Laserfiche WebLink
<br />while having and being assessed for city water and sewer. It was the only parcel in the City <br />under such circumstances that attempted.to develop. Mr. Deemer stated if the County wants to <br />restrict access to CR 5 with all of these parcels, maybe the County should build a right-in/right- <br />out service lane within the CR 5 right-of-way to service these properties. Regarding the 100 year <br />stormwater retention pond, for the public record he was on the Planning Commission at the time <br />that Wood Pond Hills was developed. Wood Pond Hills was instructed to calculate their storm <br />drainage and stormwater system to handle the drainage from these parcels of land. Mr. Deemer <br />stated this came about because previous development was forced to calculate drainage on it from <br />water that drained onto his property from other people's parcels. He stated due to this, these <br />parcels should not need stormwater retention basins. He questioned new developers or owners <br />having the rights of approval the Council gave over the denials of this Board. Mr. Deemer stated <br />he also understands that no notices were sent to the adjacent properties about those people going <br />to the Council; he did not receive a notice. He also wants to mention that the parcel immediately <br />north of this was designated a variance to develop, while this parcel requires several variances as <br />, it is proposed. <br /> <br />Mr. Derwood Sagwold stated he is the owner of the one acre lot adjacent to the north of this <br />property. It is a very marginal lot. He would like to know how this plan with the temporary cul- <br />de-sac will affect his property. There is also property to the north that is marginal, and the <br />property to the south is kind of marginal. All three of these properties should be developed at the <br />same time to be sure everything is done correctly and that there is complete agreement. His <br />question is the effect of this temporary cul-de-sac on the rest of the land to the north. <br /> <br />Mr. Anthony Wellman, representing Ramsey Assembly of God, stated the church owns the two <br />acre parcel of property just north of Derwood's property that comes to Nowthen Boulevard and <br />146th Avenue NW. The church seems to have an improper mail delivery address with the <br />County, so the paperwork went to the property, and no one was there to receive it. Derwood has <br />notifIed him of these meetings. The map for this plat will show that the frontage road is to go <br />along CR 5, and it is supposed to end in the cul-de-sac. As it is named Helium Street they expect <br />it is supposed to cross the properties to the north and eventually join up with Helium Street. As <br />they understand it, no one wants it to outlet at l46th Avenue atthe corner of CR 5, which makes <br />sense due to traffIc complications. The only reasonable change they see that could be made <br />effective from their vantage point of the further north properties, is as Derwood and Ben <br />suggested to go through the back side of the properties. That idea has been stopped because there <br />are individual property owners on the west side of their property that would have to be <br />considered losing some of their property as well. Mr. Welhnan stated the way this plan looks; <br />this frontage road will go through their property. Instead of exiting the property on the north side <br />it will turn left on Ramsey Assembly of God's property, taking another parcel of land, and then <br />turn and go to the west of 146th, not exiting until it reaches the northwest corner to join with <br />Helium Street. Mr. Wellman stated there is a row of pine trees that borders the property of the <br />individuals as well as theirs. It would be more conducive to move those pine trees and run the <br />road along the back~ side, giving fairness to all the owners involved of having less property taken. <br />Outlots B and C could be moved forward with the road run between them. His intention tonight <br />is to make note again for the second time that they have a conflict of interest in that it seems this <br />will allow a developer to have monopoly on the land usage in planning that might forcefully <br /> <br />P4 <br /> <br />Planning Commission/ February 1, 2007 <br />Page 4 of 12 <br />