Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMin_82Apr12MINUTES PLANNING C02;~,~ISSION MEETING APRIL 12, 1982 The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Chairman Al Stefanson. Stefanson, Olson, Bourquin, Nilsen, Blomberg, Labalestra and Wallin. Also present were Council Liaison Larson and Planner Carl Dale. Waldo and Mead. The first agenda item to be considered was the approval of the 1+'ebruary and March minutes. Jerry N~~allin and Al Stefanson did not detect any discrepancies in the February minutes so Bourquin moved and Labalestra seconded a motion to approve the February 1, 1982 minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. The March 1, 1982 minutes were discussed and again ti"tallin and Stefanson did not find any discrepancies. John Labalestra indicated that his comments on page nine should have contained more than one objection to the plan as submitted--specifically that traffic patterns had not been established but since his comments have been documented later, he had no objection to approval of the minutes. Jerry Wallin moved and Olson seconded that the minutes be adopted as currently written. I~4otion carried unanimously. V~rith regard to the minutes of the March 29, 1982 meeting, due to the fact that the tapes did not record, a discussion was held as to what action should be taken to fill in the speaker gaps. Jim Bourquin stated that he felt that there was another resolution considering the fact that there would be no more proposals for the development of the Hawkins- Hermes property. Al Stefanson stated that he remembered such a proposal being a recommendation but it was not in the form of a resolution. Labalestra agreed. He felt that the minutes should be approved as written since there would be no way to functionally recall what speficially har~pened that evening. Jerry 6"allin agreed and stated that although they were incomplete, they do appear to contain the substantial elements that were discussed. Jim Bourquin also agreed to approve the minutes as submitted but to add a paragraph indicating the desire of the Planning Commission to work on criteria for the development of the property. Jerry V~allin mentioned the fact that there is a pending law suit regarding the failure ~f the City Council to approve the PUD as approved by the Planning Commission and if the courts were to decide that Council action was arbitrary, fig: believed that the original PUI) would be given new life and any criteria established after the fact would be moot. But, if the law suit were dismissed or denied on its merits, he feels it is a good idea to establish criteria since there is an opz~ortunity to do so. Therefore, he moved that the minutes be approved as they are written with the understanding that there were other discussions that were not reflected. Olson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PRESENT ABSENT FEBRUARY 1ST MINUTES MARCH 1ST MINUTES MARCH 29TH PQINUTES MINUTES PLANNING COTdMISSION APRIL 12, 1982 PAGE 2 • • The next order of business was a request from Gary Ostergren, Falcon GARY OSTERGRE] Heights Service Center, 1525 'Ju'est Larnenteur, to install a portable FALCON paint booth in the north stall of the station. P~dr. Ostergren was not HEIGHTS in attendance. Sandy Larson pointed out that she had discussed the SERVICE matter with Jerry Renchin, the Fire Chief, and he gave her a document CENTER containing all the safety criteria that must be met for installation of paint equipment. Chief Renchin indicated to her that if all the criteria were met, the Falcon Heights Service Center would have to be more than half rebuilt. Erma Olson indicated that Gary Ostergren had sent for plans that had not yet been received. John Labalestra requested information as to what aspect of the ordinance the conditional use is requested. Jerry Vl'allin pointed out that in Carl Dale's Comprehensive Plan concept of the central business district, the long range goal is not to have that type of facility located on that corner. The matter was tabled. Al Stefanson called on the Tatum~Falcon t~toods Task Force to present LARRY STONIE comments on the guidelines submitted to the Planning Commission in their TASK FORCE April 9th letter. Larry Stowe briefly commented on the principal points as they relate to a PUD and which are centered around the density issue. They have established a basic figure of 102 dwelling units under present zoning and increased by a maximum of ~0 percent which is not automatic but dependent upon a system of credits or merits for different items in the PUD that would be provided by the developer. If the area is not developed as a DUD, then the R-1 zoning requirements should be followed with regard to density as laid out in the City Ordinance. Park Ascerno then explained how the ~0 percent figure was arrived at. They t ook the underlying zoning of R-1 on the 25.1 acres as it now exists, which results in 109 units in the area. Proceeding to the R-2 zoning southwest of the