Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />'1 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: <br />and LaDue. Voting No: None. <br />Isakson. <br /> <br />Commissioners Dunn, Zimmerman, Deemer, Schneider, <br /> Abstain: C1]airman Peterson. Absent: Commissio~er <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Schneider and seconded by Commissioner Zimmer.nan to approve <br />P~gular Planning and Zoning Minutes dated Septem2~er 7, 1982. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Peterson, Commissioners Dunn, Zimmernu%n, <br />Deemer, Schneider and LaDue. Voting No: None. Absent: Com~nissioner I,%akson. <br /> <br />NOTE COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONS <br /> <br />'.[~e Commission noted the following: <br /> <br />1. Special Council mintes dated September 13, 1982. <br /> <br />2. ?~gular Ad Hoc Committee minutes dated September 20, 1982. <br /> <br />COMMISSION BUSINESS <br /> <br />Case #1: Rezoning Request For Lot 4, Block 3 Riverside West; Case Of Mr. A1 <br /> Bullick: <br /> <br />Mr. Clayton Berg stated that the parcel Mr. Bullick is requesting rezoned <br />does fall in the Critical Rivers Area, but in view of the fact that it is only <br />one (1) acre, none of the Metro agencies would have to be involved. <br /> <br />Co~nissioner Dunn s~ted that he feels Mr. Bullick's request should be denied <br />because: ... . <br /> <br />1. The parcel is in the Critical Rivers Area. <br /> <br />2. That there is currently existing adequate commercial and industrial <br /> space available to be developed. <br /> <br />Rezoning property for the sake of removing a residential/commercial <br />property abutment only results in another residential/commercial <br />property abutment. <br /> <br />Mr. Bullick commented that if Lot 4, Block 3 were zoned B-1 as Lot 3, Block <br />4 directly across the street, then from that point north it would all be <br />zoned B-1. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dunn replied that then Lot 5, Block 3 would be a residential <br />lot adjacent to a business lot. <br /> <br />Bullick replied that he had to pay for a 9-ton road and natural gas in <br /> area because Iot 3, Block 4 is zoned B-1. <br /> <br />C<,~ ~oissioner Deemer replied that Lot 3, Block 4 is out of place, not Lot 4, <br />]~] ock 3. <br /> <br />C,,~:~oissioner Zimmerman reiterated that the lots .in Riverside West ~.~ere sold <br />u~)~]er t]-.e agre,_u~,ent that certain lots would rema'in residential.' <br /> <br />C~;~.~nissioner Schneidler stated that she is in agrcement %-;ith the re~t o[: the <br />Co~,u¥.ission members and feels that rezoning in order to have a more uni[orm <br />bo:.~ndary line is not justified. <br /> <br />P & Z/October 5, 1982 <br /> Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br />