Loading...
2001-07-31 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 31, 2001 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 31, 2001, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lorberbaum and Commissioners B. McManus, Betlej, M. McManus, Hesse, Dolan, and Friel. City Staff present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman of NAC. Mr. Hollister took the minutes. APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CHAIR Chair Lorberbaum announced that Commissioner Betlej would serve as Acting Chair for the evening. MINUTES Acting Chair Betlej announced that the approval of the June 26, 2001 minutes would be postponed to next month. PLANNING CASE #01 -17: ROBERT AND FLORIE MARVY, 1837 SUMMIT LANE RICHARD AND HARRIET DVORAK, 1831 SUMMIT LANE JAMES AND SHARON AWADA, 1825 SUMMIT LANE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND LOT AREA VARIANCE Acting Chair Betlej introduced this planning application and asked Mr. Grittman to provide an overview of this planning application. Mr. Gri ttman provided an overview of this planning application. Acting Chair Betlej then asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Richard Dvorak said that he, Bob Marvy, and Michael Awada (on behalf of his parents) were present to discuss their application for a Lot Line Adjustment and Lot Area Variance to bring the lot lines between the three properties into alignment with existing improvements to all three properties. Mr. Dvorak explained that after all three houses had been built and after other improvements such as landscaping, sprinkler systems and a pool had been installed, the three homeowners discovered that the contractors had used the wrong survey stakes to determine the lot lines between the three properties. Mr. Dvorak said that he had discovered the error in June of 1981. Mr. Dvorak said that all three neighbors had enjoyed a good relationship and that the error had not caused any problems until this year, when the Marys had decided to sell their house and became concerned about possible title problems. Mr. Dvorak said that all three neighbors had decided that the time had come to resolve these discrepancies while the original homeowners were still involved. Mr. Dvorak acknowledged that although all three lots currently met the 15,000 square foot minimum size requirement, after the lot line adjustment the Marvys' lot would be slightly less than 15,000 square feet. Mr. Marvy added that he has already sold his home, although the closing has not yet occurred. Mr. Marvy said that the buyer is aware of the lot line issue and has no problem with reducing the size of the lot to slightly less than 15,000 square feet. Mr. Marvy said that he needed to resolve this issue soon in order to deliver clean title to the buyer. Mr. Awada added that it would be much cheaper and easier to adjust the lot lines than to move the entire infrastructure in place. Acting Chair Betlej observed that apart from the applicants, there was no -one present to speak at the public hearing on this application. Acting Chair Betlej asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Chair Lorberbaum moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Betlej then asked for a motion on the application. Commissioner Lorberbaum moved to approve the Lot Line Adjustment and Lot Area Variance for the three properties on Summit Lane as proposed, based on the following hardships: . The homeowners are suffering from an error made by their contractors twenty -one years ago and have invested considerable amounts of money in improvements based upon that error. 2. The encroachment of the above infrastructure on adjacent properties will likely pose title and title insurance problems at the time of resale. 3. The lot size variances for two of the lots are negligible and will make no material difference in the character of the properties or the neighborhood. Commissioner Friel added a friendly amendment that as a condition of approval, the City Engineer review and approve the corresponding vacation and re- establishment of any City easements for drainage and utilities, as recommended by the City Planner. Chair Lorberbaum accepted the friendly amendment. Commissioner B. McManus seconded the motion. 2 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 The motion passed on a 7 -0 vote. Acting Chair Betlej instructed the three homeowners to be present at the August 7, 2001 Council meeting to present this application and to answer any questions the Council may have. PLANNING CASE #01 -18: SCOTT AND MARSHA SPATAFORE, 1070 CHIPPEWA AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR A DETACHED GARAGE Acting Chair Betlej introduced this planning application and asked Mr. Grittman to provide an overview of this planning application. Mr. Grittman provided an overview of this planning application. Acting Chair Betlej then asked to hear from the applicant. Marsha Spatafore of 1070 Chippewa Avenue said that she was present to discuss her application for a Conditional Use Permit and variances for a detached garage. Ms. Spatafore said that she has an existing 800 square foot detached garage that is four feet from the property line. Ms. Spatafore said that she wishes to replace this garage with an 840 square foot detached garage eight feet from the property