Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, October 7, 2015 <br />Page 12 <br />Chair Boguszewski therefore corrected his previous statement to state that the City <br />546 <br />Council was seeking a more appropriate zoning level based on their opinion of the <br />547 <br />current and potential circumstances that is driving their request, with Mr. Paschke <br />548 <br />confirming that this was his interpretation. As noted in the staff report, Chair Boguszewski <br />549 <br />noted that the comprehensive plan did not specifically mention this subject site, indicating <br />550 <br />that while there was no intent indicated in the comprehensive plan against current zoning, <br />551 <br />there was also no specific guidance either. <br />552 <br />Mr. Paschke responded that these parcels were not specifically identified in the <br />553 <br />comprehensive plan, as was true for numerous parcels in the community, with the <br />554 <br />comprehensive plan not identifying this particular area or these two lots, or speak to it in <br />555 <br />other facets. <br />556 <br />Member Daire noted that the existing developments off Old Highway 8 - Woods Edge <br />557 <br />Townhomes and Executive Manor Condominiums – are already at such a density this <br />558 <br />area would not qualify as MDR-3; with Mr. Paschke clarifying that neither of those parcels <br />559 <br />were included in the rezoning or comprehensive plan changes completed in 2010, and <br />560 <br />were not of interest to the City Council, and on their face were not supported for MDR. <br />561 <br />Member Daire noted that those two previous parcels had developed as HDR which <br />562 <br />apparently worked there, but now as part of the justification for this request, the city was <br />563 <br />saying HDR is no longer appropriate although two existing developments and one across <br />564 <br />the road in the Village of St. Anthony are HDR. Member Daire asked if that weakened the <br />565 <br />City Council’s recommendation that the comprehensive plan guidance and zoning <br />566 <br />densities should be lowered. <br />567 <br />Mr. Paschke noted that this was the question before the Commission to make that <br />568 <br />judgment whether or not they recommended support of MDR or HDR on these two <br />569 <br />parcels. Mr. Paschke advised that the existing HDR developments had done so under a <br />570 <br />Planned Unit Development (PUD), but whether or not it was appropriate at that time was <br />571 <br />not under dispute or weakened the position that now MDR might be better suited for <br />572 <br />these two parcels versus HDR. <br />573 <br />At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Paschke reviewed the rationale for this request <br />574 <br />for 3253 and 3261 parcels, and why there were not already zoned as parcels 2900 and <br />575 <br />2946 as show on the displayed map. Mr. Paschke advised that they were not developed <br />576 <br />with those types of uses and were single-family homes which could be future <br />577 <br />redevelopment sites. <br />578 <br />An unidentified audience member stated that the 2900 parcel was an apartment complex, <br />579 <br />with Mr. Paschke advising that those parcels had not been included in staff’s analysis as <br />580 <br />the City Council had directed that these two parcels be reviewed, not others already <br />581 <br />having been developed. <br />582 <br />At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke confirmed that those two referenced <br />583 <br />parcels were currently used as single-family residences. <br />584 <br />Public Comment <br />585 <br />Numerous written comments were included in the meeting packet as part of this record. <br />586 <br />John Runquist, Trustee of the John P. Henz Trust, 3253 parcel <br />587 <br />Mr. Runquist’s extensive written comments were included in meeting materials <br />588 <br />(Attachment C) and he expounded on and referenced them as part of his verbal <br />589 <br />testimony. <br />590 <br />Mr. Runquist clarified that only one subject property was used as a single-family (3253) <br />591 <br />and should be condemned and demolished, opining it was a health hazard, advising that <br />592 <br />as Trustee, he would not allow anyone to redevelop that parcel as a single-family use. <br />593 <br />As the Commission views the plan, Mr. Runquist reviewed the parcels in this immediate <br />594 <br />vicinity – whether in Hennepin or Ramsey County – noting that only several had <br />595 <br />significant setbacks from the boundary lines, including the drainage easement area he <br />596 <br /> <br />