Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/25/72~[iNCTA;o OF Na~S FI.. G~ PL~%NNING COMM[1SSiON M~;TiNG HELD: MONDAY. SEPTEMBER 55.. 197F. MEMBERS PRESENT: Minutes of August Z8~ 1972 apprc:vee[ on mot; Mr. Wilson. All ayes° Linde, secooded by Foklowing an i~dormal publ~:c hearing on the subject of Park acquisition the Commission decided to refer the raatter back to Mrs Wilson~$ corr~ittee for f:.zrther study. S.~ewatk O.-dinance revision: report by Mr, Wilson~s co~xanittee consistL~g draft cf a revision to ordinance was made° Matter to be studied further discussed at next meeting. Neal Siewert preliminary plat revision. Moved by Mr0 Wilson, seconded by Mr, Tanner to approve preliminary plat~ All ares~ £;apital Improvements Program~ Darrel Berkowitz presented the completed 1973~ 1977 program with proFosed budget, followed by conmaeats by Cit? Clerk Erick~o~ covering funding ~ City ~gineer ~vidson concern~g implement~tlono Mr. Petersen e~ressed our ~s ~ Mro Berkowitz for ~he fine work he ~d ~ne. Mr. Jim Hoffman proposed to build a utility building at 809 W. 10th Street° Referred to Mro Trautrr~un's committee° David Tanner I-lastings Plann/ng Cornmiss/o~ CITY OF HASTINGS 100 SIBLEY STREET, HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033 Phone 437-6921 OFFICE OF CITY ENGINEER MINUTES OF SPECIAL HEARING HELD BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1972 The hearing was held at 7:30 P.M. persuant to a notice of informal hearing from the Planning Commission to the press and news media. This was in regarding to a change to the Land Subdivision Ordinance dealing with dedication of park lands at the time of platting. A copy of the informal notice was read by the City Engineer and the following is a list of those persons notified of the hearing: They also received Mr. Pat Wilson's report in this regard. Mr. Leonard Bauer Hastings Construction Co. Langenfeld Builders Mr. Leo Langenfeld Pechacek Construction Co. Mr. Don Reinardy Siewert Construction Co. Mr. Ben Sontag Mr. Paul Murphy Mr. A1 Sieben Mr. Robert Schrnitz Schurnache r Realty Ackerberg & Associates Mr. Ray Nowicki City Council Planning Commission Natural Resources Commission Hastings Gazette Mississippi Valley Star KDWA Radio The verbatim tape of the meeting is prepared separately, see copy attached. The first speaker was Mr. Neal Siewert. He discussed basically that there are 3 lots per acre rather than the 4 as proposed by the recommendation. With the 184 lots on 64 acres he expected 3. 7 persons per house National average, which gives 5% instead of 8%. Mr. Don Gustafson stated that any increase in cost to the developer would be passed onto the home owners as well as increasing the cost to the City for maintenance and upkeep of larger park areas. Mr. Dave Pedersen stated that we should not confuse playgrounds with parks and we should have parks to serve all ages, therefore he was in favor of larger park areas within new subdivisions. Mr. Sontag had a written report. (See attached taped report including this letter). There was a comment by Mr. A1 Sieben,&after hearing all the testimony from the builders, Mr. Wilson stated that he tended to agree with the 5% and Minutes of Special Hearing held before the Planning Commission on Monday, September 25, 1972 Page Z. would defer any action by this body at this meeting. The City Engineer reviewed the Subdivision regulations from some of the surrounding communities which indicated that most of them had a 5% park land provision. Mr. Hallberg made comment about having more tot lots within subdivisions, breaking up the larger park areas. Mr. Soleim stated that in regard to the Siewert plat he would like to see some sandlot type facilities rather than one large park. Mr. Fluegel's plat was discussed where cash was required in lieu of park land. There was some discussion of that cash in lieu of park land being used specifically for park land acquisition. Mr. Gustafson then brought to the attention of the Planning Commission that any parcel over 30 acres, the developer has the option of dedicating open space or cash in lieu of park. This should be checked out with the City Attorney. Councilman Hallberg suggested that we have a cooperative effort between homeowners, developers and government bodies to develop park land that is adequate to serve all of our needs. The assessment costs for this park development projects should be spread against the lot in each particular subdivision so there is not a large cost against the governing body. Mr. Wilson stated that perhaps his assumptions were restrictive, that the 5% does appear to be reasonable and suggested any action be deferred. Chairman Pederson discussed the planned unit development proposals that have been furnished to the Planning Commission in the past for review in relation to large tracts within high density areas retaining large open spaces between building