Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMin_82May3 (2) MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ~'~Y 3, 1982 The Planning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Al Stefanson. Stefanson, Olson, Bourquin, Nilsen, Labalestra, Wallin, Blomberg, Mead and Waldo. Also present were Council Liaison Larson, Attorney Swanson, Robert G. Schunicht, City Engineer's Office, and Planner Dale. The April 12 minutes were discussed and Jim Bourquin felt that in the third paragraph in his statement regarding the development proposals, it should have stated: "There would be no more development proposals considered by the Planning Commission until criteria is developed that the Planning Commission agrees on, approve those criteria and then any proposed developers, whoever they might be, would be under the obligation of meeting those criteria and anything they submitted. This is in line with the major efforts of the citizen's group and Planner Dale with the Planning Commission in working up ideas on how the area should be developed." A discussion ensued on how to proceed. Mr. Stefanson pointed out that one plat has already been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council and another request for a plat has been referred 'to the Planning Commission by the City Council and the Planning Commission must take action. The guidelines that were .developed were overall guidelines for the entire area so when looking at this plat, which as long as it is within the guidelines, he would see no problems with working on the plat. Mr. Bourquin stated that he feels the agenda is out of line. Harold Nilsen feels that the Planning Commission has to look at this with a broader perspective and the Planning Commission should move ahead. Bourquin feels that a political process is being followed rather than a planning process; in other words, lets build the buildings and then agree on the criteria. Don Mead agreed that criteria should be developed but since a request has been submitted under existing guidelines and ordinances, it should be acted upon. Council Liaison Larson stated that the Council has referred the matter to the Planning Commission and it is within its rights to make a recommendation to the Council. Mary Waldo stated that the minutes should be amended to reflect Mr. Bourquin's concerns. Harold Nilsen commented that the last paragraph of the April 12th minutes reflects accurately what happened at the meeting. Olson moves and Waldo seconds a motion to approve the April 12th minutes. Motion carried unanimously. PRESENT APRIL 12TH MINUTES James F. and Marilyn E. Loughrey requested approval of a variance for JAMES F. AND the building of a garage and new driveway at 1859 Simpson Avenue. PRr. MARILYN E. and PJIrs. Loughrey request a variance from the five foot setback ordinance LOUGHREY to a two foot setback from the south side and rear of the lot, including 1859 SIMPSON five feet of the vacated alley which has been annexed to the property. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 3, 1982 PAGE 2 • They are also requesting a variance from the five foot setback rule on t he driveway which will allow for adequate passage beside the house side entrance. Mr. Stefanson makes reference to a petition from the neighbors not objecting to the variance. Rdr. ti"~allin abstains from voting on the variance. Stefanson asks whether present garage would be removed and Mrs. Loughrey answers in the affirmative. Jim Bourquin moves and Mead seconds a motion to approve the variance. Motion carried. Harold hlestin, Harold Westin and Associates, presented a preliminary plat and variance request for the Bernwood Addition, Blocks 1 and 2, Addition #2; Blocks 1, 2 and 3, Addition #3; Blocks 1 and 2, Addition #1~; and Blocks 1 and 2, Addition #5. This is the second phase of residential development for the area. The plan is presented by American Shelter Corporation under the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance #69, Article 7.2 as a large scale development permitting modifications in the case of a plan and program for a complete neighbor- hood unit which provides adequate public spaces and improvements for circulation, recreation, light, air, and service needs; and covenants to assure conformity to, and achievement of, the plan. These additions numbered 2 thru 5 adjoin Bernwood Addition No. 1, which has been previously approved by the Council. Together they will form a neighbor- hood unit of architecturally planned single family detached homes on a site carefully engineered to accomodate automobile and foot traffic; surface water ponding and drainage, and coordinated homesites for • solar energy, light and air. Maintenance of common areas, and access for service needs will be assured by covenants running with the land administered by an organized association of the homeowners. This large scale single family residential development employs advanced and well proven planning techniques to provide the efficient and aesthetic use of valuable land which will become a transition area between the older residential communities to the north and east and the commercial and public areas to the south and west, contiguous to the Bernwood Additions. The specific variances requested and reasons for requesting them can be found in his April 28th presentation attached to the variance request form. Mr. 1Nestin points out that from scanning the report of the Metropolitan Council, Falcon Heights has the greatest number of employment opportunities and the least available housing of any area in the metro area. As a result; if the project were proposed years in the future, the