Laserfiche WebLink
A <br />n <br />~t ■, <br />ic :»-a <br />xm <br />-:Ki <br />m <br />S ‘:«A b'P*' <br />■-W <br />» <br />MINUTES OF THE FIANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 16, 1984. <br />7^\/. <br />PAGE 4 <br />i- <br />:A <br />A #804 PAINTERS CREEK <br />DEVELOPMENT m !'■ <br />Peter Achey of 4720 Bayside Road stated that this area <br />rs also involved with Painters Creek, a creek that has <br />troubles right now with nitr-^qen content flowing <br />through the Minnestrista and Maple Plain area. Achey <br />stated that they probably will be forced to have sewer <br />by the Metropolitan Sewer Commission. <br />M <br />Si" V ■ <br />.i*-:- <br />M > s ■? <br />:,U;•v/ <br />[ :v^ ■ ' <br />ssmiSK;' <br />RiSllSM <br />*■' ■ • ••*. <br />' ^s- <br />V.- <br />WMsm^m BsSi <br />■£ ;■ . .. . <br />•T-' -.a <br />«|iW <br />S'*?®, Bayside Road stated that the <br />McCulley Farms homes had no trouble selling with the <br />extra acreage. Carlson stated that he was opposed to <br />the resoning to 2 acres. Carlson stated that after a <br />ong study the Council zoned that area for 5 acres for <br />the benefit of the community only 10 years aqo. <br />Carlson asked why change it now. <br />3^! <br />■i.- <br />sMakV <br />Amm .. ■/wm <br />m :'fr. <br />. rm <br />pMi <br />■; m:4 iM. <br />-i':' <br />•r <br />Fred Poisson of 4010 Bayside Road stated that he lives <br />three or four miles east of the subject property. <br />Poison stated that between his property and the <br />subject property it is undeveloped land. Poisson <br />stated that it has always been his understanding that <br />zoning is changed because of a philosophical change on <br />Tk ® part or because there is a real hardship in <br />the case of the property owner. Poisson stated that <br />there is no hardship here and why should it be resoned <br />t® help someone make money. Poisson stated that it <br />^ helping the City. Poisson stated that any <br />PRD that comes in has to meet current standards. <br />Poisson stated that his concern is acreage next to him <br />ready to have the same thing happen to it* Poisson <br />stated that right now the neighbor can put one house on <br />the property next to him and if it was rezoned the <br />neighbor could put two houses. Poisson stated that he <br />didn t think it is right to change that massive of a <br />density without people being involved in a referendum <br />which would take it back to two acre soiling. <br />■‘v <br />Dave Deters of 145 Turnham Road (7 acres) asked if this <br />pro^rt^ « precedence for other neighboring <br />r" \ ' ‘m.,. <br />- <br />It •'M <br />mm <br />,v <br />w-Pil <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that it coul^Mt <br />a precedent. Mabusth stated that the thrust of this <br />specific rezoning application was that it had natural <br />boundaries built in. Mabusth stated that it is indeed <br />on the edge of the 5 acre zoning district. Mabusth <br />stated that it is bounded by McCulley Road, luce line <br />on the north and the nature conservancy, that they felt <br />it was a locked in area. Mabusth noted that it is two <br />acres zoning district to the south or right across the <br />street. Mabusth stated that rezoning also has to be <br />approved by the Metropolitan Council as per state <br />statutes. <br />m-i ■ m <br />K^rc Pritzler of 4385 Chippewa Lane (5.5 acres) asked <br />if the streets were to be private streets. <br />mm <br />V -i *• - <br />*