Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout092595REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1995 7:00 p.m. HEARINGS: Call Meeting to Order Roll Call Review Minutes of Previous Meeting Geri Anderson - Home Occupation Request - 16575 Dutch Avenue, applicant requests approval to operate a picture framing business. Judy Coursolle - Home Occupation Request - 4656 Pleasant St., applicant requests approval to operate a limousine service. Jerry Halliday - Request for Variance - 16604 Inguadona Beach Cir., applicant requests the following: a 29 foot variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 46 feet instead of the required 75 feet; a 5 foot variance to permit a front yard setback of 20 feet instead of the required 25 feet; and a 5 foot variance to permit a side yard on the South of 5 feet instead of the required 10 feet. Vaughn and Henriette Lemke - Request for Variance - 14472 Shady Beach Trail, applicant requests the following variances: a 26 foot variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 49 feet instead of the required 75 feet; and a 2.5 foot variance to permit a side yard on ~he East of 7.5 feet instead of the required 10 feet. Michael and Lavon Mmgala - Request for Variance - 3874 Green Heights Trail, applicant requests the following: a 15 foot variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 60 feet instead of the required 75 feet; a 6 foot variance to permit a front yard 16200 L:~s~i~ek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, MinnesotaPb-q33~72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER o setback of 19 feet on the Southwest instead of the required 25 feet; and a 8% variance to permit impervious surface coverage 0f30.8% instead of 30%. Elmer Clarke - Request for Variance - 16286 Park Avenue, applicant requests the following: a 28 foot variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 47 feet instead of the required 75 feet; and a 7.9 foot variance to permit a side yard on the South of 2.1 feet instead of the required 10 feet. PUBLIC HEARING - The Wilds North - Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Rezoning. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider Ordinance 95- amending Sign Ordinance 94-06. Fairview Hospital and Healthcare Services - Conditional Sign Permit, Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2, Second Addition to Westbury Ponds. AG92595.DOC PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1995 The September 25, 1995, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Commissioner Vonhof at 7:03 p.m. Present were Commissioners Arnold, Roseth and Vonhof, Intern Commissioners Criego and Wuellner, Planning Director Don Rye, Associate Planner Michael Leek and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. ROLL CALL: Arnold Present Roseth Present Loftus Absent (arrived at 7:18 p.m.) Vonhof Present Kuykendall Absent Intern Commissioners: Criego Present Wuellner Present REVIEW OF THE SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 MEETING MINUTES: Under Loftus Comments on page 2, change the word "form" to "from". MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. Vote signified ayes by Roseth, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. #1, GERALDINE ANDERSON - HOME OCCUPATION REOUEST - 16575 DUTCH AVENUE, APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL TO OPERATE A PICTURE FRAMING BUSINESS. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Staff Report dated September 25, 1995. Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. No off-site parking. On-site parking for a maximum of two (2) customer vehicles must be provided. 2. No exterior signs identifying the business, its products, or services. 3. No sale of products other than picture framing on the premises. 4. No employees beyond the one (1) applicant/operator. 5. The home occupation permit may not be sold, transferred or assigned. 6. The Home Occupation permit is subject to all applicable ordinance and legal requirements. Violation of any ordinance or legal requirement shall be deemed grounds for immediate revocation of the Home Occupation Permit. 7. The Home Occupation may be reviewed annually by the City. MN92595,DOC PAGE I Applicant, Geraldine Anderson, 16575 Dutch Avenue SE, stated she had visited with her neighbors to let them know her intentions and they had no objections to the business. Comments from Commissioners: Arnold: · inquired on production. (Anderson explained she would have framing and matt samples in the basement. Clients can bring in their prints and pick out matts and frames. She will advise them what looks best and tell them when to pick up the finished picture.) · delivery service once or twice a week. Roseth: · reviewed some of the conditions with applicant. Criego/Wuellner: no additional comments. Vonhof: · concurs with Commissioners. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 9531PC AS REQUESTED. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. #2. JUDY COURSOLLE - HOME OCCUPATION REQUEST - 4656 PLEASANT ST., APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL TO OPERATE A LIMOUSINE SERVICE. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Staff Report dated September 25, 1995. