Loading...
2001-06-26 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 26, 2001 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 26, 2001, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners Hesse, Dolan, Bruce McManus and Friel. Also present were Public Works Director James Danielson, Planner Steven Grittman, Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister and Bonita Sullivan, Recording Secretary. Excused: Commissioners Betlej and Marina McManus. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Lorberbaum asked for corrections to the minutes of the May 22, 2001 meeting: Commissioner Bruce McManus, last paragraph on page six, last sentence in the line "about non- confirming" should be "non-conforming: Commissioner Dolan, page two, fifth paragraph, starting with Planner Grittman, second sentence should be "he stated his approval of a variance". In the next paragraph, Commissioner Friel's statement, the last sentence, "how many instances if anyone did any measuring, this fence is out of compliance" he stated he is not quite sure what that is and asked Commissioner Friel if he remembered his statement. Commissioner Friel stated that he does not remember exactly what he said. He clarified that he asked about how many locations the fence was measured out of compliance. Commissioner Dolan stated he had one correction on page three, second paragraph, Commissioner Bruce McManus's statement should read "He stated that unless the wording of any changed ordinance is clearly thought out it could cause a strange look to the fences..." Commissioner Hesse, stated the Ayes and Nays on page eight says that Commissioner Dolan had the Nay and it should be Commissioner Hesse for the Nay. Commissioner Dolan agreed with Commissioner Hesse adding that he was persuaded by the logic of the two Commissioners to his right. 6/26/01 Commissioner Friel, page 8, fifth paragraph, Commissioner Friel referred to how our City Council has been very liberal in granting variances in "some" of the older neighborhoods to allow... Commissioner Dolan, page eleven, fifth paragraph, Commissioner Dolan confirmed that they would be occupying the "entire".. the "and" should be crossed out after entire. Chair Lorberbaum, page 13, second paragraph from the bottom, "Chair Lorberbaum asked that it is understood there is no lighting," should be that the parking lot was without lights. She stated they had talked about there being lighting on the building. Commissioner Dolan, page 13, Commissioner Friel moved to recommend approval, reads "for the with" and it should say "of". Chair Lorberbaum, page 14, fourth paragraph from the bottom, "Chair Lorberbaum stated that the August 1, 1999 was her understanding of the date.." She stated that she thought she was saying that this is when the current sign went up as opposed to the real sign so it should say "the current sign went up and asked for clarification as to when the first sign did go up" rather than "real sign" since they are both real. Chair Lorberbaum, page 15, third from bottom, in the middle of the paragraph, "she noted the difference stating they were comfortable with the number," that there were 121 parking spaces and 119 rooms, thus meeting the requirements. Commissioner Dolan page 15, same paragraph, previous sentence, "she stated that according to the ordinances that they are required to have the same number of parking "lots" as rooms. He stated that is should say "spaces". Chair Lorberbaum stated that in the same paragraph that they had told her that the restaurant is leaving and that we have to have that in the minutes. Chair Lorberbaum, page 16, top of page, Mr. Holms explained the directional settings for the lighting to the Commission. She stated that she would rather the minute's talk about what they said rather than saying they explained it. She stated in this case Mr. Holms explained that the directional settings would be cans pointing to the sign. She stated in the next sentence 'Ms. Anderson addressed the Courtyard issue regarding, stating that the way it is design. She stated that Ms. Anderson is referring to the way the building sign on the Marriott is designed adding that this needs to be clarified so we know what she is referring to. Commissioner Friel, page 17, third from the last paragraph, 'Commissioner Friel stated that it is not necessary to have all these signs to accommodate the driving public'. 2 6/26/01 1. Commissioner Lorberbaum clarified that Commissioner Friel wanted to say pylon signs. Commissioner Friel agreed, stating pylon signs is fine, adding that is what we were talking about. Chair Lorberbaum, page17, staff should look up and put the information in here rather than to say that there was a discussion 'Planner Grittman clarified the measurements and stated the calculations were measured to include one side'. Commissioner Dolan, page 18, third paragraph down, 'Commissioner Dolan stated he was surprised more discussion was not held' stating it should say 'regarding the variance granted to the adjacent hotel' rather than on this issue, noting the difference with previous issues. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she had to end the next sentence with "stated that a motion had been made". Commissioner Friel, page 20, second to the last sentence, 'He stated that PUD's are good planning tools but do not need a zoning classification of PUD to have one.' Chair Lorberbaum asked Commissioner Friel to clarify the fourth paragraph from the bottom, the large paragraph adding that she has questions on it. She stated the second sentence 'He stated the Council did not act on the amended Section 22' Commissioner Friel stated that no they did. He stated that Council did not act on a recommendation for Section 13. He stated that it should it should be 'He stated the Council adopted the revised PUD' adding that they did. 