Laserfiche WebLink
� <. <br /> . 1 <br /> page 8 - City Plan Commission - 6/1/78 <br /> l. The looping of the watermain. <br /> 2 . The improvement to McKinley Avenue at the inter- <br /> section of the access road to the Engineering <br /> Division standards. <br /> 3. That before applying for a building permit <br /> applicabZe to said premises, and before commencing <br /> any construction or any improvement on said <br /> premises , petitioner cause to be prepared and <br /> . obtain the approval of the Engineering Division, <br /> the Department of Public Works of detailed <br /> engineering plans for all private drives , water <br /> mains, sanitary and storm sewers that are <br /> to serve the site. <br /> Plat Committee report: <br /> � <br /> Ms. Grossman said the committee reviewed the plan and <br /> concurs with staff in the necessity of the improvement <br /> tc the access raad to the development. ' <br /> There were no objectors present. <br /> It was moved and seconded (McGann/Grossman) and unanirnously <br /> passed �hat Cal. No. 78-69 be recommended to Council <br /> for approval, su�ject to staff provisions as set out. <br /> Cal. No. 0 Petition of I� �c. <br /> to rezone a � ocated north <br /> cf East Division Street, approximately <br /> 230 feet east of North 35th Street <br /> from R-3 Single Family Residence District <br /> to R-6 Multiple Dwelling Distzict. <br /> David Johnson, atto=ney, repres�nting petitioners, said <br /> that the building probably sets on Lot 17 . Just to <br /> the east of the tract is a large vacant lot at least 400-500 ' <br /> running east. Just east of that used to be Sears Roebuck, <br /> and that the whole block immediately to the north of <br /> Division is all residential. � <br /> There were no objectors present. <br /> Staff recammendations : The propezty is located at the northwest <br /> corner of East Division and Samuels streets. On first <br /> iunpulse Mr. Menzies thought that the zoning to R-6 <br /> as a transitional zone made sense, but upon staff ' s lookinq <br /> at the proposal in greater depth, they recommend against the , <br /> petition for the following reasons: ' <br />