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. No off-site parking. On-site parking for a maximum of two (2) customer vehicles must be provided. 2. No exterior signs identifying the business, its products, or services. 3. No sale of products. 4. No employees beyond the one (1) applicant/operator, and one (1) driver who does not reside on the premises. 5. The home occupation permit may not be sold, transferred or assigned. 6. The Home Occupation permit is subject to all applicable ordinance and legal requirements. Violation of any ordinance or legal requirement shall be deemed grounds for immediate revocation of the Home Occupation Permit. 7. The Home Occupation may be reviewed annually by the City. 8. The Home Occupation permit is limited to the parking of one limousine on the premises. MN92595.DOC PAGE 2 Curt Roiger, residing at 4556 Pleasant Street, stated he would like a sign in the front yard but if he couldn't it would be fine. He talked to neighbors and the VFW who are not opposed to the business. Jerry Halliday, friend of the applicant, commented on the sign issue. He feels there should be a break on the sign because it is small and they need the advertising. Commissioner Lofius arrived at 7:18 p.m. Comments from Commissioners: Roseth: · does not have a problem with the idea. · change #4 in the Conditions to include "family members". (Leek explained the condition and Roseth concurred with him.) · reviewed conditions with Roiger. Mr. Roiger questioned staff on the possibility of adding more vehicles and storage. Mr. Leek explained off-site parking and storage would be okay. Loftus: · services provided to public. Arnold: · delete second sentence from #1 under Conditions referring to on-site parking. Criego: · agrees with Commissioner Arnold and staff's recommendation with no exterior signs. Wuellner: · concurs. Vonhof: · discussion on vehicle. · agrees with staff's recommendation on sign. Mr. Roiger explained all services would be arranged by telephone. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 9530PC. CONDITIONS: #1 - "no off-site or on-site parking for customers"; and #4 add "no employees beyond the one (1) applicant/operator/one resident employee and one driver who does not reside on the premises". MN92595.DOC PAGE 3 Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Loftus, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM 3. JERRY HALLIDAY - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE - 16604 INGUADONA BEACH CIR., APPLICANT REQUESTS THE FOLLOWING: A 29 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LAKESHORE SETBACK OF 46 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET: A 5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 20 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REOUIRED 25 FEET; AND A 5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD ON THE SOUTH OF 5 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Staff Report dated September 25, 1995. Staff recommends approval of Resolution 9532PC including the following conditions: 1. The new, southerly wall be 1-hour rated; 2. Erosion control be maintained in connection with the completion of the project which is the subject of this request; Applicant Jerry Halliday, 16604 Inguadona Beach, explained he was in front of the Commissioners one year ago with intentions of demolishing the house and rebuilding a bigger one. Because of costs he cannot afford to do so and is now requesting variances to expand. Mr. Halliday presented his house plans to the Commissioners. Tim Collins, 16614 Inguadona Beach Cir., (property to the south) stated he has no objections to the requested variances. Comments from Commissioners: Loftus: · explained 10 foot setback on the south side to applicant. · comfortable with the proceeding and supportive of the variances. Arnold: · supportive. Roseth: · follow setback regulations. Criego: · reviewed plans with applicant. Wuellner: · reviewed plans with applicant. MN92595.DOC PAGE 4 Vonhof: impervious surface has been addressed and supports. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY ARNOLD, APPROVE RESOLUTION 9532PC WITH THE HEADING PARAGRAPH READING "5 FEET ON THE NORTH SIDE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET" AND ALSO IN THE CONCLUSIONS, ITEM #3 SHOULD ALSO BE CHANGED TO READ "NORTH" INSTEAD OF SOUTH. Justification - substandard lot with limited usage. Discussion: Commission should not mention something specific i.e. impervious surface or setbacks. The City Code will cover those issues. The drawings were not to scale and mentioned only the clarify to issue. The 4 hardship criteria have been met as outlined in the Staff Report. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Arnold, Loftus and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. #4, VAUGHN AND HENRIETTE LEMKE - 14472 SHADY BEACH TRAIL. APPLICANT REOUESTED THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: A 26 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LAKESHORE SETBACK OF 49 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET: AND A 2.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD ON THE EAST OF 7.5 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REOUIRED 10 FEET. