Loading...
2011.11.14 PC Meeting MinutesPage 1 of 4 J:\PLANNING\Planning Commission\2011\11.14\minutes.doc CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA November 14, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, Crystal City Hall A. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: X Commissioner (Ward 1) Sears Commissioner (Ward 2) Whitenack [Chair] Commissioner (Ward 4) ***vacant*** X Commissioner (Ward 1) Heigel [Secretary] X Commissioner (Ward 3) VonRueden X Commissioner (Ward 4) Johnson Commissioner (Ward 2) Erickson Commissioner (Ward 3) Buck [Vice Chair] Commissioner (At-Large) Strand Also present were Council Liaison Julie Deshler and city staff members John Sutter and Tracy Thorstenson B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Unable to approve minutes due to lack of quorum. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Consider Application 2011-15 for the plat of Crystal Medical 2nd Addition (5700 Bottineau Boulevard) and street vacations adjacent to 5736 Lakeland Avenue North Chair pro tem Heigel opened the public hearing. Staff member, John Sutter, presented the report. Planning Commission had no questions for staff. No one addressed the Commission. No motion taken due to lack of quorum Page 2 of 4 J:\PLANNING\Planning Commission\2011\11.14\minutes.doc 2. Consider Application 2011-16 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to guide the west half of 5400 Corvallis Avenue North (Cavanagh school property) for High Density Residential and the east half for Park Staff member, John Sutter, presented the report. Planning Commission discussion: 1. Commissioner VonRueden asked if a developer bought it as R-1 how many townhomes could they put in? Mr. Sutter responded 5 units per acre, 40-45 townhomes similar to Parkside Acres, low density, not row houses. If single family lots 34-36 lots possible after the 10% dedication of park space in SE corner. 2. Commissioner Johnson asked is there any way the EDA could we buy the entire site and guide ½ of it has park zone it park and keep the other ½ R1? Mr. Sutter responded: do you mean if the EDA were to buy it? Commissioner Johnson replied, yes. Mr. Sutter responded: It is a financial feasibility question. The School District has had the entire property appraised for low density as currently zoned at something around 1 million. The west half at high density is also worth approximately 1 million dollars. So, using only ½ of a million dollar property for the purpose allowed, either the District would have to walk away from that share of the value of the land or the EDA would take that as a loss. The District says they will be closing the facility, they want to sell the facility and the entire property; and they want to get the most they can for it and their appraiser says it is about 1 million dollars. 3. Commissioner VonRueden asked at this time do they have anyone looking at it? Have they put it on the market? Mr. Sutter responded: No, the EDA has initiated discussions with the District because they didn’t want a vacant building to sit on that lot. One of the reasons for initiating the conversation is that the EDA would have site control to a much greater degree in terms of quality than just regulating a private developer through the zoning or subdivision code. The District has not put it on the MLS, not sure what extent they are trying to market the property, given market conditions probably not a rush of developers waiting to do single family development right now. 4. Commissioner VonRueden asked any chance anyone would buy it to use it in its current state? Use the buildings for anything? Mr. Sutter responded: The District says they will not sell the building for another school use like a charter school or private school. The building is over 50 years old and has a lot of deferred maintenance so another user, such as a church, would need to put a great deal of money into the building. The District and the City feel that demolition and development is the most likely scenario. The following were heard: 1. Ed Krueger 5009 52nd Ave N – Lives 2 blocks from the property. Comprehensive plan should not be changed at this time. Too early in the process. Not enough information is available. Page 3 of 4 J:\PLANNING\Planning Commission\2011\11.14\minutes.doc 2. Katie Hamlin 5024 Bernard Ave N– Purchased her home in April 2010. Liked the park and the quiet pocket of Crystal. Initially wanted to oppose high density but keeping the park is much more appealing. Now is not the time to make a decision, more facts are needed. She likes the idea of more than 10% of park space. What is the impact on property values? Likes the park area for dogs. The park could be in better shape. Other questions that should be asked…What are the impacts? Are there state and local funds requirements? Environmental impacts? The neighbors love their park and do not w ant to lose it. 3. Michelle Baker 5417 52nd Ave N- Likes the quiet area. The park is very important. If zoned for high density, what if the 55+ senior housing fails, could other high density housing move in? Concerned about property values if senior housing doesn’t work out. Mr. Sutter responded: The EDA has not negotiated any deals but the EDA would only do this if it was age restricted. The EDA’s attorney has advised that one of the ways to do this is with a restrictive covenant on the land so that if the land was sold the covenant would continue. This type of building is generally financed to keep it affordable for seniors on fixed incomes. Federal tax credit restriction could also live with the property. Not sure when the clock runs out on those. Not sure that if many years in the future the covenants could be made to go away. The EDA would want its attorney to resolve this as part of the development negotiations. The attorney would need to figure out enforcement. EDA wants any deal set up to be senior housing indefinitely. As written, the compressive plan amendment would not allow the property to be converted later. Michelle Baker asked what is affordable housing? Like Section 8? Mr. Sutter responded:60% of area medium income would meet the affordability test required by the Federal tax credits. Age restriction would transcend all of that. 4. Steve Dahl 5015 Corvallis Ave N– If zoned the way it is now, who says what part becomes park? Currently the City doesn’t own it and money has been spent to put in the playground. He wants to keep the park but does not want a 3-story building. He has concerns about kids crossing Lakeland and Cty Rd 81. He thinks the City should look at other areas of the city. He is con cerned about resale on his home. 5. Ed Krueger – Is this meeting more than changing the comprehensive plan? Other buyer could come in and not leave any open space. Why start on the process now? 6. Donna Bratulich 5325 52nd Ave N – She has owned this home since 1977. She has concerns about traffic. The Police and Fire Departments have a hard time getting in to this neighborhood. Access is an issue. She suggested a pedestrian over-pass. Mr. Sutter responded: Traffic studies were done in 2006. Senior housing would have far less traffic then a school. The roads have been built to handle the traffic. We would restrict driveway access, only to 51st and Lakeland. The traffic would be handled the same way as it was for the school. Page 4 of 4 J:\PLANNING\Planning Commission\2011\11.14\minutes.doc Chair pro tem Heigel stated that he could not close the Public Hearing at this time it will be remain open until the December 12th meeting due to lack of quorum. D. OLD BUSINESS None E. NEW BUSINESS None F. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. City Council action on previous Planning Commission items 2. Staff preview of likely agenda items for December 12, 2011 meeting: A. Continue 2 public hearings from this meeting to the December 12th meeting B. Variance from homeowner to add a 2nd story to house in Forest Neighbor C. Foreclosing lender has plans to finish the building on Bass Lake Rd. G. OPEN FORUM – None heard H. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.