density would be higher. Therefore, he feels that this development ~,nrill use the land as lightly as possible. If the area was developed with less density, the project would probably fail financially because no one would buy. This would be a disaster for the City and for the developer. With the kind of energy efficient housing, solar energy use, careful layout of streets, traffic and careful attention to drainage, he feels this is a good development for the City financially and esthetically considering all the input from the land costs, surrounding neighborhood and the requirements that the City would • have in terms of providing more residences for the people who work in the City. Total units proposed: 76 in Additions #1 thru #5. HAROLD WESTIN, HAROLD l~'ESTIN AND ASSOC., VARIANCE REQUEST MINUTES PLANNING COT.QMISSION MAY 3, 1982 PAGE 3 • Robert J. Schunicht, City Engineers Office stated that in lookin ~ g ROB ERT J. at the site, two things should be considered. First is the existing SCHUNICHT, condition where we have no overflow from the site, no gravity or storm CITY ENGINEER water overflow for the northwestern part of Falcon Heights. Seepage OFFICE down into the ground water table will have to relied uoon to provide an overflow or outlet for the storm water that is generated in this development and the .Falcon Woods development. Systems will have to be designed to work for future conditions when and if there is a gravity or pump outlet for storm water provided .for this site where the water will flow into St. Paul and the P~.ississippi River. He then refers to information presented in a draft letter dated ~.qay 3, 1982 to the City Council and Planning Commission. Don Mead asks whether they are recommending underground pipe and Mr. Schunicht answers in the affirmative and states that there should be a catch basin in each of the four cul-de-sacs along the eastern property lines, storm sewer connecting them running into the pond, which would also pick up the major portion of the drainage coming from Falcon Woods down the lot lines. John Labalestra asks whether there would have to be storm sewer for the rest of the development no matter what is developed, could the second development be independent of the first and would the storm sewer totally eliminate the potential of overflow onto Tatum as it now exists and Mr. Schunicht answers in the affirmative. Council Liaison Larson informed the Planning Commission that the City ST. ANTHONY is currently investigating connection to the St. Anthony Storm Sewer coming off the develo ment icki ll th STORM SEWER p p ng up a e way to Fairview and CONNECTION connecting into the University storm sewer system. Mr. Schunicht advised that the northwestern part of the City would be broken off (north of. Larpenteur and west of Fairview) and drained into the University system, which would leave the rest of the City the way it is. The reason for this is because it has to be discharged at a slower rate and delayed until the University water is drained through the system and capacity is available. The ponds are located in this area wYiich would allow this system to work. Bourquin asks if the additional ponding requested by Hewlett-Packard had been considered and Mr. Schunicht answered that the pond is located on private property and would prefer to keen them .separate. If the project to connect into the St. Anthony Storm Sewer is approved at some time, that would be the time to coordinate all the ponding areas. John Labalestra asked Mr. Schunicht for clarification in two areas: (1) was there not enough capacity in 197) to take care of the whole area, and (2) servicing the whole area--tivhat is being serviced and what is not with the proposed connection, is it just the new development or is it Lindig, Tatum, etc. Mr. Schunicht answered that the area is north of Larpenteur and west of Fairview. The ponds in this area holds the water back f or a hour or two and then flows dovrn to the University system. Mr. Bourquin asks whether the 52 foot radius for the cul-de-sac was JIM BOURG;UIN adequate for turning fire equipment and Mr. Schunicht answered that . it was adequate. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 3, 1982 PAGE 4 • Carl Dale states that certain conditions should be applied to the variances requested just as you would for a PUD. These include proper maintenance of the .open space, review of the administrative procedures of the homeowner's association. He then refers to his April 23rd report to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding zero lot lines, prohibiting identical homes (size and architectural style) side-by--side, and better than average yard landscaping being required. These and other specific recommendations are contained in his report. Mary Waldo asked Mr. Dale if there was any track record as to whether people will buy homes built with zero lot lines as compared to town- houses and Mr. Dale answered that the market had simply not been tested but feels the houses will sell since the market for the big house on the big lot is depressed. He makes reference to Mr. Westin's comments on employment conditions in r'alcon Heights which will make the housing market ~*ood in the City. Larry Stowe, representing the Neighborhood Task Force, stated that they have been deeply concerned regarding the development of the Hawkins-Hermes property. Throughout all the discussions, it has been pointed out the necessity of having guidelines and criteria established before starting with specific plans. He feels that when the Council turned down the PUD that would have been the time for these guidelines to be established and he is dismayed by the time sequence of events both on the agenda and by the overall action that is being taken on this tract of land. The guidelines should be discussed before the building plans and, therefore, the guidelines are being established after-the~€act. They still feel that a PUD is the way to develop this entire tract of land and just because one PUD was turned down because of overall density, there are many other alternate PUDs to be proposed and developed for this area. They are still recommending a !