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated September 25, 1995. Staff recommends approval of the variances with the following conditions: 1. The proposed additions will be in compliance with the City's Flood Plain Ordinance. 2. Erosion control be maintained in connection with the completion of the project which is the subject of this request; 3. Removal of the existing driveway. Applicant, Vaughn Lemke, asked if there was any relief from compliance with the Flood Plain Ordinance. (Commissioner Vonhof explained it does have to be followed.) The addition will not be any closer to the lake than the existing house. Comments from Commissioners: Arnold: · variance is less than the existing house. MN92595.DOC PAGE 5 Roseth: · no problem with 3 car garage. · build above the 909 lake level - insurance concern. Loftus: no additional questions. Criego: · explanation of existing setback of house. Mr. Lemke talked to his neighbors and they do not oppose his addition. Wuellner: · felt it was a good plan. Vonhof: · hardship criteria has been met and is supportive. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 9528PC. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Loftus, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. #5 MICHAEL AND LAVON MRUGALA - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE - 3874 GREEN HEIGHTS TRAIL, APPLICANT REQUESTS THE FOLLOWING: A 15 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LAKESHORE SETBACK OF 60 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REOUIRED 75 FEET: A 6 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRQNT YARD SETBACK OF 19 FEET ON THE SOUTHWEST INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET; AND A 8% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 30.8% INSTEAD OF 30%. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated September 25, 1995 recommending approval with the following condition: 1. Erosion control be maintained in connection with the completion of the project which is the subject of this request. Applicant Michael Mrugala explained the setbacks and maintained the impervious surface coverage. Dave Gerold, the contractor, stated he could reduce the impervious surface 4% by shaving down the driveway. MN92595.DOC PAGE 6 Dan Sheedy, 3880 Green Heights Trail, stated the Mrugala's deck by the lake is on his property. The structure was built without a permit in 1990 and was supposed to be cut back 5 feet. Mr. Sheedy feels there is an erosion problem and should be looked into. Commissioner Vonhof directed staff to notify the Building Departmem for inspection. Comments from Commissioners: Roseth: · small property and applicants are making the best use of it. · impervious surface is okay. Loftus: · existing deck is a problem - encroachmem issues are handled privately between the parties. · time line for construction. · setbacks are still a concern. Arnold: · would like to see deck/plat form issue resolved. · if permit was required and not issued the City can take action. · willing to support variances. Criego: · Mr. Mrugala explained the timber walkway. · approval of variances. Wuellner: · deck/plat form is not an issue - neighbors should work it out. · shave driveway to reduce impervious surface. · neighborhood is going to redevelop. · support from and back setbacks. Vonhof.' · concurs with Commissioners - lakeside and street setbacks appropriate. · agrees with staff on impervious surface issue - reduce in the driveway. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 95- 29PC. Discussion: variances are approved/impervious surface denied; incorporate as a condition - if the deck is in violation of the code, see it is corrected; the applicant did not add the deck; the issue is with the deck; staff will take action and report back to the Planning Commission. MN92595.DOC PAGE 7 Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Loftus, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 9:05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:14 p.m. #6. ELMER CLARKE - REQUEST FOR VARIANCES - 16286 PARK AVENUE. APPLICANT REQUESTS THE FOLLOWING: A 28 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LAKESHORE SETBACK OF 47 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET: AND A 7.9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD ON THE SOUTH OF 2.1 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Staff Report dated September 25, 1995. The analysis reveals the request generally meets the ordinance criteria, staff recommended tabling the item in order to allow Mr. Clarke time to further develop his plans relative to the desired garage, so if it involves a request for variance as well, that request can be considered by the Commission as well. It may also allow Mr. Clarke to establish the anticipated cost of rebuilding on the existing foundation. As outlined above, if that cost is less than 50% of the fair market value of the structure as indicated on the County's assessment records, it may be possible to replace it under Section 6.1 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance. Applicant Elmer Clarke stated he would like to build the same size house within the same neighborhood. Duane