'He stated that they recommended Section 13 of the ordinance be repealed' adding that the Council did not repeal Section 13 because various parcels of this City had already been zoned under this classification and would create anomalies if this were repealed. Chair Lorberbaum thanked Commissioner Friel for his clarification adding that this is very helpful. Commissioner Dolan, page 22, bottom of page, the ayes and nays after Commissioner Friel moved to recommend tabling this matter, he stated he believes he was an aye on that one and thought Commissioner Betlej was a nay Chair Lorberbaum, page 23, second sentence from the top, she asked for clarification. 'Commissioner Betlej stated that if they would act the Commission could act'. She asked if anyone could clarify that and if they should leave it. Commissioner Friel asked Chair Lorberbaum where she was. 3 6/26/01 Chair Loberbaum clarified that she was on page 23, and again questioned `if they could act they would act ?' Commissioner Friel stated that he did not know what he had in mind. Chair Lorberbaum stated that she didn't either and asked if there was anything else. Commissioner Friel move approval as corrected. Commissioner Bruce McManus seconded. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Lorberbaum stated she wanted to note receipt of April 24, 2001 minutes and asked Administrative Assistant Hollister if these are corrected minutes. Administrative Assistant Hollister stated that the minutes reflect the changes that were requested by the Planning Commission at their last regular meeting plus the additional changes requested by the Chair. CASE NO. #01 -15: Michael J. Meents Fence Height Variance. 795 Creek Avenue Public Hearing 7:45 p.m. Chair Lorberbaum explained that this was a public hearing and that the applicant, Michael J. Meents is requesting approval of a fence height variance. Planner Grittman stated that the applicants' property is at the intersection of Creek Avenue and Dodd Road. He stated that the applicant, Michael J. Meents, is proposing to construct a six -foot high fence along the side property line, enclosing his rear yard. He stated that the City Code for such fences requires a maximum of 36 inches and that a variance would be required to accommodate this request. He stated that the City recently considered an amendment to its zoning ordinance relating to fence height requirements on corner lots by Conditional Use Permits rather than Variances. He explained that this amendment had not been placed in final forum and published and as a result, the variance process still applies. He reviewed the history of the amendment process with the Commission noting that, the applicant in this case still qualifies for variance consideration under the same conditions that were used in previous cases. He stated that approval of this variance would be consistent with the treatment of similarly situated applicants, as well as with the requirements of the variance standards of the zoning ordinance. He stated that the Planning Staff recommends approval of the Meents fence variance as submitted. 4 6/26/01 Commissioner Friel asked why they couldn't convert this to an application for a Conditional Use Permit. Planner Grittman stated that is another option, adding that the Commission is free to make that recommendation. He stated that the City did not publish for a Conditional Use Permit. He stated that they did publish a hearing for the Variance, adding that it is only a question as to whether we can act if we did not published for the exact application. Commissioner Friel stated that whether the City had published for a Conditional Use Permit or a Variance, the matter that is before us, is the same and notice has been given. He stated that his recollection was that once before we did just exactly this. He stated that there was notice as a variance and we treated it as a notice for a Conditional Use Permit, but he was uncertain if the notice requirements were the same. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there was a difference in the fees. Planner Grittman stated that the difference in fees is somewhat substantial. He stated it is his understanding that this was one of the issues with converting from a variance, which is a small fee adding that a Conditional Use Permit is more expensive to apply for. He asked Staff to clarify the reasons for the difference in fees. Administrative Assistant Hollister clarified that a Conditional Use Perna has a greater notice requirement and that it does not require signatures from neighbors. He stated that the Residents are automatically notified in the newspaper and by mail. He explained the notification process for a Conditional Use Permit stating that Residents, within 350-feet from the property receive notification by mail. He stated that a Conditional Use Permit is a more substantial request than a Variance. He stated that in the case of a variance they provide a Resident a list of neighbors who are within 100-feet of the property. He explained that signatures are required by owners and neighbors within 100-feet of the property. He stated that if they get all of the Residents signatures, they do not hold a public hearing. He stated that if they do not get all of the Residents signatures a hearing is held and a Notice of the public hearing is sent to the Neighbors. Commissioner Dolan expressed his concerns stating that it appears that this has to continue as a Variance Request as the required notice for a Conditional Use Permit request was not accomplished. Mike Meents, 795 Creek, presented photographs of the property to show the elevation to the Commission and to clarify the location of the fence. Commissioner Bruce McManus asked for clarification regarding the placement of the fence. He stated that it was his understanding that it would be placed on the lower elevation. He further 5 6/26/01 ( explained that if the fence is placed at 3-feet it would not reach the height of the road. He asked who installed the fence in the back. Mr. Meents stated that the previous owner installed the fence in back. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Meents to clarify what his plans were for the fence in the back. Mr. Meents explained that the previous owner had placed the fence in the back to increase the value of the property for sale. He stated that the entire property has 15 stumps. He explained that it was his plan to remove the fence, have the stumps removed from the property and install a new fence from the Dodd Road side to the back. Commissioner Bruce McManus asked if Mr. Meents was going to fence the entire backyard. He advised the applicant to be aware that the Council and Commission are very interested in the height of fences. He suggested that Mr. Meents remain within the height requirements as stated in the variance. Mr. Meents explained the problems with the first fence adding that the new fence will resolve those issues. There being no questions or comments Commissioner Friel moved that the hearing be closed at 7:57 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Dolan. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commission Friel moved to grant the request for a variance in the height of the fence. Seconded by Commissioner Bruce McManus. Chair Lorberbaum asked if they had a finding for hardship. Commissioner Friel stated that he thought they were proceeding on the premise that on major street areas the City has been sympathetic to the concerns and that they have not paid so much attention to the hardship issue in those cases. Chair Lorberbaum confirmed that she felt that the major street posed a hardship. Commissioner Friel confirmed that he also felt it was a hardship. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. #01-16: Hugh Cullen 6 6/26/01 Conditional Use Permit for Off-site Parking Roseville Properties — SW Corner Centre Point Drive and Centre Point Boulevard Public Hearing 8:00 p.m. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Planner Grittman reviewed the proposal with the Commission and noted that the applicant, Roseville Properties, is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 78-space parking lot on a vacant parcel adjoining Centre Pointe V Office Building. He stated that the existing parking on Centre Point V parcel has been judged inadequate for a proposed tenant, although it meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. He reviewed the parcels stating that a Conditional Use Permit is required for parking lots that are located on property, which is not the same parcel as the principal use. He stated that in this case the parking lot would be the only use of the property pending future development. He reviewed the issues identified with the Commission stating that the Planning Staff believes that the parking lot will be consistent with the existing and future development of the office park. Planner Grittman stated that a future development concept would be helpful in illustrating how the parking lot will avoid interference or dilution of future development capacity. He stated that the findings of the approval option suggested they highlight the fact that this proposal is for existing adjacent development, distinguishing this request from a potential request for other off- site parking, such as a remote commercial lot. He recommended a condition that includes a conceptual development plan be prepared for future reference. He stated that the Engineering Staff is comfortable with the stormwater control in the project and that the Conditional Use Peiiiiit is recommended for approval. He stated that employment is generating the need for the parking and that the lot is well designed. Commissioner Hesse clarified that Planner Grittman indicated that one of the issues was stolin water control. He asked if Staff has been satisfied with the storm water control plan noting that of the water drains to the south and also east to the storm water catch basin. Hugh Cullen, Roseville Properties, reviewed the plans for future development with the Commission. He stated that they have built an additional storm sewer system to serve the park. He stated that they consulted with the Engineer to develop the new sewer system. He stated that it is adequate noting that they have approximately nine acres left. He reviewed the parcels on the map with the Commission stating that this shows, conceptually, what could be developed. He stated that they wait until a tenant comes and they build the building for them. He reviewed the lease agreement stating that they are asking for a small additional lot with the intent to maximize for future development. He stated that it would cost over $100,000 for this parking lot. He stated they would like to reuse this lot and maximize the development. He stated that they brought forward a plan that would put an additional 100,000 square feet of office space there and three different buildings. He stated this plan represents the best option. 