res_6214 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MR. JEPPESEN: Could you tell me for sure how high that-- you call it a road but I call it--it's going to be looking like an earth dam--on the north side of my property--how high that road is going to be. I heard 5 feet high, 6, 7 feet high on the north side of my property and I do not know how high it's going to be but it sure isn't going to make my property worth any more and will downgrade my property and if I plan to sell my property (inaudible) I don't know if any of you guys on the Council would buy it because it would (inaudible) shall we say, not appealing for a person to own that property and I'm stuck there. I live there. MR. HONCHELL: In reviewing the plans and talking to the people who designed it, they say it's approximately four feet differential at the worst point and there will be much of it that's much closer than that. MA~ LINEBARGER: Anyone else? MR. KENNETH KIRCHNER, 2220 North Milton: There seems to be a discrepancy of which alternate to choose, and I for one-- and I speak for all the people on Milton who have ever lived on a cul-de-sac--and we have small children and we would not want to see a cul-de-sac opened up, so I would like to See Alternate A adopted. MR. BARRY O'MEARA, 97 - 20th Avenue S.W., New Brighton, Minnesota: I own some of the property in this area also. I was one of the petitioners that originally requested "A". I believe you stated there was 42%. I would like to clarify something--since that time I have purchased more land. I now have approximately 55% myself. Ken Reinhardt who has already spoken, has other property in the area. Between the two of us we have approximately 75%. I think we have two questions here tonight. One, is there going to be improvements put in the area, and which one--"A" and "B"? Based on the ownership of 75% I don't see there can be any question that since we do have a feasible plan, that we will develop the area. I feel we do have to have some sort of an improvement - roads and so forth in here. The next question, which alternative to consider-- I'd like to clarify just a couple of things here. When we're talking 20 lots on Alternate A we should keep in mind that there's a potential :tor four more lots so in comparing "A" and liB" we're comparing 24 lots against 20 lots on Alternate B and I think that's a pretty important (inaudible). The people at the end of Milton can, at a later date, or at the same time, develop those four lots. They'd be, of course, cul-de-sac lots and extremely ~valuable property there. I'd like to also think we should keep in mind that Alternate A is what was petitioned for. The fact that there's less cost per lot on