developments, cluster housing types, as well as town house development and apartment complexes. I then left the meeting to Xerox the Sidewalk Ordinance which was furnished the Planning Commission by the City Attorney. It was also asked that I have the sidewalk ordinance copies to send out to the Council. We will have it ready for the special meeting on Wednesday, September Z7, 1972. During my absence the Planning Commission approved the minutes of August ZS, 197Z. Those present: Mr. Petersen, Mr. Hallberg, Mr. Tanner, Mrs. Linde, Mr. Jensen, Mr. Gartzke, Mr. Schumacher, Mr. Wilson Mr. Soleim, Mr. Trautmann. Also present: City Engineer, City Clerk, Mr. Darrel Berkowitz from TIiDA and interested citizens, Councilmen and Natural Minutes o£ Spec.ia1 Hearing held be£ore the Planning Commission on Monday, September ~5, 197~ PAge '~. Also present: (cont.) Resources Commission members. There was a detailed discussion of the Sidewalk Ordinance as presented by Mr. Wilson and his committee and prepared by the City Attorney. This was a draft copy and furnished members of the Planning Commission for their review. (Make copies of the ordinance for the press and radio station). (See copy of draft ordinance attached). In the discussion, Page 3, Paragraph 4D, "Construction of 75%" was questioned. It should be "Construction upon 75% completion". Secondly, the $50 building permit fee was questioned. Also that the developer pay all costs of developing pedestrian routes and the general levy .initially would be about $6, 000 on the basis of 1 mil. Mr. Siewert stated that he thought ail sidewalk construction should be on a general levy. Mr. Erickson gave a report on the present sidewalk emergency fund and its intent to reconstluctexisting sidewalks on the basis of 50%, since the original sidewalks when they were installed were assessed to the property involved even though they may have been constructed by WPA forces. Mr. Hallberg stated that under Section 4 A, the 4th line, we should strike the word "very". Where the ordinance relates to park access or comn~ercial access, it should also relate to accessability between long blocks or some wording to be less definite in nature so that the Planning Commission and City Council would have some authority to place siddwalks where heavy traffic carriers might be generated for purposes other than park or commercial reasons. The next item of discussion was the presentation by Mr. Petersen of a flyer dealing with mid-density development. Two copies were furnished the Planning Commission for their review. The Neal Siewert plat was reviewed by the Planning Comnaission. Committee Chairman Mr. Wilson who studied the plat stated he would move for preliminary approval subject t0 all the conditions in present ordinances to the City Council, and the motion was seconded by Mr. Tanner and unanimously passed. There was some discussion about tying down the sidewalk section of the ordinance to the preliminary approval, however, this was deferred so that when the first plat comes in for final approval, approval will not be granted until sidewalk decisions have been finalized. It was determined the next meeting would be held on October 9, 1972 in spite of the fact that City employees are on vacation that date. The Planning Commission will therefore meet at 7:30 P.IVI,, October 9, 197Z. Also Jim Hoffman's request for steel garage facility at 10th and Oak was referred to Mr. Trautmann's committee for study. We completed our Planning Commission Meeting at approximately 10:30 P.M. John Davidson, City Engineer Notice of Meeting sent to following contractors re: Park land dedication. Mr. Leonard Bauer ll0Z Tyler Street Hastings, Minn. Hastings Construction Co. 1304 Vermillion St. Hastings, Minn. Langenfeld Builders 801 W. 4th Street Hastings, Minn. Mr. Leo Langenfeld 933 W. 5th Street Hastings, Minn. Pechacek Construction Co. 1928 Ridge Lane Hastings, Minn. Mr. Don Reinardy 1312 Tyler Street Hastings, Minn. Siewert Construction Co. 407 Vermillion Street Hastings, Minn. Mr. Ben Sontag i120 Tyler Street Hastings, Minn. Mr. Paul Murphy 1317 Park Lane Hastings, Minn. Mr. A1 Sieben 16122 Lester Ave. E. Hastings, Minn. Mr. Robert Schmitz 803 Oak Street Hastings, Minn. Schumache r Realty 1545 Vermillion St. Hastings, Minn. Ackerberg & Associate Architects 12 16 Nicollet Avenue Minneapolis, Minn. 55033 Mr. Ray Nowicki 1867 Carroll Avenue St. Paul, Minn. Also: City Council Planning Commission Natural Resources Commission Hastings Gazette Mississippi Valley Star K.D.W.A. Radio ,'" C, IT¥ Of HA,STINGS 100 SIBLEY STREET[ HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033 Phone 437-6921 OFFICE OF CITY ENGINEER NOTES ON INFORMAL HEARING HELD SEPTEMBERZ5, 197Z REGARDING DEDICATION OF PARK DEVELOPMENT WITHIN NEW SUBDIVISIONS Mr. Siewert stated he would have to argue how the 8% was figured out. He stated you cannot get more than three lots per