2015-10-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 15 advised by the contractor of the situation, delaying things until resolution with Mr. 702 Runquist for that contentious issue. Since then, Ms. Mix noted her extensive personal 703 research of City and property records for a historical view of properties and developments 704 in this area from 1997 – 2010 and previous approval by the Planning Commission of a 705 development on Mr. Runquist’s parcel that did not come to fruition. Ms. Mix reviewed the 706 PUD process and approval of Phase II of some properties and intent to purchase 707 adjacent properties as part of Phases I and II of that PUD to encompass that entire 708 corner acreage. 709 As one of the original owners, Ms. Mix admitted the drainage corridor plan from that 710 proposed development would have served to address overall area drainage issues, 711 which had been her understanding when purchasing her townhome, planned as one PUD 712 as common property conjointly owned and protecting the wetland area as an important 713 aesthetic for the whole development. Ms. Mix noted that the wetland didn’t respect 714 boundaries of parcel 2496, but also included a portion of a lot not considered suitable for 715 building, as well as other areas on the 3753 parcel in the corner with land percolating 716 from high water tables. When these two properties were not added, Ms. Mix stated it 717 impacted the entire development area and intended involvement of those parcels 718 becoming part of the PUD. 719 Ms. Mix stated that her main request tonight was that whatever happens in the future, 720 that PUD plan be brought forward and opined it should have been available and included 721 in the last comprehensive plan update for reference, but for some reason had been 722 overlooked and therefore the comprehensive plan update didn’t include that vital 723 information prior to 1997. Based on her research, Ms. Mix stated the support by the 724 townhome association and her personally for MDR amendment to the comprehensive 725 plan to ensure the drainage corridor and wetland protection are addressed through this 726 lower density designation. 727 Ms. Mix displayed a plan of the area, including reference to the engineering study when 728 the easement had been purchased from Mr. Runquist after considerable negotiation after 729 it was determined drainage was needed away from foundations and to locate sump pump 730 drains 10’ from those foundations, which had been impossible to obtain without that 731 easement. Through purchase of that easement and financing a French drain installed at 732 the expense of her association, Ms. Mix advised that the drainage into a filtering pond 733 was intended to contain overland drainage and filter it before it arrived at the wetland; 734 reiterating the need to ensure that drainage corridor was preserved. Ms. Mix opined that 735 those developers considering HDR designation on these parcels had not presented very 736 good plans, with some wanting to make it a parking lot or driveway, which would only 737 serve to fill it in and put adjacent properties at risk. As far as the encroachment issue, Ms. 738 Mix noted that when it was discovered, if the property had succeeded in becoming part of 739 the PUD, it would not have been as complicated as it had now become for all parties. 740 Ms. Mix thanked the Commission for hearing this case again, and for their time and effort 741 in reviewing the issues. 742 Caroly Lindsey, 3242 Old Highway 8, St. Anthony 743 As residents living in this area, Ms. Lindsey agreed with Mr. Buck’s comments; and while 744 sorry for the Henz heirs, she questioned the validity of concerns in reducing the appraisal 745 or worth of the parcels by lowering density from HDR to MDR. As current residents, Ms. 746 Lindsey stated they were passionate about not having HDR across from them, noting the 747 changes in the area since construction of the townhomes and condominium 748 developments in 1987 and 1988, and changes to the broader area since the 1960’s. Ms. 749 Lindsey clarified that the neighbors were not opposed to development across the street, 750 but not HDR, with MDR much more appropriate for these parcels. 751 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Buck advised that the Village of St. Anthony 752 zoning in this area was designated “townhomes,” to manage that density. 753