Clark, Elmer's son, stated they would like to stay on the foundation. Mark Slaughter, 16290 Park Avenue, said he had no objection to the proposed structure. Mr. Slaughter explained all the neighboring lots have variances. Ken Lillyblad, 16287 Lakeside Avenue, owns the cabin at 16308 Park Avenue. Mr. and Mrs. Lillyblad are against the requested variances. They feel the City made them comply with the ordinance years ago and Clarke should do the same. Arnold: · Mr. Clarke explained his house plan (no additions) and property layout. Roseth: · lot meets requirements - table for further garage estimate and cost information. Loftus: · classification: rebuild or totally new structure. · grandfathered in if he stays below 50% - need estimate and table. Commissioners Criego, Wuellner and Vonhof: MN92595.DOC PAGE 8 · concur MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ROSETH TO CONTINUE TO THE SECOND MEETING IN OCTOBER (October 23, 1995), WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO WORK WITH APPLICANT. Vote taken signified ayes by Loflus, Roseth, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. #7. PUBLIC HEARING - THE WII,DS NORTH - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - REZONING, A sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in attendance. Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated September 25, 1995. Synopsis of report: The applicant, RKB Inc., has applied to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation on the subject property from Agricultural to Commercial, extend the Municipal Service Area (MUSA) to include the subject property and to change the zoning designation from A-l, Agricultural to B-I, Limited Business. The Planning Commission heard this request on August 25,1995. Because the original application indicated a land trade of 20 acres was to be made with a property currently within the MUSA and this was changed to 40 acres after the public hearing notice, it was necessary to publish another notice. At the August 28th meeting, the Planning Commission focused on three major issues: 1) Costs; 2) Traffic improvements and 3) Whether the proposed timing of development constituted spot guiding and zoning. If the Planning Commission determines an amendment is justified, staff recommends the general designation of Commercial to be appropriate and direct further consideration of commercial land use alternatives with emphasis on destination-type uses for the site and the appropriate land use controls for the site while deferring action on the zoning change and MUSA extension. Titan Jacobs, Director of Development for the Wilds, explained the original land swap with the Vierlings is still valid. Concerning the infra-structure proposed and the potential MUSA extension, the developer has agreed to pay for the temporary infra-structure necessary to develop the parcel until the time the MUSA is extended. This includes a lift station with a sanitary sewer which will connect to the existing Wilds system that the City Engineer has determined to be an adequate system to supply the commerical development. At the August 28 meeting it was determined the original access on County Road 42 would not be acceptable. The access east of the property would be a full access with left and right tums. Mr. Jacobs explained he would be contacting Chris and Monica Anderson to discuss an access designed by an engineer and come to an agreement. The original Scott County proposal was south of Lot 1. After discussing this with engineers it was discovered it was MN92595.DOC PAGE 9 an impossibility due to topographical conditions to provide an access that far south and meet County standards. The County then accepted the original proposal with only right- in/right-out which is acceptable to applicant. Mr. Jacobs also brought up destination uses vs. traffic uses. The staff would prefer to see a destination center where applicant feels it should be a mixture of traffic and destination uses. Mr. Jacobs handed out a copy of the proposed commerical cost that included estimated value of property based on the uses and developed an assessed value and tax value at 6.5%. This was the same context as the PUD amendment. Comments from the audience: Dick Burtness of Wilds North gave an overview of the proposed development. Part of developing the neighborhood is to provide amenities that makes people want to live here as opposed to other developments in the Metro area. Mr. Burtness stated he was an entrepreneur and entrepreneurs need a little room. He does not want to be constricted by zoning and land usage and time tables that prevent him from developing. He also stated he does not agree with the right-in/right-out but will probably have to accept it. The amenities should appeal to neighborhood and to the banker and the person who owns the property. If a destination type zoning and destination type use spells no profit - there are no amenities for the neighborhood. The residents of The Wilds will benefit by having amenities in the area they may never use but they are traffic generators that make the area fit. Mr. Burtness said their plans are that anyone who drives into The Wilds development will have a feeling that it was fairly