My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-21-95
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Minutes-Board Or Commission PLZ 00900
>
1995
>
02-21-95
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/23/2007 3:52:58 PM
Creation date
5/23/2007 3:52:56 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
Planning Commission Minutes - February 21, 1995 Page 3 <br /> <br />L,. <br />Motion by Baker, seconded by <br />IVINGSTON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING <br /> <br />5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Zisla said more consideration should be given to the uses restricted by the construction of a church on the site. <br />Jensen asked if a restaurant could be constructed on the other site. Mattila responded that he could not tell by the <br />plan submitted, but he thought a restaurant with a liquor license would be too close to the proposed church. Jensen <br />said that he was reluctant to vote for approval because of the existing restaurant in the area (Wong’s). <br /> <br />Zisla asked if the owners of Wong’s received notice of this hearing. Mattila responded all persons within 350 feet <br />New Brighton Bulletin <br />were notified and it was published in the . <br /> <br />The Commission studied the plan, but could not determine if the church would preclude Wong’s from getting a <br />liquor license. <br /> <br />Livingston expressed concern about the drainage easement. <br /> <br />Locke suggested the Planning Commission continue this item if they would like Staff to research any use restrictions <br />imposed by the proposed church. <br /> <br />Blomquist said he would prefer that. <br /> <br />Ostenberg asked what options the church would have if a liquor license would be requested in the area. Mattila <br />answered only the City Council has the power to waive the distance restriction. <br /> <br />Zisla wondered if the Planning Commission should deny the request based on what Wong’s might or might not <br />wish to do. <br /> <br />Blomquist said a future owner of the restaurant should be considered. This is an important decision influencing the <br />future of the whole area. <br /> <br />Baker asked if a condition of the special use permit could provide for a possible liquor license at the existing <br />restaurant. <br /> <br />Mattila said only the City Attorney could decide that issue. <br /> <br />Blomquist said he felt the Planning Commission did not have enough information to make a recommendation and <br />the item should be continued. <br /> <br />Motion by Blomquist, seconded by Jensen, to <br />RECONSIDER THE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC <br />. <br />HEARING <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Baker called for a vote to close the public hearing. 0 Ayes - 5 Nays. Baker announced the public hearing was still in <br />session. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.