Laserfiche WebLink
Vi'. ■VL^ <br />GE 3 <br />APPROVAL OF MINITTES <br />meeting FEBRUARY 7, 1977 <br />i 1 <br />RS. ROBERT GASCH <br />030 TONKAWA ROAD <br />ARLANCE - FENCE SETBACK <br />1199) <br />ICTORIA GRAIN COMPANY <br />00 NORTH ARM DRIVE <br />LJBDIVISION (PRELIMINARY) <br />P200) <br />vac RHODE <br />110 BOHNS POINT ROAD <br />VRIANCE - LOT AREA ^ WIDIH <br />NDITIC^^AL USE PERMIT <br />'210) <br />EWART PERRY <br />75 CASCO POINT ROAD <br />VISED PROPOSAL <br />131) <br />[ TC]NKA <br />®ITI0NAL USE PERMIT <br />XND PHASE <br />I <br />MINUTES OF A PLANNING CaCUSSlON MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 22, 1977 - PAGE 4 <br />Mr. Bonner reminded the Planning Canmission that they <br />recommended approval of Phase II subject to a safety <br />report. A qualified engineer has made his investiga­ <br />tion and a report will be prepared by the time of the <br />Council meeting of February 28, 1977. <br />The Planning Commission conveyed to Mr. Bonner their <br />unhappiness with the progress and past problems result­ <br />ing from the lack of the applicant complying with code <br />and licensing procedures. <br />Mr. Bonner felt that there has been a substantial break <br />down between the Council and his client. This is some­ <br />thing that can happen, and that they have nothing to <br />hide. <br />The Planning Commission felt they should not consider <br />increasing the size of Ski Tonka at this time until <br />we can find out if present operation can exist. Any <br />increase in a Conditional Use Permit increases the <br />operation. Ski Tonka has not been able to prove <br />that the present facility can operate within the law. <br />A lengthy discussion followed. The Planning Commission <br />determined that the conditional use permit application <br />filed by Ski Tonka had expired. They also felt the <br />application was void as the owners had not lived up <br />to the conditions set forth on the conceptual approval <br />(owner never submitted safety inspector’s report). <br />Pesek moved, Guthrie seconded, to reconmend that a <br />new application for a Conditional Use Permit be sub­ <br />mitted on the basis that the old one was never taken <br />advantage of. Conditions of conceptual approval were <br />never met. Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0). <br />Applicant was instructed to submit another current <br />application with the necessary plans and reports, <br />i^other fee would be required with the new application. <br />The Zoning Administrator informed the Comnission that <br />original request was for vacation of platted alley which <br />lies between his three lots and to coiiibine Lots 11, 12 <br />and 13 along with the vacated alley to create a parcel <br />large enou^ to meet our minimum zoning requirements of <br />1/2 acre, ^plicant is now requesting to change applica­ <br />tion for a variance only to use Lot 12 and 13 as a build­ <br />ing site. <br />The Planning Coirmission felt that a conservation easement <br />on Lot 11 should be granted to the City. Mr. Bill Ecoff, <br />representing Williamson Construction, was present. He <br />stated that he would be willing to grant this easement to <br />the City. <br />SKI TONKA <br />(continued) <br />WILLIAMSQN CONSTRUCTION CO. <br />3779 CASCO AVENUE <br />VACATION OF UNUSED ALLEY <br />OR VARIANCE ON LOTS 12 <br />AND 13 IF VACATION IS DENIEI <br />(#226) <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />SUBJECT: <br />Chronolog <br />8-23-65 <br />6-13-66 <br />1966 <br />1972 <br />10-24-73 <br />12-12-73 <br />3-11-74 <br />12-30-74 <br />1975 <br />12-15-75 <br />1-9-76 <br />1-12-76