area, it contains 1.2 acres and would allow a density of eight units. In the B-lA zoning, containing a half acre, an a1_lowable density would be 20 units per acre or. 10 units for a half acre. This adds up to a total of 127 units per acre. Based upon the assumption that 20 percent of the area would require roadways, they arrived at 102 dwelling units that could be built under current residential zoning. Therefore, at a 32 percent increase for 131 units net, based on R-1 zoning for single family detached housing on the perimeter of the property adjacent to Tatum Street~Falcon 1Noods homes, it totals 7.5 acres at R-1 zoning which yields 33 units. If the remainder is developed at R-2 density it would , yield 19.3 acres or 13l~ units totaling 167 units. Twenty percent is then again subtracted fo roads .for 13)~ units per acre net. In conversations with the Task Force and Orlyn ?vti.ller, a !~0 percent increase was opted for, which they feel is far above what is normally suggested for many of the other DUDS in the metropolitan area. Therefore, they feel that this is a reasonable compromise. ~°d"alter Northrop, 191.2 Summer Street, commented that ~'UD is the best way Vt~ALTER to proceed with acceptable guidelines. He feels that the compromise NORTHROP, proposal will allow development to proceed immediately, if not sooner. 1912 SUl~~VIFR MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1982 PAGE 3 The compromise proposal is based upon the intregity of the underlying zoning and allows the developer a very generous increase over the zoning. They have no objections to any specific developer including American Shelter. 'Phey simply are looking for criteria and any developer that can satisfy this criteria with a plan that will meet the requirements of the Planning Commission and the City Council, they are in agreement. Carl Dale evaluated the suggestions submitted to him by the Task Force and stated the material generally makes three basic recommendations: (1) There is no general opposition to a PUD zoning approach, and, in fact, there seems to be a recommended approach; (2) Vlhile a typical single family home subdivision meeting code requirements would be acceptable, a pUD plan with diversified types of housing with increased dwelling unit density not to exceed 1~0 percent over that presently oermi.tted by R-1 single family home zoning might also be acceptable. (3) A PUD development with. increased dwelling unit density should be aoproved by the City Council only under certain standards or guidelines as outlined in the written material submitted. • V)hile he had no objections to many of the recommendations submitted, he felt some needed clarification and some needed elaboration or auagmentati on and~or modification. He made specific comments and recommendations which can be found in his April 9th report. He stated he would be willing to rewrite the criteria which would include the recommendations he has along with the recommendations of the Task Force that wrould make them more workable for all concerned. This would not take a large amount of time. Jim Bourquin again stated that he would like to know specifically what the financial aids amounted to that the city receives for keeping the population above 5,000. A discussion ensued regarding the amount of funding and from vaha,t sources. Larry Stowe furnished information he had gathered from the Department of Revenue regarding population figures and the money received from local government aids from the state. He also stated that the ~dSA funds would not be cut off but the City would have to make their needs known. He has serious reservations about basing the change in zoning on trying to get more people in the City as a way to increase the state aid to the City. CARL DALE CITY PLANNER JIM BOURC`UIN LARRY STOVVE Erma Olson stated that when the Metro Council released their figures on ERMA OLSON population she talked at length with the State demographer regarding her interpre±,ation of the information. The Demographer stated .that the • population in Falcon Heights has decreased for the last 20 years and the only way the population will increase is by adding new housing. ii4INUTES PLANNING COP~I,4ISSION APRIL 12, 1982 PAGE ~ Erma pointed out that when the last census was taken, no one could believe that between 1.970 and 1980 the population had dropped between 500 and 600 people. Vdth instruction from the City Council, the City took their own census and found the figures to be correct. Therefore, she feels that at this point with only 271 people over 5,000, the population shou~.d be increased because when you divide the expenses of the city among a certain number of people the more people you have to pay those expenses, the less it is going to cost. Some people may feel that living in Falcon Heights is worth the price but not all feel this way. As a member of tree Planning Commission she feels she has the responsibility to make sure that everyone in the community can afford