My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 11-27-2000
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
CCP 11-27-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:21 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 1:26:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
125
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />Response: <br /> <br />Pu rpose c: <br /> <br />Supposes: <br /> <br />Response: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Purpose d: <br /> <br />Supposes: <br /> <br />Response: <br /> <br />Purpose e: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Supposes: <br /> <br />The liquor, wine, and beer portion of our business is licensed by the <br />State of Minnesota to engage in those dispensing activities within hours <br />prescribed by State Law. While we have elected at this time to cease <br />our operation at hours earlier than that allowed by State Law, we do not <br />wish to have the right to operate the fully allowed time incrementally <br />usurped. We see no positive benefit to be enjoyed by the <br />adjacent residents by a change to a zoning with restricted hours of <br />operation. Adjacent residents are customers at the present time, as are <br />many others who do not live in the neighborhood, our city, our state, 0 <br />our country, or even our hemisphere. <br /> <br />To place limitations on the type, size and intensity of uses within this <br />district, given it's proximity to residential uses. <br /> <br />Much the same as Purpose a. <br /> <br />Were the historical and current uses of the property of a type, size, and <br />intensity that was offensive to adjacent residents. no adjacent residential <br />area would currently exist. Therefore, placing limitations on the <br />properties uses by rezoning are not necessary. <br /> <br />To place emphasis on convenience for pedestrian, bicycle, and public <br />transportation access to the use. <br /> <br />That the aforementioned modes of transportation are not currently <br />convenient means to access the current use of the property. <br /> <br />Many of our neighborhood customers currently walk to dine with us. <br />Those neighbors who walk do so on a frequent basis. They apparently <br />do not find it inconvenient to do so. <br />A pu blic transportation line runs through our intersection and <br />many bicycles pass by daily in both good weather and bad. <br />In spite of these facts, to our knowlege, the past 25 years have not <br />yielded a single customer traveling to and from our place of business <br />with a bus or a bicycle as the primary mode of transportation. Why <br />require installation of a bicycle rack that will see no use. We will be <br />economically forced to install a bicycle rack, when, and if, customers <br />choose to use bicycles as their favored mode of transportation. <br /> <br />To accommodate, where possible, a public commons giving residents a <br />place to gather and interact with one another. <br /> <br />That this is not currently the case. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.