Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 02-29-1984understanding that serer is available, and that he could be served.He stated that he did not believe has property should be reolassfied so that he would be kept tram develop- ing his parcel., : and _ he noted other parcels In the area) smaller than his, which did `-not have rower and grater but which contained homes= Page 43 Special Planning Commission Meeting Rezoning Reconciliation February 29, 1984 The Planning Director commented on the status of the plans, s4biritted by Viro € a endin for property to the normt andn- dilated that aroprt referred to b MrNorha would not be developed In A similar manner without utilities; it was noted that tete property was cjwi.ded for single family resi- dences whist would not necessarily be clustered unless approved as part of a Plan-ned Unit Development. Mr. Kenneth Dien, 2425 Walnut Grove .ane, stated he t pre- iehted 'Interests which have acquU-ed land in the southeast quadrant of County Road 9, and ` I-494 itch is zoned for cot- rae. cialuses. He stated oopoerft that the proposed rezoning changed the value of the property, and their, ability to develop it. The Planning Director and the City Engineer explained the availabilityity of utilities'' to this areas and it was clarified that Mr. Gagen and others had beea led to be- lieve the area was serviced at this time. The Plannirvq Direutor suggested that further details regarding the util- ity avallability could be provld d if Mr. Olen or othzurs would contact the Community Development or Engineering Department. Mr. :Teff Ophoven,, 4745 West Medicine Lake Drive, sought clarification as to the status of his property which was now zvhed industrial and which h ghadbeenconsidering selling to a party whish proposed industrial use of the existing single fam- ly residence on the property.. The planning Dlr- ector, clarified that the single family rest ens was at tis time a non -conforming use which would become a conforming use with the FRD Zoning.. It -was clarified t;iat Mr. 'Qpho en had given consideration to building a` garage #)n the prop- erty, and had previously beevx denied a permit <b6oause the land was industrial with a non -conforming use. The Planning Director confirmed that, subject to Ordinance setback re- quirements, : a residential accessory building Mould be pos- Bible under the FRD Zoning. Mr. Ford Robbins# 5?C{i Willow Road (Inneapolis)g stated he was an 'attorney representing the owner of property in Area A on the nest side of County Road 18. He recited the history of the development of this area, end of his client's prop- erty- including previous Inquiries as to expansion of the e.;isttn business. He stated that his all. nt had been led to believe `municipal; sanitary sewer would be available in the near future, and that this apparently has been ':delayed for an indefinite period of 4,_me. He stated that his client's primary interest was the ability to expand, and that rezoning the property to FRS would tend to "render the land valueless". He suggested that the City consider grant - Ing variances in this area which would allow businesses to expand, utilizing septl.o systems, until such time that the Pike take interceptor allowed for the introduction of sani- tary sewer lines into this area.