7 6/26/01 Commissioner Hesse stated that this appears to be a drop structure and asked for further clarification and if this is what they designed. He asked what portion of the property is draining to that point. Mr. Cullen explained that everything drains to the north and that all the water drains away from the cemetery. He stated that the storm system is already in place and includes the parcel that is being developed. He stated that when the Tip District was removed they knew they had a need for additional storm sewer adding that they went before City Council and received additional assistance for a storm sewer. He stated that this has been reviewed by the City Engineer and has been sized to accommodate everything. Commissioner Hesse stated he noted if go west from Highway 5 that it goes up, adding that he is not sure if it is because of the fill or a natural grade adding that it then comes way down into a ravine. Mr. Cullen confirmed that they graded adding that it was problematic because of the ravine. He stated that they brought in fill to the site to fill and pack the area. He stated that the mound is additional fill to be used in the future. He stated that the water would definitely flow away from the cemetery. He stated that they have a retaining wall and confirmed that it would remain. He stated that for the future they would rather minimize the impact to the cemetery and bring everything to the north. Commissioner Hesse asked if everything to the south would remain. He confirmed that everything to the south would remain. Commissioner Bruce McManus referenced their notes stating that one way to compensate for the concern is with multiple storage commercial usage or structured parking and asked if their future development included this and is it a concern. Planner Grittman stated it is not a concern adding that they did want to raise it that when they build bigger parking lots we build smaller buildings. He mentioned it as a way of compensating for that if it is something of interest adding they are still recommending approval. He stated the size of the parking lot is a small enough impact that they are not talking about using an entire building parcel for a parking lot. Commissioner Friel asked if there isn't adequate parking for this new tenant would we have parking all over the area in places we don't want it. Planner Grittman stated that this could be possible. Commissioner Dolan asked what kind of work is being done that requires all of this parking. 8 6/26/01 Mr. Cullen stated that the tenants would be General Motors Corporation and several Telephone Representatives. He further stated he was not clear on the type of work that they perform. Chair Lorberbaum stated that she noticed five handicapped parking spaces adding that with the additional parking there should be more handicapped parking. She requested that they add additional three handicapped spaces to the plan. Mr. Cullen stated that they would add the additional handicap parking in the lower lot. Commissioner Friel expressed his concerns for future development. He asked for clarification on the arrangements with the tenant in this space and the length of the lease agreement. Mr. Cullen stated that they are contractually obligated to provide parking to the tenant. He stated that if the tenant should leave they could then incorporate the lot into any future development plans or they could incorporate the lot with Centre Point V. He stated that the lease is for seven years. Commissioner Bruce McManus asked if there would be a stairway between the two parking areas. He noted a steep bank and steep ravine to the west and asked for clarification as to how are they plan to keep it from washing into the ravine. Mr. Cullen stated that there would be a dramatic reduction in the elevation compared to what you see today adding that there would be a stairway connecting the two areas. He referenced the steep bank and ravine adding that this is part of the reason they need to do this. He stated that the soil in that area was meant to be taken away. He stated that the dirt needs to be removed and used elsewhere to alleviate the risk. He stated that when they move the hill there would not be the steep grades. He further explained that the lots would be lower and there would no longer be a dramatic slope towards the cemetery. Commissioner Bruce McManus asked if they would need a retaining wall near the cemetery due to the ravine just to the west of the cemetery. Mr. Cullen stated that a Civil Engineer has reviewed the plan and that they are far enough away from the cemetery that the ravine would not be an issue. Chair Lorberbaum opened the Public Hearing at 8:16 p.m. There being no questions or comments Commissioner Lorberbaum moved to close the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Commission Dolan seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 9 6/26/01 Commissioner Friel moved to recommend the Conditional Use Peunit for Off-site Parking for the Roseville Properties — SW Comer Centre Point Drive and Centre Point Boulevard to include the following conditions: Conceptual Development plan illustrating how the parking lot will avoid interference or dilution of future development capacity and a minimum of three additional handicapped parking spaces. Seconded by Commissioner Lorberbaum. Chair Lorberbaum stated that she is appreciative of the fact that Roseville Properties has presented the Planning Commission with a proposal of how the undeveloped area could be developed without any variances. Roseville Properties needs to understand that by showing us the feasibility of developing the undeveloped parcel without a variance and if Roseville Properties gets this Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission will not look favorable to a future variance request for the undeveloped property because this is a modification of their making. