Laserfiche WebLink
~4/17/79 <br /> <br /> that the people would have an opportunity to be heard.at that time. <br />~A brief discussion regarding Why our. policies will have to evJntually'~ _ <br /> be accepted , and Dexter Marston'stated that .if we don'·t do the plan," <br /> it will be done for us, and this way we have a better chance of developing <br /> something we can live with,-and at this' particular point, we are looking <br /> for the public's reaction. Mr.· Marston explained that sdaling back would <br /> help to satisfy the DNR. ~ .-'. ..~. -" <br /> <br /> Ken Peterson stated that he understood how commerciJl/industrial frontage . <br /> would be more valuable t° the owner, however, adjacent residents should not <br /> have to pay the cost of services to the area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Marston explained that he was 'not saying that there wasn't a need Someday <br /> for this land to be zoned commercial/industrial, but at this point ~n time, <br /> we have to prevent scattered development. - - <br /> <br />Mr.-Joe Sentyrz pointed out-'that he-felt .residential along the-river with - <br />commercial highway frontage was working well with Riverside West. Mr. <br />Marston pointed out that Riverside West'had the built in advantage of a <br />service road.·-The question was asked if-a service ro-ad wouldn't have to. <br />be built even' if. the'area was all residential? -Mr. Peterson explained the <br /> idea of a collector Street. '~ · ~'" ' <br /> <br /> Mr. Dunn stated that the developer'should have to be responsible for any <br /> service road, and Mr· Marston stated-that he was not familiar with the <br /> City's policy .regarding assessing projects of this type. <br /> <br /> Mr. Peterson suggested that interested-residents'contact.their_-legisl.ators <br />' ~ plus their representative from the Metro Council to voice their disapproval <br /> "with the need for poli~i~es they felt were too restrictive. <br /> <br /> In. regards~to~the_Publ.ic--Facilities~Polic~:es-,~'.many resident~ were_concerned _._~ <br />.. with having--any.type-of'trail system along the river.-~One·resident asked <br /> if the City would adopt-a policy even if the majority..of the property owners <br /> along the area were opposed. Kathy Schneider pointed out that the majority of <br /> one.specific area would be the minority of the entire City and that it was <br /> their job' to consider the needs of the entire City. Mr. Dunn stated that he <br /> felt the trails policy was one that he could live with if he owned property <br /> in the area. <br /> <br /> ManY resident asked who his the ultimate say in the matter, and it was explained <br /> how the policies have been developed based on guidelines from many different <br /> agencies, and that after we have chosen a plan to fit our needs, we will submit <br /> . the plan and hope for approval. <br /> <br /> The policy #10 of'the Public Facilities section was .lenghtily disc~ussed, with <br /> Mr. Dunn stating and Ms.'Schneider agreeing'that it would be virtually ira- ' <br /> possible for anyone to determine if a septic system was working correctly. <br /> Members of the audience stated thatTM they felt this would only be a waste of <br /> money. Ms. S~hneider stated that the City ordinance regarding septic systems <br /> required yearly inspection.by the property owner, and the importance of keeping <br /> the systems in good opera~ing condition by pumping when necessary. <br /> <br />Meeting adjourned 10:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />