CC PACKET 06191990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8 1 welfare. . . . " in view of the concerns expressed by residents and 2 merchants in the same area. 3 Chair Madden commented that after hearing two people mention Herberger's 4 opposition to this proposal,, he couldn't help but think that the best 5 forum for them to have expressed that opposition would have been the 6 hearing that evening or at least a letter to the City Council or Planing 7 Commission. He therefore indicated that he would be discounting those 8 reports as only "hearsay" . 9 Mr. Deebach responded to the adverse comments which had been made about 10 his proposal by stating that: it * he didn't have the expertise or knowledge to question Mr. Jones' 12 statements about storm water retention or drainage; 13 * he could only address the applicability of this use in a commercial 14 district by telling the Commission that many communities all around 15 the U.S. and even the Twin _Cities are proving that this specific 16 use is in fact a more commercial than industrial use by issuing 17 conditional use permits; 18 * less than a month ago a conditional use permit had been issued for • 19 one of the Weis mini-storage facilities in a commercial district in- 20 Oakdale; 21 * The City would always place conditions on their permit which would 22 prevent further development in other commercial districts in St. 23 Anthony which might be less suitable for this type of use; 24 * in response to Mr. Kahl 's statements related to the use not 25 contributing or enhancing adjacent property values, he perceived 26 the focus should instead be placed on what is happening to property 27 values in general because of economic conditions in many parts of 28 the Twin Cities as well as the United States, as evidenced by the 29 slow down in all real estate business; 30 * it was his own belief that the proposed use would add to the 31 property values in that area; 32 * Mrs. Finn's complaints about the garbage stream onto lake property 33 would not be applicable to the proposed development of this 34 property because it would be of fortress style construction, with 35 buildings surrounding the perimeter except for the two south and 36 north ends which both would have fencing which would prohibit a lot 37 of materials with the potential for blowing to leave the area; 38 * there would be no one living in this development, so the generation 39 of mobile trash would be minimal because his company, through its 40 leasing contracts, requires all goods that are brought in to be 41 taken out;