line. Ms. Spatafore said that her garage would require both a variance for size greater than 750 square feet and a two -foot side yard setback variance. Ms. Spatafore said that the size variance was necessary in order to be able to store three cars and a boat in the garage, and the setback variance was necessary to protect a 40' white pine tree west of the garage. Acting Chair Betlej noted that Planner Grittman had recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit but not the variances. Acting Chair Betlej noted that Mr. Grittman had said that the Spatafores could build a new detached garage that conformed to the setback and size requirements in the ordinance and preserved the tree, and that the applicant had not demonstrated a hardship justifying the variances. Acting Chair Betlej opened the public hearing. Ms. Mariana Oster of 1068 Esther Lane spoke in favor of Ms. Spatafore's application and said that she should be allowed enough space to store her boat in the garage. Ms. Spatafore indicated that if the size variance is denied she will be forced to continue to live with her existing 800 square foot garage. Acting Chair Betlej observed that there was no one else present in the audience to speak on this matter. Acting Chair Betlej asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Friel moved to close the public hearing. 3 Commissioner B. McManus seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Betlej then asked for a motion on this matter. Commissioner Friel moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit but deny the Variances for the detached garage for 1070 Chippewa Avenue based on the lack of a demonstrable hardship. Commissioner B. McManus seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Betlej) Acting Chair Betlej instructed Ms. Spatafore to be present at the August 7, 2001 Council meeting to discuss this application and to answer any questions the Council may have. PLANNING CASE 401-19: ROBERT AND PATRICIA PACE, 991 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL SUBDIVISION Acting Chair Betlej introduced this planning application and asked Mr. Grittman to provide an overview of this planning application. Mr. Grittman provided an overview of this planning application. Acting Chair Betlej then asked to hear from the applicant. Robert Pace, owner of the property at 991 Wagon Wheel Trail, said that he was present to discuss his application for a Subdivision. Mr. Pace said that he would like to divide his property into two lots. Mr. Pace said that the new Parcel A would be 86,660 square feet in size and the new Parcel B would be 17,700 square feet in size. Mr. Pace said that he intends to build his new home on Parcel A and continue renting out the existing house on Parcel B. Mr. Pace submitted a survey showing the lot division, the existing structures on the property, the proposed location of his new house, and a delineation of a wetland on the property. Mr. Pace added that he had also originally applied for a wetlands permit per Staff instruction due to the existence of a wetland on his property. Mr. Pace withdrew his wetlands application since he had decided that he would not be building his house within 100 feet of the wetland. Commissioner Friel pointed out that the Pace property currently has a house with three accessory structures on it, all of which will be in the new Parcel B after the subdivision. Commissioner Friel quoted the following excerpt from Section 7.3(10) of the Zoning Ordinance: In the event that any property upon which an accessory structure or structures have been erected shall later be subdivided, then the number and size of accessory structures on the 4 subdivided property shall confon to the requirements of this ordinance and those that do not conform shall be relocated removed, or reconstructed so that they do conform. Commissioner Friel said that since the Pace property had an existing detached garage and two accessory structures, in order to comply with Section 7.3(10) of the Zoning Ordinance at least one of the structures had to be removed. Commissioner Friel said that which structure or structures needed to be removed depended on the size of the structures. Commissioner Friel said that if either of the structures labeled "shed" were greater than 144 square feet they would have to be removed, and if the structure labeled "existing garage" were greater than 750 square feet in size it would have to be removed. Acting Chair Betlej opened the public hearing on this application. Mr. Scott Miller, 1021 Wagon Wheel Trail, said that he was sorry to see this subdivision application because Wagon Wheel Trail is a unique area in Mendota Heights and he would like to see it stay unique. Mr. Miller also said that if the subdivision were approved, he would not like to see the existing house become a rental property. Mr. Pace responded that the existing house is already a rental property, and has been so for two years. Mr. Pat O'Leary, 987 Wagon Wheel Trail, told the Commission that he is the neighbor immediately to the east of the Pace's property and that he would like Mr. Pace to remove a shed that straddles the lot line between their two properties. Mr. Pace responded that there is an easement on file that allowed the shed to remain. Mr. O'Leary acknowledged the existence of the easement, but said that he would still like it to be removed. Planner Grittman said that he felt that the shed should be removed as a condition of approval of the subdivision because it is a non - conforming structure regardless of any easement. Commissioner Friel disagreed with Planner Grittman, saying that if an easement of record is filed for the shed's location then it was not a non - conforming structure merely because it straddled the lot line. Acting Chair Betlej observed that there was no one else in the audience present to speak at the public hearing on this matter. Acting Chair Betlej asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Chair Lorberbaum moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Betlej then asked for a motion on the application. 