well done. The cosmetic look of this proposed piece of property will look exactly like The Wilds as a focus point of an up-scale commercial development - the feeling of a village, a feeling as a part of The Wilds. He stated they need destination businesses as well as traffic center businesses. They need to have room to design and to build them accordingly. They are here in a spirit of cooperation and want to work with the staff and parameters, but they also need breathing room. Mr. Burtness referred to an article in the Prior Lake American regarding a change in tax base with upscale housing and how much lower taxes are in Wayzata than other cities because of disproportionate value of the high priced home as opposed to the services he uses. He feels they will be able to fulfill the building of the Wilds community by offering these amenities which involve a first class all-service gas station, upscale grocery store and some higher quality restaurants. The businesses will be able to feed off the traffic going to the casino. This "village" will be like driving into The Wilds - much nicer than any commerical development on Country Road 42. He feels his reputation for what they say is what they have done. He hopes City Council and the Planning Commission agree they have done a very good job in that area. Mr. Burtness stated they have obtained legal counsel to make sure they are going the right direction and doing the right things. He hopes the Commission keeps that in mind and allow them to continue to market and not have the road blocks of delays. MN92595.DOC PAGE l0 Comments from Commissioners: Loftus: Rye explained the recommendation - recognize in fact some day there will be commerical development at that location. Try and get a handle on the best way to regulate it. His biggest concern is the adequacy of the zoning the City has to regulate the kind of development anticipated. The current ordinance was designed to deal with land uses and planning issues 15 to 20 years ago. It is possible under the PUD provisions and current ordinance the City can address the kinds of things the City thinks is important. The PUD allows the assurance the property is unified (with The Wilds). The Planning Commission can decide to amend the Comprehensive Plan and designate the area as commerical. In terms of action on the zoning the Planning Commission can recommend the B 1 zoning and take it forward to Council or say B 1 or B 1 or anything else the City has is the best way to go and would like to take a further look how to do it. Direct staff to work with the applicant and come with something everyone can live with. Mr. Rye stated his intention is not to draw this out but his concern of the ordinance provisions by simply zoning it B 1 are going to allow somethings to happen that the City may not want to have happen. Mr. Burtness stated he has his differences with Mr. Rye relative to regulation and control. And he felt Mr. Rye knew he would come off the chair when he heard "regulation" and "control". Mr. Burtness said he respects Mr. Rye but the zoning that is there now from an entrepreneur/developer's stand point, does not need any more regulatory controls any place in our lives, not just planning directors by every place he turns. Mr. Burmess said he was 100% willing to be accountable to Mr. Rye. He will please him from the stand point of what they are doing but to get involved in "lets look at new zoning laws" or "we don't fit in this because of this or this". Mr. Burtness stated he disagrees with that violently. He thinks the zoning law for B 1 commercial and giving him that latitude they'll satisfy the people of Prior Lake, the City of Prior Lake and will satisfy his entrepreneur spirit. Loftus (continued): interpretation is the tools we are using at the present time are somewhat limited. We have creative tools and one is the PUD and The Wilds has demonstrated a fair amount of creativity. what he is hearing from staff is "yes" but go a little slowly and bring the plan back so the Commissioners can evaluate how it looks. · Mr. Burtness' rebuttal is "trust me, look what I've done at The Wilds. Give me the B1 and I'll run with it and I'll do something similar to The Wilds." · the Commission has to harmonize the two. · would like to see the PUD and then we'll look at it and say "let's run with it". The concept is not articulated - Burtness says it is similar to The Wilds but the Commissioners do not have it on the table tonight. And that's a limitation. Arnold: M92595.DOC PAGE 11 · feels he is in awkward situation not being he would be able to deal with this any further. concurs with Commissioner Lofius that maybe more definite plans should be put forth rather than saying this should be B 1. · it is going to eventually be a commerical area but there should be an appropriate designation for it. · it would be wiser to have something more specific than a PUD concept and have it before the Commission rather than present a blank commercial and hope it works. Roseth: · concur with Commissioner Arnold in the fact he is acting on something they won't be able to follow up on and regret that. · feels it should be put in a B1 zone now and may be adjusted later on. · failing to