Laserfiche WebLink
intersection if there would be a possibility of providing a solution to the problem, <br />The Council replied "yes" probably. Mr. Ziebarth then stated that he was in favor <br />of the rezoning and that he could see several positive things coming from it. <br />Mr. Joe Caraway, 5280 Edgewood Drive, spoke in favor of the rezoning since there would <br />be no entertainment, there would be a small bar, and the development would not detract <br />from property values. <br />Mr. Thomas Doherty, 2109 Laport Drive asked why Mr. Gydesen decided on this piece <br />of property. Mr. Gydesen answered that he has been interested in the area north of <br />the Twin Cities for some time since several of his customers now come from this area <br />to Bayport. <br />Mrs. George Bittis, Jr., 2812 Laport spoke in favor of the rezoning. She stated <br />it was a complete family place and we do not need more children from apartments. <br />Mr. Michna replied to the statement that the proposal would decrease property values. <br />He stated that he owns property directly across the street to the west and would <br />consider building a new home on the lot even though he would be looking at the Anchor <br />Inn fence. <br />Mr. Glen Dawson accused the audience of looking to their pocket books and not thinking <br />about the future for their children and the effect that the Anchor Inn would have on <br />the community they would have to grow into. <br />Mr. Doherty said he was against the proposal unless there was a prior agreement from <br />the County on installing a semaphore at County Road H2 and Highway #10. He felt the <br />possible cost of a life did not warrant approving this proposal. <br />Mayor Neisen closed the hearing to the public at 9:19 P.M. <br />Councilman Pickar said that the Council cannot justify denial for the proposal just <br />on the basis that there are enough business places in the area. <br />Councilman Baumgartner agreed with Councilman Pickar adding that Mr. Gydesen has tried <br />to locate in Mounds View in other areas. Mr. Gydeson did come to the Planning <br />Commission the first time with a plan that did nbt conform to the ordinance. He did <br />however, put the requirements in his second plan and was very cooperative. Regarding <br />traffic on Greenfield Avenue, Councilman Baumgartner said he was not so sure residents <br />on Greenfield would be affected. He felt Greenfield traffic would be normal traffic. <br />He said that a park on the property was out of the question. He said he has enjoyed <br />eating at the Anchor Inn and felt an Anchor Inn would bring in more business to <br />Donatelles so that both establishments would benefit. <br />Councilman Johnson added that any denial must be on the basis of health, safety, and <br />welfare and that he found it hard to deny this request based on those criteria. The <br />area proposed was not in the middle of a residential area, since there was commercial <br />on two sides of the property. In his opinion the area was not suitable for single <br />family dwellings. <br />Councilman Hodges agreed with Councilman Baumgartner adding that the Anchor Inn was <br />very clean and one of the finest restaurants. Moreover, Highway #10 someday would <br />be Mounds View's main street and additional semaphores would be forth coming. He <br />said Donatelle's clientele would be different from that of the Anchor Inn. There <br />was no reason not to accept the Anchor Inn into the community and therefore he would <br />approve the rezoning and the issuance of the liquor license. <br />