My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
gr00090_000024_pg16
MoundsView
>
City Council
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
MNHistoricalSocietyFiles (CC Minutes page-by-page 1958-1981)
>
gr00090_000024
>
gr00090_000024_pg16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2011 2:32:58 PM
Creation date
4/12/2011 9:13:05 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
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
- 7 - <br />was moderate to low income, high density aggravated higher taxes, third, was <br />concerned for the single family neighborhood. <br />Mayor Rustad stated that it is very possible that all zoning would be done by <br />a metro zoning commission in years ahead. <br />John Robertus stated that he is opposed to apartments because they look like <br />army barracks and it would be the same old baloney. <br />Mr. Chervany stated that he was against it because of the uncertainty of the <br />50 acres to the north of County Road I12. He felt that there were too many <br />units, 1,100 to 1,200 units south of Highway #10 in a very small area. <br />Howard Obert, 5092 Sunnyside Road, stated that there is no resident that <br />appears for the development. That if the Council represents the people they <br />must deny the rezoning. <br />Attorney Meyers commented that the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the <br />Council shall consider the health, safety and welfare of the area and entire <br />community when reviewing a zoning request or petition. <br />Mr. Krawczyk is against because $20,000 townhouses is low cost and he is opposed <br />to apartment buildings. <br />Mrs. Merker, opposed to apartments, wants to keep the area single family homes. <br />Mr. Kobe, land was zoned R1 originally, let it remain RI. <br />Mr. Blanski, not for or against apartments coming, they should be centrally <br />located on a big piece of property. Am not for or against the proposal. <br />Mr. Wahlberg, purchased property zoned R1. Builder purchased knowing it was <br />R1 also. <br />Martin Ehrhardt, 5126 Greenwood, opposed to the proposal. <br />Mr. Hjelle, opposed to apartments. Stated that there was some land that was <br />unsuitable for single family homes but much of the land was suitable for single <br />family homes. <br />Gary Payment, 5165 Red Oak Drive, residential area won't go as planned. It destroys <br />residential atmosphere. <br />Robert Larson, 7960 Fairchild, if developers willing to go 8 million dollars in the <br />hole then the developers will make the buildings liveable. <br />Mrs. Robert Barrett, 5066 Irondale, the apartment buildings that close cause <br />traffic. It would be hard to sell a home. Irondale now is a race track. <br />Mrs. Richard Brockway, 5059 Red Oak Drive, the density may effect our mental <br />health also. She would rather pay more taxes for a better community. <br />Richard Paradise stated that we would not need big complex to lower taxes if <br />we can't stand to live there any longer. <br />Robert Barrett, what happens to the value of our property? It was his opinion <br />that his property value would go down. <br />Gary Platt, 5131 Greenwood, stated he had come from California and property <br />value had decreased steadily for five years in apartment area. <br />Mr. Copeland summarized the presentation. He stated that there was a hog farm <br />there before and that this development could do nothing but enhance the area <br />compared to the hog farm. He stated that we could sell the townhouses for a <br />higher price. He stated also that he was not the comedienne that John Robertus <br />was. That he and the developers had listened to the problems of the residents <br />at two previous hearings and tried to solve their objections. There is no <br />multiple or commercial property now adjacent to single family homes and all <br />traffic would flow on County roads. The decision would be of long range importance <br />and he feels that the Council should close the hearing until the whole Council <br />is present. <br />Mr. Glazer asked if he could have a chance to present on non -piece meal basis <br />a rebutal at a later date? <br />John Robertus wanted to know who would pay for it. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.