~0 percent increase in density or a total number of dwelling units to be 1l~0-14s. He is dismayed that the property is being developed piece-meal, bit by bit, parcel by parcel, without any consideration to an overall view of the acreage. It is his understanding that a variance is to provide a variation of individual lots taking into account the possible pecu7arities of the individual lots but not for an alleged peculiarity of an entire area Governing somE; 18 acres. Furthermore, variances are not granted to serve the mere convenience of an applicant but variances are rather granted for the purpose of alleviating the demonstrable hardship and demon:~trable difficulties. There are not these demonstrable hardships or difficulties in this area. Therefore, in considering these variances for American Shelter, the Planning Commission is rezoning the area in essence by spot zoning on a large scale. He wants to know specifically what will be developed in the outlot left if the Planning Commission approves the variances. He wants the Planning Commission to look at overall acreage not a piece- meal approach and feels a PUD is the most acceptable way to go. Al Stefanson reiterates that Parcel #2 is presently being considered, which CARL DALE CITY PLANNER LARRY S TOV~JE, Iv'EIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCE P.~IINUTES PLAtJNING COPtiiMISSION MAY 3, 1982 PAGE 5 • • must be acted upon, and when Parcel ##3 is considered, action will be taken on it. If the density is excessive, it gill not be approved by the Planning Commission. Parcel #2 falls within the guidelines that were originally established before any modification by Planner Dale with a density of 5.3 overall and 5.5 was an agreeable density figure you quoted in a newspaper article. Nilsen points out that the market has to be considered when a development HAROLD NILSEN~ is being planned and you cannot f orsee the market two to three years ERMA OLSON in advance when you donut know what the demand will be. The market is a major concern. Olson points out that in 1962, the 10,000 square foot lot was realistic but it is not true during this economic period. Harold Nilsen informs the Planning Commission that for the last five year period, Falcon Heights received X257,254. The Department of Transportation informed him that if Falcon Heights drops below 5,000 population, the state aid allotment would be discontinued entirely. There are 109 cities with a population over 5,000 and if Falcon Heights drops below 5,000, the remaining 108 would get a portion of the money the City would normally get. Below 5,000, Ramsey County gets the funds based on the money in the Road User Fund--trunk highways, 62 percent; counties state aid, 29 percent; and municipalities, 9 percent. Ramsey County does not have to give the municipalities any money if they so choose. Olson moves, seconded by Nilsen the adoption of RESOLUTION 82-4 A RESOLUTION RECOTJ[MENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT FOR BFRN>14IOOD ADDITIONS NOS. 2, 3, 4 AND 5, AND GRANTING THE VARIANCES REQUESTED BY AMERICAN SHELTER CORPORATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 16.4 OF ORDINANCE N0. 64 • A, discussion ensued where Harold Nilsen stated that the American Shelter Corporation has submitted to the City Council of Falcon Heights, Minnesota, a preliminary plan for subdivision and platting of Bernwood Additions No. 2, No. 3, No. }~, and No. 5 on the property south of Bernwood No. 1 and west of the property on the west side of Tatum Street and the City Council of Falcon Heights has referred the preliminary plan to the Planning Commission of the City of Falcon Heights for study, consideration and recommendations. This preliminary plan provides for R-1 single family housing and it is indicated on the plan that there are variations from the strict letter of the regulations of Ordinance #64 - the Zoning Ordinance. These variances can be summarized as indicating smaller lot size, lesser width, lesser depth and lesser building set back lines. However, the plan presents an integral approach to a fairly large scale development of a neighborhood unit, which does not nullify the intent or purpose of the General Community Plan. It does not endanger the public health, safety and welfare of the community. It does not create unwarranted traffic conditions. It provides for the service needs of the tract, and it does not impair the enjoyment of light and air nor does the plan impinge upon the properties in the STATE AID ALLOTD4ENT RESOLUTION 82-4 HAROLD NILSEN MINUTES PLANNING COMiJIISSION MAY 3, 1982 PAGE 6 surrounding area-=~ritness the fifty foot buffer strip on the east side and the ample buffering on the south side, which provides for recreation as well as retention. This plan presents a sound and orderly approach to the development of a parcel of property which presents peculiar difficulties in solving storm water runoff. The plan presents a very excellent street orientation approach in that the east-west side streets--properly graced--slow down runoff and direct it into a drainageway and retention area on what might be termed a step-down