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Continued Discussion — MU-PUD Language Administrative Assistant Hollister stated that the Council, at their last regular meeting on April 7, 2001, directed the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing in May on the creation of a Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development District. He stated that they authorized City Planner Steve Planner Grittman to draft the proposed language for that district. He stated that the Public Hearing took place on May 22, 2001. He explained that the May Planning Commission hearing did not consider actually zoning the parcels involved in the Town Centre redevelopment adding that a public hearing will take place at a future Planning Commission meeting after the district is created. He reviewed the Town Centre project with respect to the MU-PUD and rezoning. He stated that at the May 22, 2001 Planning Commission meeting Planner Grittman presented his proposed MU-PUD language to the Planning Commission. He reviewed the discussion and concerns raised at the meeting stating that Commissioner Friel recommended that the public hearing on the MU-PUD zoning district be continued to the June 26, 2001 Planning Commission meeting and that the Planning Commission seek further Council input on the need to create the MU-PUD zone and to rezone the Town Centre property to this new zone. Administrative Assistant Hollister explained that in response to the Commission's request, Staff conveyed the Planning Commission's inquiry to the Council at their regular meeting on June 5, 2001. He stated that the Council had no additional comments other than to say that the Council feels that the creation of the MU-PUD zone and the rezoning of the Town Centre site to this new zone are necessary for complete control over this unique development. He explained that the Council said that they concur with the reasons for the new zone presented by Planner Grittman. He stated that the Council would consider adoption of the ordinance creating the new MU-PUD zone at its next meeting on July 10, 2001. He explained that the Council would not be rezoning any property to this new zone until a later meeting and after a publicized and conducted public 10 6/26/01 hearing at a future Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the Council is seeking any input the Planning Commission would like to offer on the language of the new zone. Chair Lorberbaum clarified that what we are doing is talking about the creation of the zone not applying this to any property. Administrative Assistant Hollister stated it would involve sending notices to a large part of the community. Commissioner Friel stated that he thought the issue before us tonight is the amendment of the zoning ordinance to provide for an MU -PUD classification in the zoning ordinance not to rezone anything. Administrative Assistant Hollister confirmed that this is the intent for discussion. Commissioner Friel stated he didn't have any questions adding that he is very troubled by the process. He stated that what troubles him is that the City Council can accomplish the objective, under existing ordinances. He stated what it appears we are involved in is a process of making sure, by getting the cart before the horse, that we cutoff the options of property owners, pending having someone in place to do this development so that the property owners can't frustrate those objectives. He stated that he does not think that is a valid planning objective for a City. Commissioner Friel said it appears that we are creating a zoning classification in the City to deal with a particular circumstance. He stated that seemed clear from what Mr. Grittman said at the last meeting, when he explained that the advantage of a Mixed PUD zoning is it limits the options. Commissioner Friel referenced a memorandum from Mr. Hollister containing the same sort of language in its second paragraph, and there has been no response from the City Council, to this commission's inquiry except to repeat that this zoning classification is necessary for a particular development in the City. He stated that he didn't believe that was the purpose for zoning classifications. He stated zoning classifications, from his rather lengthy experience in municipal government, is to deal with planning generally in the community, not to deal with a particular plan. He stated that in this particular case, it appears that the zoning classification is being proposed to frustrate any reasonable opportunity by the property owners to do something with the property. Commissioner Friel stated that he doesn't object to the creation of Town Centre but he is reminded that the City is apparently facing a difficulty that he remembers facing in the Court Room as a young lawyer. He stated he was having difficulty getting evidence in when the Judge reminded him that the difficulty in doing something does not dispense with the necessity for it. He stated that the City Council, in this process, is attempting to circumvent an appropriate 11 6/26/01 planning process in order to frustrate any possibility that their objectives won't be attained and he believes that is inappropriate. Commissioner Friel referenced Section 22 of the ordinance, which already permits a PUD on this property. He stated that in addition, if you go ahead and we create this zoning classification and the City approves it, as it apparently will, and for some reason the project doesn't go forward, we have done exactly what the City Council did in 1987 or 88 with what is now Mendakota Park. He recalled the City authorized a PUD on that property resulting in an increase in the value of the property and then the project for which the PUD was approved didn't go forward and later as a consequence of this PUD the City paid a higher price for the land when it was acquired for Mendakota Park. Commissioner Friel stated he has not heard a good reason yet for going ahead and creating this district. He stated that nomnally you would have a property owner and developer who would come to the City with a proposal for a planned unit development. He stated the developer would be purchasing the property subject to approval of the proposal and then it would go forward. Commissioner Friel stated that here we appear to have the cart going before the horse. He stated it appears what the Council has in mind, is to create the zoning classification, then rezone it and then hope we get a developer, in as far as he knows at this point in time we don't have anyone signed up to do the project for us. He stated he would be interested in hearing if that is in error. Public Works Director Danielson