to continue to live here. ERMA OLSON • • Darold. Nilsen volunteered to go down to the Highway Department to actually HAROLD NILSEN see what the aids are and what the population needs to be to receive those aids. Carolyn Gay, 1930 Summer, asked if the 5,000 population included those people living on University property and whether commerical property development had been considered for this area. Every viable outlet had been pursued for that property, Sandy Larson advised P~7rs. Gay. Harold Nilsen advised that the City was glad to have the Hewlett-Packard company located in I~'alcon Heights but that companies of this type want visibility and would not be willing to build without it. P,rIrs. Gay feels the City is worrying too much about keening the population above 5,000. Al Stefanson advised that a developer has purchased the property and intends to build residential structures on the property and not commercial. Larry Stowe advised that the PUD would. apply to all areas of the property in question and emphasizes the fact that the property should be developed with less density on Tatum and more density in the other areas staying with a density figure of 1~Q percent, which he feels is liberal. He made some points that he felt needed to be clarified such as the bonus points for drainage and the road through the University property. PJIr. Stowe feels that the Neighborhood Task torte and Carl Dale are in very close agreement but there is still some distinct difference in the density issue and it is the same density issue that eras discussed for the past three months. Erma Olson questions why the Planning Commission is establishing criteria for a PUD when no one has asked for a PUD. The developer is platting the land for single family housing and is developing it. She does not under- stand why at this point the Commission is discussing criteria for a PUD. Al Stefanson advised that the Planning Commission requested the Task Force to develop criteria and they have now done so. Olson said she could under- stand why the Planning Commission might do this to put it into the new zoning ordinances for a future PUD but she does not understand how it could apply to this property unless the owner of the property requests it but he hai asked for one and was refused so he is apparently settling for CAROLYPd GAY, 1930 SUIVIlUIER LARRY STOWE ERr4A OLSON i~2INUTES PLAR;NING COTJ~:TISSION .APRIL 12, 1982 PAGE 5 R-1 zoning. Mr. Stefanson points out that the Task Force v~ras requested AL STEFANSON~ to develop criteria and when they are approved by the Planning Commission BOUR~UIN~ they would be passed along to American Shelter as guidelines for developing l~~'ALLIN~LARSON the Ha~akiris,-Hermes parcel of property. Bourquin and Wallin felt that LABALESTRA American Shelter wanted to get started with development along the northern strip this construction season and then come in later and request a PUD for development of the rest of the property. Council Liaison Larson was of the opinion that the PUD was a dead issue unless the court so decides, which will take a year or more. Wallin stated that he felt that American Shelter could come back with a slightly different proposal for a PUD and if it were approved, the law suit vrould be dismissed. John Labalestra felt that the developer wanted to develop the northern tier of the property for cash flow, which is consistent with what the Planning Commission and the Task Force has recommended, and now specific guide- lines should be developed generated by the Task Force, modified if necessary by the Planning Commission and passed on to the Council so that the developer could present another PIID and could be approved and developed. He does not feel that PUD is a dead issue. Harold Nilsen moved that the City Council allow Carl Dale the opzzortunity :4~OTION TO to enlarge upon the guidelines presented by the Tatum~Falcon Woods Task ALLO~~' CARL Force. Wallin seconds the motion. A discussion ensued with Labalestra DALE stating that the guidelines exceed his expectations as to what could be OPPORTUNITY developed and as far as specifics, he does not like to be locked into TO Vv~ORK ON the !~0 percent increase because of the design flexability. The PUD allows GtTIDELII~`ES for the conditional approval as you move from one step in the development to another and these are the safeguards. Stefanson and Olson are in favor of the motion. V'r"a11in states that he personally does not like to have hard and fast limits established because he believes that upper limits on density is inappropriate and density should be limited by the other prevailing factors that bear on the total situation and that is the specific use of the land. Motion carried unanimously. Stefanson again requests Harold Nilsen to research the 5,000 population STFFANSON~ question. NILSEN Nilsen moved, seconded by Olson, that the meeting be adjourned at 9:50 ADJOURN~~NT P.P-t. Next meeting scheduled for May 3, 1982. ~~~~~ J y W 1 in, Secretary •