My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-16-1984 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1984
>
01-16-1984 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2024 11:46:28 AM
Creation date
6/22/2023 1:58:01 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ibog <br />Hovegno - As long as we are on the subject, the property owners list shows Ski <br />Tonka, Inc. - Your application shows Painters Creek Development <br />Corporation and John Burrell as -v.ier. <br />Bastyr - There was a one acre site that he purchased from Ski Tonka. <br />Man - When did the change in ownership occur? <br />Bastyr - Within the last year. <br />Rovegno - It says November 15-1 just kinda like to know who the players are - now is <br />it John Burrell who has fee title to property or is it Painters Creek. <br />Bastyr - John Burrell has fee title. Painters Creek Development Corporation is <br />John Burrell is President of has got a purchase agreement with John <br />Burrell. In other words, its a transaction between his corporation and <br />himself. <br />Rovegno - Then is Painters Creek Development Corporation is a MN corporation. <br />Bastyr - Yes, I think so, 1 would have to check on that. <br />Goetten -Ron, could you see the people that you are representing here this <br />evening, looking at anything with less density than what you are <br />proposing. <br />Bastyr -We have discussed this and they feel that if this package is not put <br />together then it will be sold as a block package. In other words, they <br />will put the whole property up for sale. <br />Goetten - Again. <br />Bastyr - Yes. The unfortunate thing here is that if it was to remain 5 acres and <br />this development proposal is not allowed, the way that it would be <br />developed would have to be something totdly reversed of what is <br />proposed now. First of all you wouldn't get the amenity package and <br />secondly, you would have it done in awkward shaped parcels and driveway <br />easements to cut the cost of the roaclways down. So what you would have <br />is about the same development at least appearance from the roadways and <br />from the other homes, with the same number of homes, but it would not be <br />done aesthetically like we feel that, we can do with the 20 homes. <br />Man - Thats a self on your part. <br />Bastyr - Thats exactly right. <br />McDonald - Yeah, right, apparently you don't even know - these are going to be <br />sold as individual l ots so we don ' t know what they are going to look like. <br />Bastyr - v;ell, I did work on the original plan for this also and I know some of the <br />lots did conte off ... sc what you would probably end up with is some <br />driveways off C.R. 84, some driveways off McCulley Road and you would <br />probably see virtually the same number of houses on the hillside.. <br />Rovegno - At least seven less. <br />i
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.