Minutes - Planning Commission - 12/03/1998 - Public Hearing @ 7:40

Home

CITIZEN INPUT Bill Dom, 16610 Fluorine Street NW - presented himself as an attorney in Anoka County representing a majority of those in attendance at the public hearing. He explained they have appointed him as their spokesperson, and he therefore requested an extension to the three-minute time limit for input. Chairperson Deemer invoked an extension, within reason, to the three-minute rule. Mr. Dom urged the Planning Commission to table action on this request because of the moral, legal and practical issues involved. He discussed the background of the development, outlined in his letter to the City Council and Planning Commission dated December 1, 1998 (herein attached as Exhibit A). He contended that the developer was clearly informed by the City that one-acre lots would no longer be allowed on this parcel, pursuant to negotiations with Metropolitan Council in 1976, yet the developer continued to inform prospective buyers the 75-acre tract would be developed at a one-acre density. Mr. Dom referenced his letter faxed to City Staff, City Council, and Planning Commission dated December 3, 1998 (herein attached as Exhibit B) and asserted his disagreement with the legal opinion of Kennedy & Graven dated April 4, 1997 (herein attached as Exhibit C), His legal opinion is that the City must conform zoning not with the existing Comprehensive Plan but the one being worked on for 1998 because the older provisions will no longer be relevant. He classified the 75 acres as transitional and definitely and totally incompatible with the upcoming Comprehensive Plan. He added that Metropolitan Council case law clearly says the City Council can deny if the parcel is incompatible with the adjoining land uses. Mr. Dom mentioned the yet-to-be-determined Findings of Fact, and questioned how the City could determine them if this hasn't been studied. He pointed out negotiations between the developer and the neighborhood group are still ongoing. He concluded that there is no good reason for acting on this request at this time. He questioned why the developer is pushing this through at such a late date in the year, suggesting they are attempting to get "grandfather rights." Mr. Dom added that the City still had time to study the situation more in-depth and act on the request before the end of the year. Rick Packer, Arcon Development, Inc. - asserted they (Arcon Development) were not attempting to "bully" anything through and they find negotiation to be in everyone's best interests. He explained that when they first approached the development, they thought the zoning was in place. When they recently discovered that the zoning ordinance was not adopted in 1995, they requested it be done. He reiterated that they are continuing to work with the neighborhood. Chairman Deemer noted that R1-U is the most restrictive zoning in the City Code and the new classifications might be less restrictive. He questioned whether the developer was sure this is what he wants. Mr. Packer stated the City is looking at transitional uses up to five units per acre; the plan submitted to the neighborhood meets that but its completely unacceptable to them. Public Hearing/Planning Commission/December 3, 1998 Page 2 of 4