Laserfiche WebLink
1 . <br />Planning Commission Meeting <br />June 9, 1975 <br />Wage 8 of 10 <br />I think the chair should very zealously control any public hearings <br />and should only consider making changes if sufficient evidence is provided <br />that we made a mis take originally, Schwab said. If a condition like shoot— <br />ing from 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. is not reasonable, we should be willing <br />to change it. I agree that 99% is taken care of now, he further stated. <br />It would be appropriate to have the applicant get a statement from a <br />forester to determine if this condition regarding the tree planting has <br />been met. I think any action should be postponed until 4•✓e get a decision <br />from the attorney, he concluded. <br />Spitzer noted that he has been operating under the advice of the <br />City- Attorney. Peltier said that if we believe the appropriate course <br />of action is to recommend that the amendment be adopted, then we are <br />re—instatang the special use permit. If we don't think an adequate job <br />has been done, then it is up to the City Council to deny it; then the <br />White Pear Rod & Gun Club would be in the position of having to apply <br />for a special use permit, but should not be required to operate under <br />regulations more restrictive then were previously made, Schwab said. It <br />would not be necessary to refer the matter to Rice Creek again, he noted. <br />Motion made by Ehret, seconded by Peltier, to recommend to the City <br />Council, denial of the application of the ,White Bear Rod and Gun Club <br />for re—instatement of the Special Use Prmit based on the discussion of <br />item #2 as it can't be re—instated because it was made invalid by improper <br />action. Voting for: Ehret and Peltier. Voting no: Spitzer and Peloquin. <br />Motion failed. <br />Perron noted that they were directed by the Hugo City Council to <br />apply for a Special Use Permit to consider Item #2 only. We were told <br />to do this, he said. City Attorney outlined rather clearly what the issue <br />is. <br />Sc-letty said no trees were planted prior to June 1, 1975. Spitzer <br />said a point had been missed — prior to the deadline, as indicated in <br />the original special use permit, there was some question as to whether <br />a row of trees were planted — he did point out three trees to a roar had <br />been planted — maybe we should be trying to decide what does constitute <br />a row of trees. If we assume that the trees that are out there are good <br />enough — if they are what we contemplated in 1974 — then there is no ques— <br />tion whether the special use permit is null and void. <br />Peloquir said he could get a forester to come and look at the trees <br />to see ii it is a•proper and. adequate planting. <br />Chair recommends tabling the matter until the July 14 meeting. Vern <br />Peloquin appointed a committee of one to obtain an expert's opinion on <br />the extent of the tree planting, the density which they can be planted <br />and expected to survive and how many trees can be planted in those rows <br />under good forestry conditions, with copy of such to be filed with City <br />Clerk prior to July 14th meeting. Planning Consultant Schwab and appli— <br />cant to meet with City Attorney and suggest the applicant's attorney be <br />present, to try to determine what the legal process concerning whatever <br />deliberations should take place or not take place, concerning the re— <br />instating of the permit. <br />