5 Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the Council approve the Subdivision of the property at 991 Wagon Wheel Trail subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed lot descriptions are found to be acceptable by the Dakota County Recorder. 2. The City Engineer verify whether or not right -of -way should be formally dedicated as part of this subdivision. 3. The recommendations of the City Engineer relating to easement establishment (drainage and utility) are satisfactorily met. 4. That one or more of the existing accessory structures on the property be removed in order to bring the property into conformance with Section 7.3(10) of the zoning ordinance. 5. That the applicant.be required to apply for a wetlands permit if the final plans for the house show any construction or disturbance of land within 100' of the wetland on the property, per the City's wetlands ordinance. Chair Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Betlej instructed Mr. Pace to be present at the August 7, 2001 Council meeting to discuss this application and to answer any questions the Council may have. PLANNING CASE #01 -20: DENNIS TROOIEN OF DS OF CENTRE POINTE (GNB), 1101 CENTRE POINTE CURVE FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR SIGNS Acting Chair Betlej introduced this planning application and asked Mr. Grittman to provide an overview of this planning application. Mr. Grittman provided an overview of this planning application. Acting Chair Betlej then asked to hear from the applicant. John Pilgrim of Rosewood Construction, representing Dennis Trooien, owner of the building formerly known as GNB, said that he was present to discuss Mr. Trooien's application for front yard setback variances to replace three freestanding signs with new signs at slightly different locations. Mr. Pilgrim said that two of the signs are along Lexington Avenue to the east and the third sign is along Centre Pointe Drive to the north. Mr. Pilgrim said that Mr. Trooien would like to place all three signs five feet from the property lines. Mr. Pilgrim noted that the parcel containing the GNB building and the two signs along Lexington is zoned B -1A. Mr. Pilgrim added that the northern sign along Centre Pointe Curve is on a separate parcel zoned B -1. 6 Planner Grittman said that he recommended that this variance application be denied. Mr. Grittman told the Commission that in the case of the two signs along Lexington, he could not find a hardship justifying a 95 -foot variance from the 100 -foot setback in the B 1 -A zone. Mr. Grittman added that the northern sign along Centre Pointe Curve not only violates the zoning ordinance in Willis of setbacks but also in terms of allowing a free - standing sign on its own separate parcel with no accompanying principal use. Mr. Grittman said that even if the City were willing. to grant the setback variances, the City should require that the two parcels be combined to allow the northern sign. Mr. Pilgrim said that currently the three existing signs are all different in appearance and that this variance application was motivated by Mr. Trooien's desire to give the signage for the former GNB building some consistency. Commissioner B. McManus asked Planner Grittman if the variance application were to be denied, would the owner of the property be allowed to maintain, paint, and/or change the message on the three existing signs. Mr. Gri tlman said that these activities would be allowed as long as the signs were not moved or replaced. Acting Chair Betlej observed that apart from the applicant, there was no -one present to speak at the public hearing on this application. Acting Chair Betlej asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Chair Lorberbaum moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Betlej then asked for a motion on the application. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the Council deny the Front Yard Setback Variance application for signs at 1101 Centre Pointe Curve due to the lack of a demonstrable hardship, and in the case of the northern sign along Centre Pointe Curve, the zoning ordinance prohibition on freestanding signs on lots with no principal use. Chair Lorberbaum seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Betlej instructed Mr. Pilgrim to be present at the August 7, 2001 Council meeting to discuss this application and to answer any questions the Council may have. 7 PLANNING CASE #01 -21: HAVEN CHEMICAL HEALTH, 2535 CONDON COURT AMENDMENT TO THE B -1 ZONING ORDINANCE Acting Chair Betlej introduced this planning application and asked Mr. Grittman to provide an overview of this planning application. Mr. Grittman provided an overview of this planning application. Acting Chair Betlej then asked to hear from representatives of Haven Chemical Health. Joe Christianson said that he and Bob Haven were present on behalf of Haven Chemical Health to discuss the City's application to amend the B -1 zone to allow Residential Treatment Facilities as a Conditional Use and their own applications for a Rezoning of 2535 Condon Court from R -1 to B -1 and a Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Treatment Facility. Chair Betlej opened the Public Hearing on this application. Ms. Joan Peron told the Commission that her son lives next door to the proposed Haven house at 2525 Condon Court with his wife and two daughters. Ms. Peron added that her son and daughter -in -law operate a day care business in their home. Ms. Peron asked the following questions: 1. Ms. Peron said that her son had recently installed a new well for his home on the assumption that his property would not be rezoned to B -1 for several years. Ms. Peron asked if rezoning the Haven property meant that her son's property would also be rezoned in the near future. Mr. Christianson answered that although he could not speak for the City, in all likelihood the City would wait for the property owner at 2525 Condon Court to apply for a rezoning before rezoning the property. 2. Ms. Peron asked how many staff members would be at the facility to serve the ten residents. Mr. Haven said that there would be three staff members on hand to serve the ten residents. 3. Ms. Peron asked if the staff members would be volunteers or trained professionals. Mr. Haven said that they would be trained professionals. 4. Ms. Peron asked when visitors would be allowed at the site and how many visitors would be allowed at one time. Mr. Haven said that visitors would only be allowed on Sundays and that they would only be admitted in small groups. 5. Ms. Peron asked who would be liable if any of her son's property were damaged by the residents of the Haven facility. This question was not addressed. 6. Ms. Peron asked if the residents would only be treated for alcohol addictions or if they would also be treated for drug addictions. Mr. Haven said that this treatment facility would cover both alcohol and drug addictions. 8 7. Ms. Peron asked what the impact of the Haven facility would be on her son's property value. This question was not addressed. 8. Ms. Peron expressed concern that Haven Chemical Health would be unable to screen out sex offenders because sex offenders are able to plea bargain down to lesser crimes. The Planning Commission discussed this issue at length and settled on the language for the Conditional Use Permit below. 9. Ms. Peron asked if all residents of the facility would be Minnesota residents or if some of them would be from out -of- state. Ms. Peron said that it takes longer to get criminal background information for out -of -state residents and that Haven Chemical Health might not wait to get that information before admitting someone to the facility. Mr. Haven said that in the beginning all of his clients would be Minnesota Residents, but that he may have out -of -state residents because of his arrangements with corporations like 3M in Maplewood, many of whose employees live in Wisconsin. 10. Ms. Peron asked how long residents have to wait to be admitted to the program. Mr. Haven said that he projected that there would be a two -week waiting list for residents. 11. Ms. Peron asked why Mr. Haven's other two facilities were outpatient facilities. Mr. Haven said that Haven Chemical Health is a new company and that it is expensive to start inpatient programs. 12. Ms. Peron asked if the doors to the facility would be equipped with some type of alarm system so that the staff would know if a resident attempted to leave. Mr. Haven said that the doors would be equipped with buzzers that alert Staff if they are opened. Mr. Haven said that any resident who desires to leave the facility would be allowed to do so and would be given a ride home. Acting Chair Betlej noted that there was no -one else present to speak at this public hearing. Acting Chair Betlej asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Friel moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner B. McManus seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Betlej then asked for a motion on the application. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the Council approve the draft amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to create a Conditional Use for Residential Treatment Facilities in the B -1 zone, modeled after the draft provided by the Council but with several modifications: ® twenty -four (24) hour awake, on -duty supervision shall be provided for all residents; 9 • no resident's stay shall exceed thirty (30) days within .