act on it now is a lack of action but feels it would be a step in the right direction. · concur with Planning Director Don Rye that the designations may be changed in the future. · continue with the land swap and zone B 1. Criego: · the City wants it commerical then make it BI, there's a developer here who wants to do it. · opportunity to change not limit. · do not limit what goes in there. The Commission is not in a position to say what the designation should be. The traffic is there on County Roads 42 and 83. · Zone B1. Wuellner: · feels the same as Commissioner Criego. · need to move quicker due to the rapid development of County Road 83. Mr. Burtness said he had come before the Commission and City Council many times and has never once said anything that wasn't exactly true. He said he appreciated their comments and second of all he is not going to sell the land - he is going to develop it. He does not want to hold it a long time. This is tied together with the development of The Wilds. He also said if he does not get it he will not run or sell the land. It is just very important and when he says something is important he usually means it and shows reasons why. He needs the freedom. He cannot come to the Commission if he doesn't have B1 zoning. Mr. Burtness further explained he has rejected many ideas. He stated he jealously protect this property the same as The Wilds. Don Rye explained the developer is willing to pay for what the City can not. No utilities get extended unless the MUSA is extended and that is the purpose of the amendment. Part of that is going to deal with the land swap and the MUSA extension. MN92595DOC PAGE 12 Vonhof: · whatever we are looking at amending in the Comprehensive Plan the Planning Commission has to make sure it is in accord with the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment has to be consistent with our policies. the changes we have seen with the casino and The Wilds have to refiect the reality of the area. · this commerical property does tie in with The Wilds. · feels this is an appropriate time to rezone to B1 now. · no objection to the land swap. · the expansion issues - the water main and lift station were brought up at the previous meeting and have been answered by the developer. Mr. Jacobs pointed out the B 1 zoning was the most restrictive of all the commercial zoning ordinances. By approving the usage does not mean approving everything the developer is going to do on it. Each parcel has to have a building permit with a number of controls by the City. This can be used in a creative and constructive manner to alleviate some of the City's concern. The Wilds is planning on constructing 78 upscale townhouses behind this commercial property and to put up a less than stellar commercial development in front of the townhouses would make them valueless. The Wilds will have an enormous amount of restrictions concurrent and conducive to an upscale residential development. Loftus: · there is heavy traffic in the area. The intersection carries a lot of traffic to the casino. Safety is an issue. · Savage has a nice corridor on County Road 42 - lights, sidewalks, safe roads - divided median, turning lanes. · agree there is a good case to expedite the rezoning but as the pace is pushed, and trips are added, safety is diminished. · The Planning Commission has a role to look at safety - there has been no studies presented. A landowner expressed his concern with 3 deaths near his property at the last meeting. Part of what the Commission is health, safety and welfare. There has been a record made the comer is unsafe. We have not addressed in our Comprehensive Plan the traffic issues and that is a cause of concern. · The developer does not control the roadway, and does not control the Capital Improvements for Scott County or for the City. He has to work with limitations. · We cannot control the Dakota Community and their development. We do have control over our City. · not against B 1 in the comer but feel it is leapfrogging - getting ahead of the infrastructure. Mr. Burtness stated he felt the comer was a recreation corridor and the commerical comer is going to use the traffic going to the casino and not add any more traffic to the casino. Mlq92595.DOC PAGE 13 The Wilds made a financial commitment for the community (The Wilds). We are providing amenities for the people plus taking advantage of the traffic that is already there. The casino creates no tax base for us and we should be entitled, if we have the marketability and the entrepreneur skills to traffic some of the people through our development we are not creating any more safety hazard or traffic. We are just trying to siphon off some of the traffic that is there anyway. The rest of the traffic is The Wilds. In my opinion we are not creating any more traffic. Open discussion: discussion on how long it would take to develop; business is out there; road construction does not keep up with development; the County did not have County Road 83 in their Capital Improvement Plan. (Mr. Burtness stated if it costs over a Million Dollars over and above what we generally allocate for improvement of County Road 83 down to the casino, he will certainly be there with