acre, 4 lots to an acre is just impossible and using my new plat, I have 184 lots out of 64 acres. That is less than 3 lots to an acre. Using 184 lots x 4 persons - 736 people, compared to 1, 0Z4 and going further, when you take the 736 people, using that as a basis, the park requirement would only be 3.5 acres. Also, I think the 4 persons per household is high. According to the 1970 census, it is 3.7 persons. Using 3.7 people, you come right down to 5"/0 of park,dedication. Actually using all these figures, it meets the present requirements. Mr. Gustafson stated we all realize it is going to be increased, it will just increase the cost for everyone, including the City such as assessments, upkeep, etc. I think this should be kept in mind because I feel we have enough parkland at the 5% rate. The Chamber of Commerce had no statement regarding the parkland dedication at this time. Mr. Petersen noted that the Natural Resources Commission Chairman, h/ir. Dave Pederson had sent him a note on August 18th that the Natural Resources Commission endorsed Mr. Wilson's report regarding changes in Section 4 - Public Land Dedication of the Land Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Dave Pederson then pointed out that when we talk of neighborhood parks, they shouldn't be confused with playgrounds. Most of our parks are playground areas for children, but when we talk about park in a neighborhood it should be large enough for all ages. Mr. Petersen asked if anyone else wished to make a statement. That type of park for other age groups, isn't that what would be called a community park. We are talking about neighborhood parks, rather than a playground type thing. Mr. Petersen stated that Mr. Sontag could not be in attendance at this meeting and the following report was submitted regarding Park acquisition. within New Subdivisions Page Z September 25, 1972 "We understand that the Commission is considering the above subject at the September 25 meeting. The meeting con/licts with previous committments, however we would like to comment on the August 4 memo of P. J. Wilson, which we received September 22. It is possible that the conclusions reached in the August 4 memo are erroneous. Erroneous because of a poorly chosen example, incorrect assumptions and faulty arithmetic logic. The example chosen in the memo is not a good example. At present, the ordinance does not allow this kind of platting. Why then pass a new ordinance based on a currently impossible situation. Rather let's take the two plats across 15th Street developed by the Hasting~ Lumber Mart. These two plats are on 40 acres. Their sizes are minumal under the ordinance and restrictions imposed by the Planning Commission. Hence the density is fairly heavy as allowed under RI zoning. On this 40 acre piece there are 108 homesites. Not 160 as assumed in the memo at the rate of 4 per acre. We can expect 3.6 people per home or a population of 389 people. The ir~formation referred to the 3.6 people is as follows; the inhabitants per home figure of 3.6 is taken from the 1970 census figures.' 389 people have dedicated for their use in this 40 acres over Z acres. According to the desired neighborhood park figure which does not seem unreasonable we should have 1.69 acres. Therefore it appears that our neighbor- hood park requirement for R1 and probably RZ zoned land is more than adequate under present ordinance. The community park program in Hastings should remain a separate program. Obviously one cannot develop community parks on each plat. Community parks are not the responsibility of the new home owner. To think the developer is going to pay any increased development is shear naivete. Ask yourself what happened to the cost of lots to home owners when you added concrete curb and gutter and trees. Why is it that most home owners don't want sidewalks? Increased development costs are going to be bashed to the home owner because there is no place for it to be absorbed. Our cornrnunity parks are used by groups and organizations from within and without the City. A ~roup chooses to use a park because of the facilities available in it because of the nearness to his home. These parks are a City facility made available for general use like the City Hall, Fire Department Buildings and the swimming pool. They should be financed the same way. Community parks have been and remain a community responsibility. The responsibility shared by all of the people in the community as well as the business, professional and industrial interests. Logically it appears that present ordinances are adequate and practical and the proposed changes unnecessary." Signed: Ben Sontag Mr. Petersen asks for any comments to the above letter. Mr. Sieben replied that it was his impression that the facility for gathering parks for the City at the present time is adequate. All that you are doing is taking money from the prospective