• b' _ . - .. , one year commencing with the resident's first day of admission, and no more than 3 such admissions shall be permitted during said year; • those admitted shall have the primary diagnosis of chemical dependency • residential treatment facilities shall be housed in buildings that serve no other purpose Commissioner B. McManus seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 ( Betlej) Commissioner Betlej explained his vote in opposition by saying that there should stronger language prohibiting sex offenders, dangerous persons, and the severely mentally ill from being admitted to the facility. PLANNING CASE #01 -22: HAVEN CHEMICAL HEALTH, 2535 CONDON COURT REZONING OF 2535 CONDON COURT FROM R -1 TO B -1 Acting Chair Betlej introduced this planning application and asked Mr. Grittman to provide an overview of this planning application. Planner Grit wan introduced this application on the part of Haven Chemical Health. Mr. Grittman noted that the underlying Comprehensive Plan guidance for this parcel is LB -PUD and that the 1995 Minnesota Land Use Planning Act requires municipalities to bring their zoning designations into confolinance with their Comprehensive Plan designations. Acting Chair Betlej noted that there were no residents in the audience to speak at this public hearing. Acting Chair Betlej asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Chair Lorberbaum moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Betlej then asked for a motion on the application. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the Council approve the Rezoning of 2535 Condon Court from R -1 to B -1 to be consistent with the underlying Comprehensive Plan designation of LB -PUD. Commissioner Dolan seconded the motion. 10 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 PLANNING CASE #01 -23: HAVEN CHEMICAL HEALTH, 2535 CONDON COURT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY AT 2535 CONDON COURT Acting Chair Betlej introduced this planning application and asked Mr. Grittman to provide an overview of this planning application. Planner Grittman introduced this application on behalf of Haven Chemical Health for a Conditional Use Peu.uit for a Residential Treatment Facility at 2535 Condon Court. The Planning Commission discussed with Mr. Haven and Mr. Christianson issues such as sewer and water utilities, parking, and lighting. Acting Chair Betlej noted that there were no residents in the audience to speak at this public hearing. Acting Chair Betlej asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner B, McManus moved to close the public hearing. Acting Chair Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Betlej then asked for a motion on the application. Chair Lorberbaum moved to recommend that the Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Treatment Facility at 2535 Condon Court conditioned on several requirements in addition to those contained in Section 14.2(13) and 14.2(14) of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. No more than 10 cars for residents, visitors or staff shall be parked at the facility any given time. 2. The lighting for the property shall conform to the zoning ordinance. 3. Haven Chemical Health shall submit to the City of Mendota Heights an annual report on the length of stay of each resident and an affimiation that they are complying with all representations made in writing in their planning application submissions contained in Planning Case File #'s 01 -22 and 01 -23. 4. In the event that the City of Mendota Heights Engineering Staff or their retained expert determine that the sanitary system for the property is not sufficient or functioning adequately, Haven Chemical Health shall expand the septic drain field or employ other remedial measures as directed by the City of Mendota Heights. 11 Commissioner B. McManus seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Betlej instructed Mr. Christianson and Mr. Haven to be present at the August 7, 2001 Council meeting to discuss these three applications and to answer any questions the Council may have. PLANNING CASE #01 -24: CAROLYN KRALL, LANDFORM (ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS) TOWN CENTER PARCELS REZONING FROM R -1 AND B -2 TO MU -PUD Acting Chair Betlej introduced this planning application and asked Mr. Grittman to provide an overview of this planning application. Mr. Grittman said that Carolyn Krall of Landfomn was present to discuss the City's application for a Rezoning of the Town Center Parcels from R -1 and B -2 to MU -PUD. Mr. Grittman explained that the Council had adopted the ordinance creating the MU -PUD zone at their regular meeting on July 10, and now sought to rezone all parcels involved in the Town Center redevelopment to the new MU -PUD zone. Mr. Grittman reviewed a map of the Town Center parcels involved and explained that the Animal Hospital property had been excluded from the rezoning application because it is not part of the Town Center redevelopment. Mr. Grittman added that in addition to being considered necessary by the Council for the Town Center redevelopment, the rezoning to MU -PUD would also be required by the Minnesota 1995 Land Use Planning Act after the City's recent Comprehensive Plan designation of MU -PUD for the Town Center area is approved by the Metropolitan Council. Ms. Krall then addressed the Planning Commission. Ms. Krall noted that she had submitted as many of the materials that typically accompany a rezoning application as possible, but that the Town Center planning process had not yet reached the stage when she could present detailed site plans to the Planning Commission. Ms. Krall assured the Planning