Laserfiche WebLink
MINl1T13S <br />City Counci.l. <br />April 3, 1985 <br />Mr. 13i1.1 Sten;;er, Sr. commented that before anything i.s done wi.th Che <br />area, the ctrai.nage problems slioulcl Ue talcen care of. Stenger also <br />comment.ed that: in his opinion the State ot Minnesota short-ckianged <br />the City on the drai.nage of thi.s area ~~hen the freeways were put <br />throu~h. Stenp,er f.el.t that Che value of. the proper.ty would i.ncrease <br />wi.th the pr.oper drainage. <br />Mr. Johnson stst:ed tl~at drainage has to be i.ncorpor.ated in the plan. <br />.Tohnson stated that his plan provi.des for ponding. Johnson also <br />i.ndi.cated that there is water i.n the southeast corner of: the area <br />and it seems to hi.m thaC thi.s pond should be designated as the area <br />for the park. <br />Mr. Fat~ey asl<ed the audience thei.r f.eelings f:or buf:f:ering Che east.:ern <br />edge of. Che propertq wi.th ?2-2 clevelopment. Mrs. Scalze Lelt that the <br />buff:eri.ng should be clone wi_th R-1 so that there i_s si.ngle fami.ly <br />development on both si.des of DeSoto. The P7.anner stated that Chi.s <br />could be done ~vi.th heavy buf.feri.ng i.n the baclc of the R-1 from the <br />Tndustri.al.. <br />Scalze pointt:d out that wi_th si.np,le family on both si.des o[ the road, <br />the City wi.ll. have property owners to pay f:or the ro~ct. <br />Mr. F'ahey poi.nted out that the Ci.ty would have to have sino].e family <br />on both sides of the street, because if the Ci.ty deni.ed Che i.ndusCri.al. <br />property access eo DeSoto, tlie City woul.cl not have enough property <br />ocaners to assess f.or DeSoto. <br />Mr. P'rattalone quest~i.oned why he should have to pay for the assessments~- <br />[or peSoto and dedi.cate 30 feet for t:he road onl.y to ~et one lot <br />depth atong DeSoto in return. Dave Frattalone asiced what he would do <br />with the property behi.nd the R-1. P4r. L'ahey rep].i.ed Chat that property <br />~.voul.cl remain i.ndustrial with access to Cent:erville Road. <br />Mr. Pahey pointed out that the properT.y owners on DeSoto w~ill not wz~nt <br />industri.al. tra£fic on DeSoto. Therefore, [he answer seems to b¢ either <br />R-1 or R-7_ along the western edge of DeSoto. Pahey sCated that <br />perhaps R-2 woul.d be the answer because the property owners *.aoul.d get <br />more f.or their assessments. <br />Mrs. Sezilze aslced Mr. Costa how he i.ntends t.o clevelop his property< <br />Mr. Costa repli.ed that he h~as ncver considered sel.l.i.ng hi.s property. <br />Costa indi.cated that he cooul.d noe want industrial traffic on DeSoto <br />and would not want a playgrouncl in the area ei.ther. <br />Mr. Cost~ i.ndicated that i.f the other side of DeSoto was C2-?_, he would <br />want R-1 zoni.ng on hi.s property as wel.l. Mrs. Scalze stat:ed thziC thi.s <br />i., why she feels the area should be R-1. <br />Mr. StenPer commenCed that the area is zoned li.glit i.ndusCrial. and al.l <br />assessments for improvemenCS have been def:erred. Stenger staCed that <br />as a taxpayer in the Ci_ty who has borne the bur.den of these de£erments, <br />he feels tlie properCy should be. Li.~ht Industrial as was originall.y pl.anned. <br />Pa9e -5- <br />