home buyer because his initial land price is raised. Informal Hearing Regarding Dedication of Park Development Within New Subdivisions Page 3 Mr. Petersen stated that he will open up the discussion for questions from the commission. Does any cornlnissioner have any questions regarding the comments made by the audience? /vir. Wilson: In defense of our figures and the clarification of the figures offered by both 1Vir. Sontag and IV[r. Siewert, we were generalizing when we picked four people per residential home and substantiated this with a figure of 3.6 with the 1970 census and I am sure everyone would agree with this. On the other one, the lots per acre, rather than going through and counting Z00 lots on any one plat we looked at the general square footage of a lot. All of them seemed to be in the area of 10,000 square feet and being that there are 44 thousand square feet An an acre we generalized again with four lots per acre. So we were making some assump- tions based on what limited knowledge we had available at the time. I am glad to see the figures brought forward by IVir. Sontag and Ivir. Siewert. It looks like the 5% probably does meet our comprehensive plan requirement and after checking some of the surrounding cornrnunities it also appears that the 5% is not out of line. believe right now, doesn't have any. They. leave it up to the opinion of the City Council on every particular plat as such. Depending if there are parts in their irnnlediate locality or whatever. I would tend to go along with the 5% unless anyone else has other opinions. Mr. Petersen then asked Mr. Wilson if he intends to go along with the 5%. Mr. Wilson: After further discussion with the people or unless we have more evidence of pointing towards the 8%, the figures came on every plat and looking at the surrounding communities, they really don't seem like they are doing any more than we are, we are porbably ahead of them in this respect. Mr. John Davidson: I have done limited research. As Mr. Wilson pointed out, our immediate neighbors, Marshan Township, Cottage Grove deals with the sub- division. However there was a point in the Burnsville ordinance that I thought might have some merit particularly if we are going to more density element in some areas and it might be worth some cornrnent from the contractors. Burnsville has a minimum of 4o/0, in other words, at least 4% of the land would be dedicated for park purposes. ]But Z l/Z% per dwelling unit per acre would be used when you go beyond the single family residence. In other words if you used our figure for multiple units for fourteen units per acre, then as you tend to bring your units closer together you allow for more open space. So that on the fourteen units acre basis you would use 350/0 for open space. All or part of that could be public open space. In a Townhouse unit that tends to be owned by the corporation but nevertheless it would still provide the open space between multiple units. 35% of an acre for 14 units would be roughly f/3 of an acre. You could get, .1 am sure a building, and stell get l/S of the area for open space. Someone questioned whether we include parking lots? Informal Hearth8 ResardLu8 Dedication of Park Development Within New Subdivisions Page 4 Mr. Davidson stated that is exclusive of parking, garages and building. But I think we arc almost getthug that now, Wc haven't hah an), Townhouse development as such of course. In multiple units I am sure we are getting at least 35 with the present 14 per acre. I would bring it up for discussion purposes if there is going to be a change. Perhaps it might be related to density rather than a specific number. ~uestion: Does that ordinance require that it be dedicated or that it be dedicated to the public or to the use of the people2 John Davidson: Should be presumed as sufficient amount of land for parks and play grounds for the residents and/or future residents of the sub-division. The sub-divider dedicates at least 4%. We do occassionally get a large parcclwhere we convert it to a kind of a community facilify rather than a neighborhood facility, il think we need both and as Mr. Petersen pointed out there was a distinction between these two things. Is there a way where we could work cooperatively toward this kind of development where we have srr~all areas set aside that are really neighborhood parks. Then somehow develop the more community style recreational facility. We kind of discussed this at one of our sub-division meetings dealing with Nell Siewert plat and it is kind of a new idea because up until we have been looking at and trying to get large enough plats and preliminary plats so that we could end up with a large park. The type like Pioneer Park, Conzemius Park, something of four or five acres or larger. We ended up in this discussion to, wondering if we should be looking for a grouping of three to four lots, closer to the