Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Marks felt it was only reasonable that the City make those con- <br /> siderations and he thought the City can legally do so. <br /> Mr. Letourneau felt it only proper that a developer at least justify <br /> the potential viability of a proposal and provide the information to <br /> the Board. <br /> Voting on the motion: <br /> Aye: Cowan, Rymarchick, Hiebel and Letourneau <br /> Nay: Marks <br /> Motion carried. <br /> , -The Board then discussed a possible P.U.D. proposal for the Hedlund <br /> property with Mr. Hedlund, Mr. Dale, Mr. Hedlund' s planner and <br /> Mr. Daubney, Mr. Hedlund 's attorney. <br /> Mr. Dale discussed elements of the plan at length specifying the <br /> numbers controls and regulations contained in a P.U.D. contract. <br /> The Board members made several comments concerning various possible <br /> uses, a sidewalk through the site, and the desireability of a compre- <br /> hensive plan for the entire block. <br /> • Mr. Daubney said that the two land owners to the north were not inter- <br /> ested in becoming involved in a P.U.D. <br /> The Board agreed that comments on the P.U.D. proposal should be pro- <br /> vided, preferably in writing, by April 1st to Mr. Fornell. <br /> The Board discussed the land use planning seminar in New Brighton held <br /> March 9th, a seminar on Planning and Zoning by the state, attended by <br /> Mr. Marks and the notion of economic feasibility and if and how cities <br /> can determine such. <br /> Motion by Mr. Cowan, seconded by Mr. Marks to adjourn. <br /> Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11: 10 P.M. <br /> Jim Fornell <br /> Acting Secretary <br /> • <br /> (5) <br />