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.