stated that they are talking with the developer, Ross Peppercorn, the Developer that has helped us all along. Commissioner Friel stated that he understood that they have not signed any agreements yet. He stated that those are his concerns adding that one last concern and that is the language of the last sentence of 13.2.2 which gives the City Council absolute discretion on density matters stating that is exactly the kind of language in an ordinance that is designed to get you into a court room with arbitrary and capricious determination because it gives absolute discretion to a governing, municipal body without any standard to abide by. Apparently the City has forgotten the bind it had gotten into in Kirschner VS Mendota Heights, which is precisely the same kind of a matter. He believed it is inappropriate language and should be removed. Chair Lorberbaum stated that is exactly where she is coming from adding that this is going to be brought up before the City Council in July and that we need to look at the language. She expressed her concern regarding a sentence starting with the City Council shall have the authority to modify density. She stated she would like to strike that starting from `The City Council through to the end of that paragraph' and also change the sentence before `the density of individual uses in the MU -PUD District may be guided' she stated she would like to see `should be guided'. 12 6/26/01 Commissioner Dolan stated he has a question about the language in 13.1.2.d adding that he understands the concept behind this that we want to, to the extent we can, bind any future developers. He stated that he is not sure this language does that adding that what it says is that R2, R3, B1 and B2 are permitted but couldn't a developer, even if it was zoned MU -PUD, simply develop an entirely R2 or R3 district and is this doing what we intended to do. Commissioner Friel stated that under Section 13 you have to follow the procedures under Section 22, which requires you to enter into a PUD agreement with respect to the project. He stated that an individual owner of property is not in the position to get involved in a development contract for a PUD but could possibly comply with the underlying zoning Commissioner Dolan clarified that Commissioner Friel's point is that you have to go through that process anyway. Commissioner Friel disagreed saying that if you have a MU -PUD Zoning Classification you must proceed under Section 22, but if you have any other zoning classification you aren't required to follow Section 22 unless you want to do a PUD. Commissioner Dolan referenced the language at the very end of the second to the last sentence in the same paragraph that says `provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan' and asked if this language was required and isn't that always the case. Planner Grittman acknowledged that it would be the case adding that the Comprehensive Plan isn't always directive as to the specific land uses that are allowed in a zoning district. He stated the attempt here was to limit to some land uses that are listed under the zoning ordinances. He stated it goes on to say that the Council has the authority to approve other uses by special permit. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan always applies from a land use standpoint adding that it is not always specific and that is why they wanted a specific list of uses that would be preferred if not required. Commissioner Friel suggested that the language might be helpful in the event and because of the change in the Comprehensive Plan being the paramount document in connection with land use rather than zoning. He stated that under that 95 law it would give the comfort of being consistent with the paramount document if you had a problem with the Metropolitan Council. Commissioner Dolan confirmed that the zoning ordinance already states this and referenced 13.2.1a already says that the PUD has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he was ok with the language adding that he does not think it is absolutely necessary but that it is fine. He referenced 13.2.2 and noted that they added the word `residential' before `planned unit development' and obviously eliminated the LB -PUD and assumes it simply doesn't apply because we are talking about dwelling unit density adding that it technically applied under the existing ordinance. 13 6/26/01 Planner Grittman confirmed that Commissioner Dolan is correct. He stated that the existing language appeared to apply it adding that he was correct, that they did look at it as a residential clause. Commissioner Hesse stated that he understands that they are dealing with language here and will leave that to the attorneys. He stated that one reason why he voted to pass it back to Council, adding that he may not have been too clear, he clarified that with the MU-PUD, forget Town Centre, acknowledging that Cities age and certain areas age, he asked if there are any other thoughts where this would come into play sooner than later. Planner Grittman stated that the property to the south of the Town Centre shopping area is designated, in the Comprehensive Plan, for Mixed Use PUD adding that this is would be an area where theoretically, this district would be applied. Commissioner Bruce McManus stated that he feels like a juror listening to expert lawyers trying to get the essence of what is being said because he knows he cannot follow all of the nuances here. He stated it appears to him that the City Council wants this MU-PUD so that they can get a lock on what happens on the City Centre plan project. He stated that it appears to him that his colleague, Commissioner Friel, says that A. this is not necessary. B. This is bad policy and perhaps bad law and C. it infringes on the rights of the property owner. He asked if he had this correct and if there is anyone here who can