Laserfiche WebLink
February 2K1989 <br />City of Spring Park <br />Spring Park, Mn. 55384 <br />RE: February 8, 1989 public hearing on rezoning 3781 Sunset <br />Drive, Spring Park, Mn. to accomidate lord Fletchers of <br />the Lake, facilities. <br />Dear Planning commission, council members and administration. <br />In my previous letter dated 2/3/89 I think the position I have <br />taken is clear - we do not agree to any zone change and resent <br />the already constructed parking lot that has been installed with <br />a demolition permit only. <br />As I have expressed at the 2/8/89 planning commission meeting <br />will there be a impact study on the increasing effects of <br />property depreciation, loss of privacy, increase in tresspassing, <br />littering, theft, traffic, after hours disturbance and the <br />tampering of our environment, such as noise polution, unfiltered <br />water she*:.' run off into the wot lands and air polution, if <br />Fletchers is allowed future expansion. <br />Are the large crowds at Fletchers on a summer weekend in <br />violation of a large assembly ordinance? Who determines <br />and enforces? Are they dangerous? The capacity should be <br />considered outside as well as inside keeping in mind outside <br />decking is a structure. <br />It is my understanding that Fletchers has been allowed to <br />expand their facilities in the past and recently outside <br />and inside to accomidate more customers. Why wasn't the parking <br />problem taken into consideration long ago? As Mr. Keagle ex­ <br />plains in his letter to you (11/20/88' the problem was created <br />when Fletchers allowed their business activity to expand beyond <br />the true capacity of their facility at the expense of the neigh­ <br />borhood. I also agree that they created the problem and their <br />argument that a zone change enabling 15 more cars to park will <br />alleviate problems associated with customers parading back and <br />forth to remote parking lot, illegal parking and neighborhood <br />nuisances is ridiculous. Fletchers could probably fiii <br />20 acres of parking lot if it surrounded their establishment. <br />At the 2/8/89 planning commission hearing Mr. Shavlik (chair <br />person) tried to convince us that Fletchers are very successfu <br />and have been nice to work with. At that time he voted in <br />favor of rezoning and said wc shouldn't knock success. <br />Cont.