Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutos .~-;: RGqui;Jt~ Coupci i '\1ao'1'ing <br />P.-:l ge -rh (-f;'E.' <br /> <br />J8nuary 10, 1977 <br /> <br />~:~_on~d~~_ 0- asked Fn,diund to clarify the concept of how the <br />P-I District devoloped. Fredlund said It is not a new concept; <br />has been used by several communities; was considered by the Plan- <br />ning Commission and Counel I previously; has baen recognized for <br />years by the Minnesota Planning Association. <br /> <br />Ray Faricy, Atoj'orneY-Eeprosentlng Columbia Transit, 2302 American <br />~)nal Banko, asked tha-r Columbia Transit property be recognized <br />as a bus terminal and zonod accordingly; does not appear, in the <br />proposed ordinance, to be permitted in any district; suggested that <br />the terminal be I isteel as a permitted use in one of the districts <br />and remove its non-conforming status; property was annexed by Arden <br />Hills, and therofore by orodlnance WElS zoned R-I pending study of <br />proper zoning. <br /> <br />. Tom Erickson. Ai-tol-ney for' Nor-rhwestern....Colle~, spoke in support <br />of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance; aiso in support of the P-I District. <br />It is a workable ordinanCE' as drafted and \1ill allow both Bethel <br />and Northwestern co~ leges to grow; further deiay is what we want <br />to avoid - we urge its prompt adoption, after which we Intend to <br />proceed with our application for a Special Use Permit. <br /> <br />Erickson said he wi 1 I submit a written statement for the record. <br /> <br />Ma ry Mee, 1520 I'iesor Ed ge\1ate r, sa i d she supports statements by <br />Peterson, Stanton and ludlow. A new ordinance should come from <br />the taxpayers. Property owners should not have their rights in- <br />fringed upon; P-I does this. <br /> <br />Caro!..Y.!1 Gilbel-t. 1670 Lake Johanna Boulevard, said she is concerned <br />that open spaces be retained; encouraged saving of wet lands and <br />open spaces. Fredlund referred TO density definition which he said <br />will provide an increased benefit not tc fil I; City has been applying <br />this concept. Gilbert said she favors retaining the natural features <br />in the V i I I age. <br /> <br />Dick Larson, 1840 Palace Avenue, St. Paul, said he is concerned re <br />property at Cou~ty Road F and Lexington ^v~nue; interested in develop- <br />ing Industry in -rhe City which \-Ii I i absorb the tax load (lnd help re- <br />duce the tax loed for the residential properties. fndustry likes <br />Arden Hil Is aree; not getting the cooperation desired. <br /> <br />Susan Taylor, 4594 Arden View Court, read and submitted her written <br />statement, dissBpproving the rezoning of the southwest corner of <br />Hamline AVBnuB and Highway 96 to B-1; Statement was also signed by <br />Charlotte Swank, 1434 Arden View Drive, Dougias Tayler, 4394 Arden <br />View Court and Jacque Meyers, 4397 Arden View Court. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Lelf.Hartmark, Minneapolis, said he is represeni-ing his parents, <br />Reverend and l.;rs. Hartmar'k, 1280 \~est Highway 96. Has no problem <br />.ith stream-lining of the ordinance and the expanded definitions, but <br />the map indicates vast implications which are significant; should <br />have Public Hearings re each change to properly disclose all these <br />changes to the publ ic. Two P-I Districts, one 8-1 District and an <br />R-3 Bnd an R-4 District arB all within a short distance of his parent's <br />property - too ~uch to contemplate ramifications of these in one <br />ev,en i og.. <br /> <br />John ~rt~y, 311f. Rid~ewo~~Roa~, asked when P-i District was pro- <br />posse to iohe Plannlno Commission and Council. Fredlund said in <br />late summer. McCar.t~y suggested that Pfannrng Commission saw it at <br />it's meeting in January of 1977, and asked what its recommendations <br />to Counci I were. McCarthy said he agrees with Hartmark's statement <br />thai" a lot of re-zoning is proposed, with only one publ ie hearing; <br />different areas should be looked at separately. McCarthy asked why <br />we Dre changing from definition of private col lege - why P-I?; appears <br />to be an rtB8SY out"; need the control we have no.. Why are we chang- <br />ing this whBn so much of the old ordinance is eX8ct~y tho same in <br />tho new ordinancs? McCarthy referred to last sentence of P-I District <br />definition lp. 2-3) and suggested that sentence should be delated _ <br />"Council in its discr.3tion may order Public Hearings ...". <br /> <br />Fred!und said that the new ordinancs is meant to clarify the conflict <br />in interprei"ation r\3 colleges -and schools. There are a r,umber of <br />other changes in this ordin~nCB from the existing ordinance. <br /> <br />-3- <br />