PCMin_82Feb1_Public Hearing - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING~PUBLIC H.N~ARING FEBRUARY 1, 1982 PAGE 6 present zoning. Since the size of the sewer was based on the R-1 and B-lA zoning, it should be adequate for the proposed plan. If another piece of property is developed to a greater density, the property owner who precipitates this would be charged for any necessary increases. Don Mead agreed with the plan, but would like to see access to Cleveland and would not accept it without a re-designed street elan. Harold Nilsen agreed it was a good plan, but a few things need to be solved. He also felt the Cleveland Avenue matter should be settled. Harold b~destin reminded the group that there is an alternate plan prepared if the access to Cleveland is granted. Jim Bourquin inquired as to whether or not the City has any legal obligation to maintain the zoning of an area when persons have purchased abutting lots secure in the knowledge that the zoning was R-l. Attorney Swanson replied that zoning is a legislative matter at the discretion of the City Council. DON MEAD HAROLD NILSEN JIM BOUR~%UIN Al Stefanson stated he was in favor of the development and since both AL STEFANSON the Engineer and Planner recommended approval, he would like to move ahead on the matter. He felt this development would be more desirable than R-1 and apartments on the B-lA, which would be allowed under the present zoning. • Jim Bourquin cited single family residences which have been constructed JIM BOURC'UIN in Arden Hills providing a high quality of life without high density housing. He felt alternatives should be considered and that the decision should be made by the people not the Planning Commission. He stated he could not vote for the PUD. Erma Olson again reminded the group that the City Comprehensive Plan addresses housing in that area. Following the discussion, the following voted in favor of the f ore- going motion: Stefanson and Olson, and the following voted against the same: Bourquin, Blomberg, Nilsen, Labalestra, '~i1allin, Mead and Waldo. Motion defeated. Jerry Wallin suggested the hearing be continued to a later date to allow all to have an opportunity to review the matter. Attorney Swanson inf ormed that Attorney Kenefick had approved the concept of the PUD in December, and that the Commission now has three alternatives, (1) a motion to disapprove, (2) a motion to approve subject to changes, or (3) continue the hearing. Attorney Goodman requested that the Commission disapprove the matter and give reason. Jerry Wallin felt that if any changes are made in the plans those plans should be presented for review ten days before a meeting or hearing. George Plant, 1861 Moore, inf ormed that he had suggested the idea MOTION TO APPROVE PLAN AND PUD DEFEATED DISCUSSION ON HOW TO PROCEED GEORGE PLANT 1861 MOORE •