My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SP-101
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Special Use Permit File PLZ 02100
>
SP 101-200
>
SP-101
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2007 10:53:11 AM
Creation date
2/13/2007 3:09:41 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
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
<br />New Brighton Planning commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />November 17, 1981 <br />Page - 2 ~ <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />He stated that the City is as a result of the findings responsible to <br />make sure the violations are corrected/abated. <br /> <br />staff basically indicated a general concern over this type of use in <br />residential districts and this type of conversion's affect on the <br />character of the neighborhood and reuse/future use of the dwelling. <br />Staff further noted that the proposed timetable for the corrections <br />was not acceptable and changes would have to be made by the applicant. <br /> <br />Ward Brady, representing the church, stated that he realized that the <br />Church was in error by not getting the proper permits prior to using <br />the site. He stated that in the short time period he has attempted to <br />work out all necessary details with staff. <br /> <br />Commissioner Knuth voiced a concern over this type of use and stated <br />that it was somewhat acceptable because it was contiguous to the <br />church property. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Brady stated that the existing parking lot was used and the church <br />needed the additional classroom space. He commented that an addition <br />was too costly for the church at this time. <br /> <br />Commissioner Baker voiced a concern over the long term use of the <br />church and stated that he felt the changes in response to code re- <br />quirements would make it impossible to convert the house back to a <br />single family dwelling. He commented that with the handicap require- <br />ments the exterior of the structure would also be altered in such a <br />way to adversely affect the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Mr. Brady indicated that he couldn't predict the future use of the <br />house nor speak for the Church. He stated that he was concerned over <br />posting the bond and commented that it would serve no purpose. <br /> <br />Commissioner Knuth stated that the posting of the bond was a standard <br />procedural requirement and he felt that the applicant could work some- <br />thing but with staff to-fulfill that requi~ement. <br /> <br />Commissioner Livingston noted that such a use of a home was a miss- <br />use of a valuable asset because of the housing shortage. He noted <br />that the church should convert the home back to a residence. <br /> <br />e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.