Commission that they would have several opportunities to review the details of the development as each stage in the PUD application process is placed on the Planning Commission's agenda. Commissioner Friel objected to the rezoning of the Town Center parcels to MU -PUD, stating that the Zoning Ordinance already provides a mechanism for superimposing a Planned Unit Development over any underlying zoning. Commissioner Friel said that not only would the creation of a separate MU -PUD zone be redundant, but would unnecessarily restrict a landowner to a Planned Unit Development. Commissioner Friel said that the option should always be preserved for the landowner to develop their property under conventional zoning. Mr. Grittman responded that the MU -PUD zone language is specifically intended for the Town Center project and that it is precisely the Council's intent to restrict the development of Town Center to a Planned Unit Development. Mr. Grittman added that the Council feels that the 12 creation of the MU -PUD zone and the rezoning of the Town Center site to this new zone are necessary for complete control over this unique development. Commissioner Friel said that since the Council saw fit to adopt the Planner's version of the MU- PUD zoning description instead of the Planning Commission's version, the Council had essentially dispensed with all zoning restrictions and had granted itself complete discretion over density, parking, and all other standards for this development. Chair Lorberbaum said that she had attended the recent Council workshop to review Ms. Krall's proposed Town Center Draft Design Guidelines and that listening to the Council's deliberations that evening helped her to understand why the Council chose the Planner's wording of the MU- PUD zone. Chair Lorberbaurn said that Town Center is a very unique development within the City of Mendota Heights to which the City's conventional zoning regulations are not easily applied. Chair Lorberbaum said that instead, the Council would be reviewing all details of this development under a PUD process and would ensure adequate green space, parking, etc. under that framework. Acting Chair Betlej opened the public hearing on this application. Mr. Brian Birch, 755 Willow Lane, said that he is the principal landowner within the area proposed to be rezoned to MU -PUD. Mr. Birch said that he objected to the rezoning because it would eliminate his options to develop his own land. Mr. Birch also said that the City had initiated negotiations with him for the acquisition of his land. Mr. Birch said that he had been planning the development of his land for thirty years, and that he would like the City to rezone his property to R -3 so that he can develop his own senior center on his land. Mr. Birch asked that at a minimum the City postpone rezoning his property for a year in order to provide him time to produce complete plans for his senior center, which he claimed would be superior in design to the current Town Center concept plan. Mr. Kevin Moynihan said that his in -laws, the Trans, lived east of the Town Center project at 689 Highway 110. Mr. Moynihan said that the Trans knew very little about the Town Center redevelopment and had asked him to come to tonight's meeting to learn more about it. Mr. Moynihan said that he was not sure if the Town Center project would benefit his in -laws or not, but that he had three comments to make: 1. Mr. Moynihan noted Commissioner Friel's comment that the rezoning is not necessary for the Town Center redevelopment project. Mr. Moynihan asked why, if Commissioner Friel were correct, would the City bother to rezone the properties? Mr. Moynihan said that if the Town Center properties were to be rezoned, then it seemed to him that the Animal Hospital should be rezoned also. 3. Mr. Moynihan said that he was under the impression that Freeway Road was to be eliminated by the redevelopment, and that if this were true, his in -laws were opposed to eliminating Freeway Road. Mr. Danielson assured Mr. Moynihan that Freeway Road would not be eliminated, merely realigned. 13 The Commission agreed with Mr. Moynihan regarding the rezoning of the Animal Hospital and asked Staff to convey the suggestion to Council that if the Council rezones the Town Center parcels to MU -PUD, that they also consider rezoning the Animal Hospital parcel to MU -PUD as well. Acting Chair Betlej noted that there was no one else to speak at the public hearing on this application. Acting Chair Betlej asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Chair Lorberbaum moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Dolan seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Betlej asked for a motion on the application. Commissioner B. McManus moved to recommend that the Council approve the Rezoning to MU -PUD of the Town Center Parcels. Commissioner Hesse seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Friel) VERBAL REVIEW Mr. Danielson provided a verbal review of the disposition of previous planning cases. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Friel moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner B. McManus seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 The meeting. adjourned at 12:50 am. Respectfully Submitted, Patrick C. Hollister Administrative Assistant 14