approach from north to south. The sixty-four lots in Bernwood Additions Dto. 2 thru 5 present a density very compatible with Bernwood No. 1 and the homes on the west side of Tatum and a density which is entirely in keeping with the reasonable increase supported by the bordering neighborhood in criteria dated April 9, 1982. Providing housing opportunities in the present and forseeable future economy is a difficult task. It requires close cooperation between governmental bodies, planners, lenders, developers, architects and engineers, and residents. Such cooperation results in efficiency and is a major factor in creating an environment for affordable housing by a moderate increase in density in order t o reduce land, street and utility costs. Jim Bourquin stated that he was not present at the meeting when the vote was taken on the approval of the PUD and if he had attended, he would not have voted in favor of a density as high as 8.5. He commends • the Task Force for the ~mendous effort and time they have put into their interest in the community and their neighborhood to come up with suggestions t}Zat are compatible with existing homes. He also feels that high marks should be given to the developer and the architect for coming up with single family development, with which some variances, meets the criteria that were being developed even though the criteria has not been completely thrashed out by the Planning Commission. He personally does not like the piece meal approach; however, it should be realized that with the adoption of this development, three-fourths of the area under consideration has been preserved for single families. The design is innovative and the green areas established to the east and south are a major move for a happy solution for the neighbors. He feels the resolution shot~d be approved. He urges the developer to diligently follow the overall guidelines that are being developed for the next tract. Labalestra feels that if the same plan came under PUD, it would have been a much better plan for the Council and Planning Commission to react to because it would be a stage development process. He has reservations as to how to encompass some of the criteria proposed by Planner Dale into the approval process and still make them mandatory and not just suggestions. Those being (1) provide comprehensive landscaping between the single family areas and the development - 50 percent screening if they are not single family, and incorporating the trail; (2) provisions for the ponding on the south and east end of the lot with incorporation of recreational facilities; and (3) . storm sewer as a requirement and who pays for it. He would rather see it approached under PUD but if it is approved as submitted, could these conditions be made mandatory. Attorney Swanson states that the HAROLD NILSFN (CONT'D) JIM BOURCUIN JOHN LABALESTRA ~~INUTES PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 TRAY 3, 1982 conditions can be made as part of the approval of the variance setback JOHN provisions. Unless other arrangements are made tia~ith the developer, LABALESTRA the matter of enforcing, if push comes to shove, it would be the (CONT'D) responsibility of the City to require conformance. The Council could require a performance bond in conjunction with the granting of the variances. The ordinance does allow attachment of conditions. He feels that the storm sewer would be developed by the City under Chapter 129 as a local improvement, the cost of which would be financed initially by a bond issue and then assessed against the property owners. Normally it is not required that the developer himself undertake the improvements and deed them t o the city. He asks whether these conditions were required as part of the Resolution, and Erma Olson answers that they could. Harold V~iestin has no objections to conditions and finds them acceptable. V~~allin states that he feels the points addressed by the City Engineer JERRY WALLIN shoiid also be included in the Resolution. '.'~aldo states that she would RE50LiITION also like to see that the City Engineer's Report incorporated in the AMENDI;~NT Resolution. 1~`allin moves, seconded by Mead, that the last sentence of the second paragraph be amended by adding the words "and the recommendation of -the City Engineer, Robert Schunicht, in his draft letter dated it4ay 5, 1982". Motion approved unaminously. Olson and Nilsen approve the amendment to the Resolution. Bourquin stated he felt the vrords "well and assure that justice will prevail" are unnecessary and should be stricken from the last JIM BOUR~UIN RESOLUTION paragraph. He moves, seconded by Z'~a1do, that the words be stricken. AMENDIt~NT Motion approval unaminously. Olson and Nilsen approve the amendment to the Resolution. Upon a vote taken to determine if the Resolution, as amended, meets VOTE ON with the approval of the planning Commission, the following voted RESOLUTION "yes" : Olson, Bourquin, ZETilsen, Labalestra, -4~allin, Blomberg, Stefanson, Mead and l'ialdo. IVlotion carried unaminously. Carl Dale presents an addendum modification dated April 23, 1982, to CARL DALE the Planning Commission Report previously submitted for the criteria CRITERIA AND and guidelines under consideration. He makes alternate recommend- GUIDELINES ations and these five recommendations are contained in that report along with certain conditions. The Planning Commission members expressed comments regarding the alternate ways that the remaining vacant area could be developed. Bourauin moved, seconded by Nilsen, that the meeting be adjourned at P.DJOURNMENT 10:25 P.M. I•.~Iotion carried unanimously. ~~~~ Jer a , Secretary