neighborhoods where you could go out and fly a kite or sandlot softball as opposed to the large organized ball parks that we have now. The type that doesn't lend itself to skating or a baseball program but is convenient to the homeowner. It seems that we may have overlooked this, maybe we should be considering this as we look at out plats, and think in terms of small parks and open lots. We should consider the age group of about five years to fourteen years. Those ages are almost ideal because it gives you a big area where the twelve and thirteen year olds can play ball and the little kids are fairly isolated. Now the park out in Dakota Hills, when the big kids come to play ball the little kids go home, because the left fielder plays in the swings and so that the little kids can be segregated from the big kids. A big open area for big kids to play ball. Answer: You can have the swings on a one house lot. A small area that is too small to play baseball or softball. The bigger kids are not going to show up as they will get on their bikes and rlde over to Pioneer or Dakota Hills or somewhere else to a larger area. That was what Skip was discussing. A very small park. In~forrnal Hearin~ Regarding Dedication of Park Development Within New -Subdivisions Page 5 Question: Does this present a problem to a developer. If you have to dedicate say two or more smaller areas. When we where talking about Neal's plat we are talking about a major park area somewhat in the middle of the area. I don't want to talk about the amount of park land. Is it a problem for a developer to dedicate three different areas or two different areas? Neal Siewert: I don't think it makes a great deal of difference as long as we stay in that 5% range. As far as the amount of land, I don't see how two different places would make any difference than one. I imagine it would be just more of a problem to the City as far as maintaining. Don Gustafson: The only thing I would say to that is that you would not take an interior lot, you would take a lot on the corner because if you take an interior lot you would be bothering three lots, both sides and to the rear of it. W'hereas if you got it on the corner you are possibly bothering only one. Some people like to live next to those, some people don't. Mr. Trautmann: For a point of information, under Item 3, what are we presently doing with cash payment for park lands in lieu of 5% land dedication ? Mr. Erickson stated we have not yet collected money and when we do it shall be ear marked for park purposes. Right now we are budgeting about $8, 000 a year to pay our assessments on the present parks. Mr. Trautmann: Are you suggesting then, under this change, that those funds and any additional funds received in lieu of park land, that the only purpose that the money can be used for is for the actual purchase of park land and not for maintenance. Answer: That was my idea. Looking at the situation we haven't collected any yet and I suppose the first collection will be on Fluegel's property which he dedicated money in lieu of land. Maybe there will never be enough there to purchase anything substantial. Or maybe we would have to wait so long to get enough to purchase any. I would like to see it go for park land or purchase of park land rather than be absorbed in maintenance accounts in the parks department. Mr. Trautmarm: This may be one way ~o get the larger community type parks that we are talking about instead of having the contractor donate the whole 5%, depending upon the land, we can take a % in land anda % in cash. Informal Hearing Regarding Dedication of Park Development Within Nex~ Subdivision Page 6 Walter Petersen: Our present ordinance says, "all new sub-divisions should dedicate at least 5% gross area of all property subdivided for public use as playgrounds". That leaves a lot of latitude. Looking in the future I wonder how many areas will come in with cash in lieu of park dedication. Not too many I would think. /V[r. Trautmann: Every time a plat comes in for approval do we need to have 5% of land be platted for parks in that specific area or could we get by with a lesser % for parks in that area and take a % in cash and build some funds to be able to buy that large community park. A/ir. Petersen: I assume that we have that power right now. Does anyone disagree? Don Gustafson: If the development is over 30 acres it is the developers option which . way he wants to develop. Don Hallberg: We should have our City Attorney check this out. Mr. Petersen: You mean in the 5%, it is the developers option to give land or money. I think I have heard that but I can't substantiate that. Don Gustafson: Yes, I'm pretty sure, but not positive. Don Hallberg: I think there is kind of a general observation that we have to somehow work together with developers, city and residents to try to become a total cornrnunity. I think it is true as