help this neophyte juror weigh this issue thoroughly or is this a clear cut issue and has to be decided that way. Commissioner Hesse stated that he shares the same confusion as Commissioner Bruce McManus. He stated that Commissioner Friel has provided good clarification for him adding that what is being considered is language to be added to the ordinance. He stated that it has been brought forth that this will have a substantial affect on one specific development he stated that this is not what is being considered today, that it is more the language in the ordinance adding that what he has done to try and stay away from that question, assuming that question will come before us again, specific to this project, where that question will be more appropriate. He stated he is not saying that maybe they shouldn't answer it here he is just asking that this be considered assuming that it will come. Chair Lorberbaum clarified that the bottom line is that this language is going before the City Council. She stated that they can, as group, recommend that they not include it, and at the same time we can say 'having said we recommend you not adopt it, if you are going to adopt it, here are the changes we would like you to make'. She stated that personally, this is where she is coming from and suggested that they focus on the language and we will be revisiting the issue of the designation of the specific parcel later adding that they can make both of these recommendations. Commissioner Bruce McManus stated that he understands the desire of our elected representatives to keep control over what happens in the Town Centre adding that this appears to 14 6/26/01 be legitimate government involvement. He stated that without, and stated he needs to be specific adding that he is not sure if the lawyers would like to answer this and noting that this may be an out of the line question. He stated that if we should seriously damage what they are trying to do with this MU -PUD, would we hurt the ability of our elected representatives to control what happens over there on that particular site. He stated that after that he would be willing to address the bigger issue. Commissioner Friel stated that he had responded stating that if there is a problem with the approach to this that we are involved and it is a problem the City Council has created by proceeding in this fashion. He stated that when we learn from Staff that the City objective is that this is the best mechanism to assure that the Council not only facilitates the development of the Town Centre, but inhibits anything that would conflict with the development of the Town Center adding that it is not the purpose of zoning classifications to facilitate a particular project A governmental body obtains control of property for public purpose by condemnation, not be rezoning. Commissioner Bruce McManus stated he would like to vote with a smidgen of knowledge. Chair Lorberbaum stated that there are two separate questions being discussed here; whether you like the idea of a MU -PUD or not ... and the language presented to us in the ordinance. She stated that she wants to separate these two issues. No matter what we think of the concept, the issue of the creation of a MU -PUD will come before the City Council. Independent on the results of our vote here tonight, the City council will read our minutes and have the opportunity to think about what we have said. We need to turn our attention to the language of the MU -PUD. Commissioner Bruce McManus asked will the City Council, will our elected representatives, will their staff, and have sufficient control in what happens if this language is used. He stated that we know that they will have a large amount of control over what happens in that project and clarified that Commissioner Friel is stating that the policy is not appropriate. He stated that his question is, if this does not exist, in referencing this specific project, adding that they wouldn't even be looking at this if it wasn't a specific project, adding that from a legal point of view, will our elective representatives and will their staff have sufficient control over what happens there in order to avoid a serious mess from developing. Commissioner Friel stated that he cannot say yes or no to Commissioner Bruce McManus' question adding that he can say that they have the power of condemnation and if they are satisfied that they are going to go forward with this project then they are going to condemn and acquire property so that they can accomplish that objective. He stated that they don't need to frustrate these other opportunities that the property owners might have by doing this. He stated they can cut those other options off by condemnation or purchase. He stated that all they have to do is file a notice of condemnation and they shut it off they don't need this. 15 6/26/01 Chair Lorberbaum clarified that they would still have the Mixed Used PUD in the Comprehensive Plan and that we have parcels designated for this without that zoning system She stated that we still have a problem there and it needs to be address. She stated that since we have designated parcels as MU -PUD, it would be helpful, and we are probably even obligated, to describe a MU -PUD. Commissioner Friel stated there are two different things, zoning classifications and classifications with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that we have had differences in those classifications for a long time. He stated that he did not think the inconsistencies are a bad thing. Chair Lorberbaum stated that they should be in compliance if we can make them so. Commissioner Dolan stated that this is not a good thing. He stated that to have consistency between the two is better than having inconsistencies. Commissioner Friel stated that there are some real good reasons and referenced a philosophical argument that stems