural standards which had been suggested. She felt there had not been (4)