IV~r. Gustafson mentioned, if we increase or do something to make the park situation cost more to the developer it is passed on to the homeowner. V~hoever buys that property is going to pay a little more because of that. That is probably true of any kind of requirement thats made, whether it is concrete curb and gutter over bituminous, sidewalks or what have you, that tends to increase the value of the property and the cost of the property. There is a kind of situation that we all ought to be shooting for in terms of amenities in our growing trends. V~-het]ler we insist on the eventual homeowner paying for this or whether the whole community shares in it, I feel it is a question we may have to address ourselves someday. But I think it is important that the people that are going to be served by this facility have some stake in it and pay towards it. 1Viaybe there is something of distinction about the facility of the neighborhood facility and cornrnunity type facility ought to have some bearing on how it is paid for. But I think we ought to try to work together to see that we get the very best kind of living situation possible in our community not just look at how are we going to make a buck or how we should stick the developer for this. I think we should try to work together to see how it would work the best for the total community. I think this is possible. Neal Siewert: I think the community park and the neighborhood park are two different things. The neighborhood park is actually concerning the neighborhood 'Inf0rmal Hearinz Re ardin Dedication 0f Park Development Within New Sub Division Page 7 and the park would have to somehow come about by the entire community. it is used as such. Because Don Hallberg: Do you think this neighborhood type park could be provided and developed totally as a part of a development including the swings and whatever else goes in there and shared among all the people who ake going to be benefited by that facility. Neal Siewert: I don't know, I don't know how far you would want to go, I think it would be another judgement. Don Hallberg: I think the same kind of situation exists with a corner lot that has curb and gutter all around it. I suppose you could make that lot pay for that benefit. Where you can spread the cost of curb and gutter and streets over all the lots equally and ea,ch pay the same share. You could do it either way but it would mean that lot on the corner, you would make him pay the total front footage value for it, it would be out of reach for anybody to buy it. But if it spread over everybody then it is possible for everyone to benefit from the total development. The same kind of thing could be applied to park development fcr the neighborhood type park. We should take less land and the difference in money. Neal Siewert: Actually it is just how much you want the new homeowner to pay. Whether you feel he would just as soon have it paid for. Mr.Petersen: There is another way of looking at it to, it is probably the selfish way, each acre that we take out for public use, that is less tax payments we can get in the coffers. That can't be forgotten either. It was that there has been statements made that it is cheaper to dedicate it as park land than to develop it. It was stated that although these plats come in individually maybe if the edge of one developer's plat was made a park, then the next plat could continue that park as one continuous park rather than small parks in each subdivision. Mr. Davidson stated this had been done with Sontag's plat, the last plat reviewed and Hastings Construction has now purchased the next 30 acres and are laying out the plat with that in mind, with the park next to Sontag's Addition. This would be more difficult in Neals case because his property abuts the Township. Mr. Davidson also commented that as we raise the cost of building in town as we have in the pas t, it tends to increase the building outside of %own, I think this is what we are trying to deter. I think we should weigh or bring the standards outside the City limits to those we have within. Ir~ormal I~earing Regarding Dedication of Park Development Within New, Subdivisions Page 8 Pat Wilson: After reviewing what other communities are doing and with reference to what Hastings is doing and since our assumptions are based on the one particular plat we were looking at at the time, it look's as if Hastings is in really pretty good shape compared to everyone else. As far as the dedication of the money specifically for land, I kind of agree that we probably won't see too many dollars coming in and it might be a hindrance rather than a help and we can stay with our present requirement and see how things develop. Mr. Petersen stated that it seemed we were advocating we leave things pretty much as they are. The hearing was clOSed and we will follow our present ordinance until further changes appear necessary.