04/13/2005 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 21 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Greg Schlink, applicant, 3564 Rollingview Roa d, White Bear Lake, stated they had met with the neighbors and some of them expre ssed concern about cont inuing the trail, but from the developers standpoint , they had found a lot of homeo wners did not like trails in their backyard. He noted the plan for the City showed the tra il along Stagecoach Lane and they supported the City’s plan. Mr. Pogalz stated he agreed they might want to wait for the Church to sell their property and asked for an update on those negotiations. Mr. Schlink replied they had made an offer to purchase the property, but the offer was rejected. He indicated they had also made an offer to realign Stagecoach, but the Chur ch did not like that proposal either. He stated after working with the Church for many months, they had not made any progress and he wanted to continue with this process and not wait for the Church. Chair Rafferty asked if the Church wanted to sell. Mr. Schlink stated the Church was not looking to sell their property, but th ey had looked at his proposal. Chair Rafferty believed the Church was moving in this direction. Mr. Schlink stated he knew the Church was looking at an expansion of their facility, but he did not want to speak for the Church. Mr. Laden asked if there was any discussion about doing this projec t as a conservation development. Mr. Smyser responded every development possibility that came in was looked at as a possible conserva tion development. He noted th e part to be conserved was along the lakeshore with much of that area bein g wetland. He indicated much of that area was already being required to be conserve d. He noted the cons ervation area was not public land and the conversation easement th e City took on a conservation development was only to ensure the area was cons erved, but it was not public land. Mr. Nelson asked if the City would need to get permission from all of the properties north to put in a trail. Mr. Smyser responded he did not have the sp ecifics as to why the City had decided to abandon the trail, but the plan now was to have the trail run along the road. Mr. Houchins stated at the time the Comp rehensive Plan was discussed there was a concept of the trail runni ng along the lake, but the homeo wners north of the property were opposed to this, so they were going to run the trail where it wa s and then connect it to Lake Drive. Mr. Nelson asked if the road could be replatte d to where it should be for when the Church sold its property. Mr. Smyser replied ther e was nothing to connect to, so they did not know if the road would ever go through and the road easemen t they had now was already owned by the City and unless something changed they had to plan where the existing easement was. He indicated they could not require this developer to replat property they had no control over.