CC MINUTES 10281980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-3- Motion by Councilman Sundland and seconded by Councilman Letourneau to appoint the Dorsey law firm to ' serve as bond counsel for the Central Engineering project. Motion carried unanimously. The Morris proposal consideration was then continued with Mr. Morris ' father, Frank Morris, 3350 - 92nd Curve N.E. , saying. he could not see how "letting the Hedlund property. go undeveloped for 20 years had gained anyone" and insisting "a barber shop next to .that property won't deter any other building,. but instead, might encourage develop- ment" . Kenneth Lee said he. intends to build a house for himself on Lot 10, Penrod Addition, just above, the property in question .and "is not concerned about the buffering for the beauty parlor" . He saw this proposal as "better than.. any. other- made before" . Mrs. Chester Nelson, 3916 Macalaster Drive, opposed the project citing other proposals made in the past which had never materialized. She believed permitting this use "could deteriorate the PUD and change the uses set for the adjacent property" . Mr. Haggerty dis- . agreed saying "the two properties.. should remain separate" and "the City has an ordinance for controlling .the use of the property to the north" . He urged the Council not to delay a decision since Mr. Morris has lost his lease on his- former location and faces losing his employees if he doesn't find a site for his shop right away. Mr. Morris then reported that 36 homeowners on Penrod Lane and 71 on Macalaster and_ 39th Avenue N.E. had signed his petition of approval, with many expressing their irritation with. the City that the property wasn't being- used in a. better manner than it had in the past. He believed "with '�oday ' s economics- no one -could guarantee-- how--the- property to the north will be developed" . His brother, Vernon Morris of Cambridge,. Minnesota., said he had .helped take. the petition around to the neighbors and was surprised "not to hear a single objection to the proposal from the residents on Macalaster or 39th, many of whom felt it was about time the .City did .something with this property since it's been -foga -ng.,around with .it or.- a=-long_ time Councilman Marks and Mayor Haik rejected the implication that the Council had "dragged its feet" regarding the development of this property, but said rather the Council had gone along with "the elaborate plans developed by Mr. Hedlund -and his planner, in the hope something substantial would happen for the property" . The Mayor said ,it doesn't appear the developer has been able to develop the land in an orderly manner in spite of the steps the City has taken to facilitate such development. Although Mr. Lee had indicated a hedge, rather than the fence stipulated as a PUD requirement,. would provide adequate buffering of his adjoining property, the Mayor said she would be reticent to consider any other buffer than had been required as a protection for the single family residences along Penrod in the PUD. She said the Council's prime consideration was-that the development of this lot might be a leverage on Mr. Hedlund to get the rest of the PUD developed, but she no longer believes this proposal will provide the. desired leverage. Mr. Fornell said Mr. Safar had indicated the manner in which this property is developed will not be a deciding factor in whether or not _ he goes ahead with the townhouses, but rather, the economics must warrant his investment in the project. Councilman Sundland agreed with