2011-02-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 02, 2011 Page 4 Brian Buck 150 Mr. Buck advised that he was not attending tonight’s meeting to speak to whether the 151 appeal was technically accurate. 152 Mr. Buck noted that his biggest frustration was with the process; and the lack of initial 153 understanding by adjacent property owners of the initial Comprehensive Plan review 154 process last year, causing them to not lobby at that time for a change in land use 155 designation. Mr. Buck opined that, if that had been understood, the adjacent neighbors, 156 along with those in St. Anthony Village, would have been very vocal in their advocacy to 157 find a compromise for that land use designation, negating the current situation. Mr. Buck 158 reviewed his support for compelling reasons to compromise to a land use designation of 159 MDR for the benefit of the City, adjacent neighbors, as well as subject property owners. 160 Mr. Buck expressed his frustration with the land use designation of HDR in place for 161 decades, given development of the area to-date. Mr. Buck noted the unique five-way 162 intersection in the immediate area, and the connector road serving three (3) area 163 schools; with a majority of neighboring properties not designated as HDR. Mr. Buck noted 164 that all property owners, with the exception of the two (2) subject property owners, were 165 opposed to HDR designation; and opined that the City did not need this HDR designation 166 to meet Metropolitan Council density requirements. 167 Mr. Buck alleged that the Planning Commission’s recommendations for MDR rather than 168 HDR designation were glossed over in staff’s reports and presentations to the City 169 Council during their lengthy presentation and the Planning Commission’s 170 recommendations received only minor mention by staff during that verbal report. Mr. 171 Buck reiterated his frustration that the Commission’s recommendation wasn’t even heard. 172 Mr. Buck opined that at least two (2) Councilmembers appeared to support MDR; and 173 further opined that the recommendation of the Planning Commission would affect a 174 decision of the City Council. 175 Chair Boerigter assured Mr. Buck and others that City Councilmembers – both past and 176 those presently serving – watched the Planning Commission meetings or their 177 rebroadcasts; reviewed them on line; received and read the Commission’s meeting 178 minutes; and received additional evidence of Commission recommendations and 179 discussions leading up to those recommendations. Chair Boerigter suggested that, just 180 because staff did not specifically highlight that discussion, did not mean that the City 181 Council was not fully aware of the discussions. Chair Boerigter opined that the City 182 Council fully understood the commitment and expectations of Planning Commissioners in 183 volunteering to serve, and remained cognizant of their discussions. 184 Rita Mix, 3207 Old Highway 8 in townhomes directly abutting one property in 185 question and author of appeal currently being discussed 186 Staff displayed an area property map for the benefit of the viewing public and Ms. Mix 187 pointed out in detail the properties under discussion. 188 Ms. Mix sought to emphasize how much the neighbors had been put on the defensive in 189 this situation; and reviewed past decisions of the Planning Commission and City Council 190 to downgrade property zoning designations. Ms. Mix reviewed the PUD status of their 191 adjacent properties and various wetland concerns in the issue, as established by the City 192 Council in 1998/99 when the PUD was established. Ms. Mix opined that by designating 193 the subject properties for MDR rather than HDR land use, it would set an entirely different 194 direction for development of the whole block and would be consistent with the earlier 195 PUD. Ms. Mix referenced past discussions she and Mr. Buck had held with 196 Councilmember, now Mayor, Roe; and his speaking to past errors in not making the area 197 denser in development rather than the Woods Edge PUD. Ms. Mix opined that the City 198 now needed to take responsibility for their past decisions and ensure that future 199 development promotes and enhances the character, vitality and stability of 200 neighborhoods, as stated in the introductory portions of the current zoning code; and 201 protect adjacent properties from this invasive development as was understood as the 202 intent when their properties were originally purchased. Ms. Mix pled for assistance from 203