more money to do that.); everyone agrees it is an unsafe intersection; the City has to keep up with reality and it development is going to happen. (Mr. Burtness stated the Dakota Community will contribute to some of the road improvement as well as himself. Mr. Burtness agreed to the right-in/right-out and will battle for left-in and pay the extra for the lights and median which will also benefit the property owners to the west; all the area roads will have to be upgraded. John O'Loughlin own the land next to The Wilds and said he talked to Brad Larson, (Scott County Engineer) who told him as long as the property stays zoned A1 there will be 3 accesses. The area should be zoned B 1 tonight. MOTION BY LOFTUS TO DESIGNATE COMMERICAL AND DIRECT FURTHER CONSIDERATION. Discussion: there has been a lot of discussion about the need for intersection improvement; the Commission should see the traffic plans. Loftus motion dies for lack of a second. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO FIND THE OVERALL PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICES AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE AND PUBLIC UTILITIES PLAN, THE MUSA EXTENSION AND THE ZONING CHANGE TO B-I, LIMITED BUSINESS. Discussion: include contingencies: The City should not incur infrastructure costs as part of this land use change nor should it lose special assessments. The deferred assessments on the property to be traded should be paid off as a condition of approval of this request. MN92595.DOC PAGE 14 FURTHER AMEND THE MOTION BY SPECIFYING RECOMMENDED ACTION IF THE ACTION IS TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THE MOTION MUST BE TO DIRECT PREPARATION OF A RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS IMPLEMENTING THE DESIRED ACTION. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Arnold, Loftus and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ROSETH TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken signified ayes by Lofius, Roseth, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. #8. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING SIGN ORDINANCE 94-06. A sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in attendance. Associate Planner Michael Leek present the Planning Report dated September 25, 1995. Staff recommends draft Ordinance # 1. Ray Piirainen, Property Director for Fairview Hospitals and the owner of the building, asked the Commissioners to look at approving draft Sign Ordinance #2 which would allow them 15 foot for height and the 70 square footage requested. With regard to the 2 other signs they would make them less than 5 feet for snow removal and visibility and work on the pylon. Mr. Leek stated Alternative #2 leave the Planning Commission the option of limiting the signs if they are not consistent with the character of the surrounding property. It still leaves some control in the City's hands. Comments from Commissioners: Roseth: · would rather see Alternative #2. Loftus/Arnold: · concurs with Commissioner Roseth. Criego: · important with flexibility with signage - should have Alternative #2. Wuellner/Vonhof.' · concurs - also gives the City flexibility to control business and residential on both sides. MN92595.DOC PAGE 15 MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE #2 ORDINANCE. Vote taken signified ayes by Lofius, Amold, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Loftus, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. #9. FAIRVIEW HOSPITAL AND HEALTHCARE SERVICES - CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT, LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, BLOCK 2, SECOND ADDITION TO WESTBURY PONDS. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the Planning Report dated September 25, 1995. Staff recommends approval of the conditional sign permit for the entrance sign, with the following conditions: 1. The sign may not exceed 4 feet in height as measured against the average grade level on the site; 2. The sign be located no closer than 5 feet from the street right-of-way. Staff further recommends the request relative to the pylon sign be approved subject to City Council approval of a Subdivision Ordinance amendment permitting signs for CUP's consistent with the Fairview conditional sign permit application. Comments from Commissioners: Arnold/Roseth/Loftus/Criego/Wuellner/Vonhof.' · concurs with staff's recommendation. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY ROSETH TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE REQUESTED SIGN PERMIT BY APPLICANT. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Roseth, Loftus and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. Reminder of the September 28, meeting to discuss housing issues. Commissioner Vonhof recognized Commissioners Arnold and Roseth for their time and talent as members of the Planning Commission as it was their last meeting. MN92595.DOC PAGE 16 MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY ROSETH TO CLOSE THE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Roseth, Loftus and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 1 ! :16 p.m. Donald Rye Connie Carlson Director of Planner Recording Secretary MN92595.DOC PAGE 17