from the Commission, City Council and Legislatures when we tried to get the State Legislature to repeal what the Metropolitan Council had done by insisting that there be that inconsistency because there is a need from a planning standpoint a good reason to have those inconsistencies. Commissioner Friel stated that as long as your zoning is paramount to your Comprehensive Plan and gives you latitude to do things over a period of time that gives people warning as to what your objectives were and told them at the same time that the understanding that your objectives were ultimately to do this, you can only do what the zoning plan said now. He stated that the reason for those Comprehensive Plan changes and inconsistencies are when development in the community proceeded to the point where your sewer and water, and transportation systems are more in place, then the Comprehensive Plan designations were appropriate basis for changing your zoning. He stated that the lack of consistency was very desirable because it told you what you could do now and what would likely happen in the future. Commissioner Bruce McManus asked if we were to act in accordance with what Commissioner Friel and is now talking in terms of broad general process, not the specific site, he asked would that seriously hinder the process of organized municipal planning for the community or are there other means available to achieve the same thing. Planner Grittman stated that Commissioner Friel is correct in that the City has the right of condemnation of a property. He stated that this would probably be the only way they could require it to occur without an amendment such as this one. He stated that it sounds like the City's option without this would be condemnation of purchase and then literally developing it themselves or directing a buyer to develop by contract. 16 6/26/01 Commissioner Friel stated that he thought the question went a bit further stating that it was basically would the failure to create an MU -PUD district frustrate the development of Town Center under our existing ordinances without having any PUD district adding that in other words can you use Section 22 to do an MU -PUD. Planner Grittman stated that you can if the property owner brings that application. He clarified that if City was the property owner it could clearly happen and that if the City were not the property owner, the Council's concern would be that a property owner could pursue a different development than what might be envisioned without direction by the Council. Commissioner Dolan clarified his understanding of the language and stated he is not objecting to the last sentence. Chair Lorberbaum moved to accept language as shown to us by the Planner except for the last two sentences that are to be stricken starting with `The City shall have the authority to' those two sentences are stricken and the sentence prior to that where it says `The district may be guided' change to `shall be guided'. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Dolan referenced the second to the last sentence `City Council shall have the authority to determine the allowed of density based on the quality and components of the planned unit development' stating that this does not sound as arbitrary as the last sentence adding that it seems that is the way it is reviewed anyway and is not objecting to that sentence. Chair Lorberbaum stated that is her understanding also adding that it is not necessary. Commissioner Bruce McManus asked for clarification on how they determine quality. Planner Grittman stated the Council would determine quality based on materials, value, a conceptual plan and how closely the proposal complies with the conceptual plan. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Friel moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it not amend the zoning ordinance to provide for an MU -PUD district for many reasons we have already discussed. Commissioner Dolan stated he is not in favor of the motion. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan designations that we have must refer to a zoning classification that, even though it is not consistent, at least addressed the issue. 17 6/26/01 1 Chair Lorberbaum asked if there was a second to Commissioner Friel's motion. She stated that hearing no second the motion fails. Commissioner Hesse stated he did not want to second and asked do we have the authority to make a motion if we have not been asked adding that there are two Commissioners not present that may want to have input on the issues. Chair Lorberbaum stated that we can make a recommendation on anything we want adding that they may not agree with the recommendation. She requested that the minutes should reflect discussion as the minutes are shared with the Council and that it will provide the Council with a sense of the discussion held this evening. VERBAL REVIEW Chair Lorberbaum requested a verbal review of the matters that were submitted to the City Council for consideration. Public Works Director Danielson informed the Commission of the Council action taken on recent planning cases. He reminded the Commission that the meeting will be on the 5th Tuesday, July 31, 2001. Chair Lorberbaum stated that there is a Council Workshop coming up for the Town Centre and asked for the date. She stated at that there will be a discussion of guidelines. Administrative Assistant Hollister stated it would be held July 17, 2001 at 7 p.m. at City Hall. He stated the subject would be the Design Guidelines for Development. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Planning Commission, Commissioner Bruce McManus moved to adjourn its meeting at 9:04 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Friel. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Respectfully submitted, Bonita Sullivan, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 18 6/26/01