07-25-1983 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes July 25, 1983 Page Five SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN SUCH A FASHION THAT EITHER THE ENTIRE LOW DENSITY STRIP ON THE WESTERN BORDER OF PARCEL D BE CONSTRUCTED, OR IN THE EVENT THAT THE PARCEL IS PHASED, THAT THE ENTIRE PHASE FROM WEST TO EAST BE CONSTRUCTED RATHER THAN SIMPLY HAVING APARTMENT BUILDINGS BEING CONSTRUCTED FIRST, AND THE LOWER DENSITY DWELLINGS BE CONSTRUCTED LATER ON IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. COMMISSIONER TRALLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 5-1. COMMISSIONER WARD OPPOSED. I Discussion was carried on regarding the con~inuous road along the westerly edge I as proposed in the concept plan of Parcel D'I COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND A ICHANGE IN THE CONTINUOUS ROAD ALONG THE WESTERLY EDGE AS PROPOSED IN THE CONCEP] PLAN OF PARCEL D. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION P1SSED 4~0. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE REFERENCE TO GATES AVENUE IN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE REFERENCED AS PARCEL K IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED.4-0. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO ADOPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE CHANGES IN PHASE 2 OF THE BARTHEL/DIETZ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PARCEL D AS STATED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. Counci1member Gunkel indicated that she wanted to address the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the Parcel D changes, as she wanted everyone to under- stand her position. Counci1member Gunkel's statement is as follows: "I know I stand alone on this, and I feel alone. I have often wondered if I'm wrong. I don't think I am. I have to live with myself and know that I did what I thought was right. My skepticism of the proper implementation and application of a PUD has not changed. I keep hearing statements about not setting a precedent, about not breaking or bending our own laws, and to do what is best for Elk River. I share those concerns. I am not trying to stand in the way of progress. I have read the PUD Ordinance so many times it is almost committed to memory. We must be careful to maintain the validity and integrity of our PUD Ordinance." "The City should not be in a position of compromising or making exceptions to establish procedures because the developers and landowners had an apparent break- down in communication. I find it interesting to note that on February 18, 1982, Mr. Larry Toth was questioning if Mr. Barthel could be held accountable for the western most buffering, if Barthel did not own or control that portion of the PUD. If he knew that, how could Mr. Dietz claim he just became aware of the fact that Barthel did not own and control this area of the PUD. Is this the political ploy being used when time is of essence? Admittedly, three or four years ago I was against any commercial development of this property. In conjunction with the commercial aspects, my primary concern as a neighboring resident was how it would be buffered f rom the adj oining neighborhoods. Through the process of awareness and involvement, I have changed my position." "As a Planning Commissioner, I voted against the Conditional Use Permit, I voted in favor of the preliminary plat. I was hoping I could approve the requested changes. In early spring, about 3~ years ago, Mr. Dietz presented his plans for the property. Do you remember the one major item that caused so much furor that prompted the organization of the east side concerned citizens? It was primarily