CCMin_82Mar10_Min/Public_Hearing

Home Browse Search

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 10, 1982 PAGE 2 addressing design quality. If use flexibility and density bonuses are to be considered then the PUD Ordinance or some other policy document should establish guidelines for granting increases as it becomes somewhat arbi- trary and subject to challenge. He stated that the Falcon Heights PUD allows approval of densities above those which are allowed in the exist- ing district but contains no criteria or guidelines for determining what the logical density should be which, he felt, places undue responsibility on the Planning Commission and Council. Mr. Miller then commented on the proposed development plans regarding lack of method to preserve any exist- ing features, no park space, no common private recreation area, and does not protect adjoining properties. He stressed the lack of open space, as any open space is fragmented, and there is not space available for even one tennis court. - MILLER (cont.) Larry Stowe introduced John Sirney of Zuber Architects, representing JOHN SIRNEY the Tatum/Falcon Woods Task Force who stated that an ordinance is establi- ZUBER shed to provide for orderly development of property with respect for ARCHITECTS existing R-1 property.. Mr. Sirney commented on such matters as neighbor- hood: computability, lack of adequate buffering on the east, very little open space, solar access both on Tatum and within the development, and traffic, all of which are problems related to the high density of the project. He was particularly concerned over the lack of open space and possible impact on the city park and was of the opinion that 3 tennis courts would be the recommended number for such .a.developtgerit and there is no available space. Larry Stowe then introduced Attorney James :Steilen with the firm of Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufman and Doty, Ltd. Mr. Steilen alluded to his letter of I~iarch 10, 1982 to the Falcon Heights City Council in which he stated the opposition of the Task Force. He sited some of the reasons for objecting as traffic, density, lack of recreation, drainage, buffering, and finances of the developer. He informed Council that if they choose to reject the proposed development and rezoning, the courts will not undo whatever is done unless Council is totally irrational and cited court cases to prove his position. Attorney Steilen,requested that Council not be stampeded into development and that the proposed rezoning be rejected. JAMES STEILEN POPAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY Engineer Schunicht explained that the sanitary sewer and water systems ENGINEER in the area had been reviewed and that both are ample to accomodate SCHUNICHT the proposed development plus the existing R-3 property if upgradlecl to a higher density. He also indicated that the proposed plan provides adequate storm water control. Mayor Warkentien informed that in discussing the development the subject of tax increment financing came up and requested that City Attorney Swanson and Fiscal Consultant Chenoweth address the subject. City Attorney Swanson explained that by State law .a Council can create a development district within any areas in the City and the area under developmewtis a possibility for a development district for which a tax increment plan can be adopted. The tax increment concept involves the freezing of the tax level of property within the district and as the market value increases by reason of property improvements and in- ~lationary increases, the increased taxes derived from the change in MAYOR WARKENTIEN- TAX INCREMENT F INANC I1VG ATTORNEY SWANSON