Laserfiche WebLink
Council Proceedings q. <br />City of New Brighton I~,,,;~ <br />Dec. 14, 1976 J~`",- <br />Motion by Fisher, seconded by Werdouschegg to reconsider <br />action regarding Mengelkoch trade license. <br />4 ayes - 1 naye (Senden) -carried <br />Motion by Fisher, seconded by Werdouschegg to waive <br />reading of resolution and adopt resolution <br />approving Mengelkoch trade license with changes. to <br />Item 1 as follows: Amend the first BE IT RESOLVED, Item 1, <br />by adding to the end of the sentence: "except during <br />periods of loading and unloading when loading doors <br />may be open, but these periods shall be kept to a minimum." <br />and to change Item 2(b) by providing one-hour notice <br />period <br />Vote on motion <br />4 ayes - 1 naye - (Senden) - carried <br />Public Hearings <br />City Attorney stated hearing was properly called. <br />The City Planner reviewed the planning report and <br />Planning Commission recommendations, <br />Motion by Hardt, seconded by Fisher to receive <br />letter from Stuart L.Finney, attorney for Daverne <br />Corporation, dated Nov. 23, 1976. <br />5 ayes- 0 nayes- carried <br />Dave Ficek, applicant, reviewed-.the letter and noted <br />that he did not agree to maintain water level within <br />the open space ponds. <br />PRB-~ #21 <br />9:44 to <br />10:47 <br />Terry Doyle, 1900 Serendipity Court, stated that during <br />the various meetings of PRD #21, no one had stated <br />anything positive about the proposal but had-only made <br />negative statements about the existing PRD. He <br />reviewed the history of PRD #18 from its inception <br />through various revisions to the current time. He emphasized <br />that to him it appeared that permission for the PRD expired in <br />September because of completion requirements contained in <br />PRD #18 and because no extension had been requested. He <br />stated that PRD #21 should be rejected and PRD #18 should <br />come under review. <br />Dave Ficek stated that because of the moratorium placed on <br />the property by the Council that he could not have met the <br />construction timetable within PRD #18. He stated he had a <br />letter requesting an extension of the construction time <br />period. <br />Dick Eckhardt, 1921 Stinson Blvd., stated he did not <br />believe three homes should be built between and behind other <br />homes. He stated he did not think the proposal would <br />enhance the area. <br />