04-21-99 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Planner Dillerud asked the Council to review what the Planning Commission has added. Subd. 7 Development Standards: Insert "Planning Commission review" Bob Engstrom pointed out that the City Administrator has stated before that an OP development could be done with a structured PUD ordinance. This would give the developer more flexibility to do developments, be more creative, and get away from surveyor plats. DeLapp responded that we had a PUD ordinance under the disguise of the automatic variance process. If we take out the four -fifths OP variance process, we have to go with the PUD to make up for the deficiencies. Planner Dillerud suggested we take the four -fifths OP variance process out because it has brought some unfair treatment from project to project in the eyes of the Planning Commission. A. Land Area: Dillerud asked how should we define the wetlands? There are the DNR protected wetlands and the WCA wetlands (inundated with water for one day). 2. Parks - Preservation of Park Dedication policy versus Open Space. Dillerud explained the OP Ordinance is drafted and applied in every project as a percentage taken on a percentage. Park dedication is a function of the subdivision ordinance, not the zoning ordinance. It can be applied to OP projects regardless of the open space aspects of it. If this isn't done, we should change the park plan in terms of area, or money to execute development in the park. The Park ordinance permits taking land or cash. The Park Commission came to the conclusion not to take land that doesn't show in the park plan. They will accept cash from here on out. The ordinance is modified to make that distinction. The Park director decides what the facilities are in the park. Tim Freeman pointed out that at the last meeting the Council decided that the park plan was part of the open space. He said that one of the things we look at is the natural features and the goals in the comp plan that created the OP district. Regulations in the ordinance create difficulties and take away the flexibility to create a nice project. Keep the goals for OP in the Comp Plan. Dillerud: OP goals are already in Comp Plan. Sometimes regulations in ordinance create difficulties and prevent a nice project. CUP and proper text in comp plan is the direction needed. What developer proposes isn't in the comp plan will not get a CUP. K. Streets: Dillerud: What should be the street surface and width? Factors include how to handle on street parking problem, and difficulty created when the wind blows snow on the streets. This subject needs to be addressed when we talk street width, in relationship to curbing, storm water needed, asphalt curbing snowplow mowing it down. E. Buffer Zones: Tim Freeman stated he couldn't do anything on 200' buffer —not definable. DeLapp suggested 200' from any existing structure, no roadways allowed. Dillerud: As originally worded, if there were a possibility of residential development next door, then the 200' buffer would apply. This allowed the next door neighbor to decide if there is a buffer, even though there was not a development there. He suggested to the Planning Commission, if there is a development next to it, then the buffer applies. This is how it now reads. Viable open space: Ordinance doesn't address it. MN land trust will only accept certain amount of the open space that we offered, 10 acres or more. When we get this open space, it is viable. Density Bonuses: PZ discussed and eliminated two provisions: OP easement to a qualified land trust and the one involving Village Greens. The City Planner voiced his concern on standards being changed because Bob Engstrom will be resubmitting his plan and Terry Emerson will be submitting a new plat. The Workshop was adjourned at 7:55 p.m