My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1972/04/05 Council Minutes
>
Council Minutes
>
1972/04/05 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2020 8:28:29 AM
Creation date
9/28/2020 6:36:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Minutes
Date
4/5/1972
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
01 <br /> April 5,1952 1 <br /> The Planning CommissIon notified each resident between 41st <br /> • <br /> h b k h'`... <br /> .41:Executive d Sesslon meeting On March 8,1972 <br /> this matter. Most of the 20-30 perSons did attendassumed that the entire hlock between 41st and a Streets <br /> was developing for commercial until were Informed that <br /> n a under the <br /> R-4 Zoning Classification. None favored doing nothing <br /> anythingand some favored rezoning that equitable ea <br /> 4, <br /> At a toant meettng of City Council and z Ina Coon March 8,1972,the Issue of 41st and Colby mmission <br /> s <br /> to Council h <br /> at length. The Planning Commission at that time <br /> entire I <br /> block. The Commission feels chat the assue was clartfied as a result of thrs meeting. <br /> substantially, Planning Comttsscon formally stated their position on { f <br /> On March 21,1972,at Its regular monthly meeting,the <br /> ua d i rr in t c 1 <br /> 1. It would be preraturc.in light of suitable <br /> available land zoned for 2 azone •� I <br /> an area substantially south of t5 <br /> 2. The Commission feels that there would be a greater '.,jq..•�.. <br /> negative effect on <br /> acent residentially <br /> property t.f the nallti followea '+IF <br /> street rather than following property boundaries <br /> at mid-block. <br /> . There would bc greater traffic problems along <br /> 1St.and Hoyt associated with a full block rezonest <br /> FiV <br /> than a mid-blook rexone.mid-b <br /> 4. The <br /> nterprises rezone would be consistent <br /> wishGthedGandRU as with other existing <br /> zoning in the area. <br /> The Commission therefore wtshes to formally reaffirm to Council <br /> additionalthat it endorses the Guardtan EnterprIse's rezone but does <br /> not favor time. <br /> Moved by Counctlman Aldcroft,seconded by <br /> to concur in the nonre Planning <br /> and instruct Y Attorney prepare e nnCe <br /> rezoning e <br /> ij <br /> Unanimously Carried <br /> REARING SET Revd public <br /> hearing o hear the P 11' <br /> y on the <br /> atton Amendment to the <br /> in pission to Concur <br /> roposed <br /> proposedamIt was the endment <br /> an recommends <br /> e mmends of the Planning ting sMit toCouncil. He said the City <br /> their g l <br /> date to be set. 4 t <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.