PCMin_82Mar1_Public Hearing - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-3- • Cleveland Avenue be connected with the Falcon Woods system to strerghten water coming from two directions. In summary, the utilities are such that they can handle the future development. He also recommends that the Planning Commission request a performance bond so the project is completed as planned and carried out. Larry Stowe, representing the Neighborhood Task Force, felt that the Resolution as approved presented a sudden alteration to the plan. He presented a petition with 13Lt signatures from the Falcon Heights residents indicating that they urge that the application of American Shelter Corporation to develop the Hawkins-Hermes parcel be rejected for the following reasons: The average density of housing is too high, the proposed street access is unacceptable, the drainage and ponding of surface water is not properly addressed and there is inadequate buffering and berming on the west side of Tatum Street. The 1311 signatures represents 8!t people out of 87 households--one of which was away and one of which would not sign. This represents 97 percent support in the Tatum Street~Falcon Woods area. He also indicated the Neighborhood Task Force took a collection of funds for the purpose of professional consultant fees incurred as a result of presentations made. The response to the collection of funds was between 85 to 90 percent. He urges that the Planning Commission reject the proposal of American Shelter Corporation for this particular planned unit development. • Orlyn Miller, Wehrman Associates Planning Consultants, Golden Valley, addressed three primary points: (1) the basic concept of a PUD and the flexibility that it allows; (2) normal procedures and guidelines controlling the flexibility under PUD emphasizing the city's responsibility in the process; and (3) observations regarding the proposed development itself. He pointed out that PUD is intended to encourage creative and efficient development through a comprehensive planning approach. He feels the PUD offers flexibility and real opportunity for development both by the developer and from the communities' point of view; but, it is not a license to ignore reasonable planning principles and good design nor does it automatically imply density increases. The control of the community should increase not decrease in planned unit development because of the common good not only to the developer but to the community served. He showed several slides indicating the PUD concept. He reviewed the Falcon Heights PUD Ordinance and found it to be very liberal. If density and flexibility bonuses are to be considered, the PUD Ordinance should establish those guidelines. Most other municipalities have tighter ordinances for PUD. He considers very questionable the density increase as it was done in a very arbitrary manner. Therefore, he feels a rationale should be developed for what types of density increases should be provided, why, and what the relationship to the existing development should be. As far as the Falcon Crest proposal is concerned, certain elements of the design itself deserve additional scrutiny. Specific items that should be addressed include circulation, use relationship to existing development, recreational facilities, common open space, drainage storm water retention, and landscaping and screening. LARRY STOWE, 19511 AUTUMN ORLYN MILLER, UVEHRMAN ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS •