Loading...
1999-10-26 Planning Comm Minutes( CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1999 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 26, 1999, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: Duggan, Koll, Friel, Lorberbaum, Kleinglass and Tilsen. Also present were Civil Engineer, Marc Mogan, Planner Meg McMonigal, Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister and Senior Secretary Linda Shipton. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Friel moved to approve the September 28, 1999 minutes with revisions. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. PLANNING CASE NO. 99-40 BRIAN SMITH — 1875 VICTORIA ROAD SUBDIVISION Chair Duggan indicated that Staff received a fax from Brian Smith requesting his Subdivision application be held over until March of 2000. Chair Duggan expressed concerns that this has been the third or fourth time that Brian Smith has cancelled his presentation at the last minute and that possibly they should terminate the application and ask Brian Smith to make a new application when he is ready to make his presentation in March of 2000. Commissioner Friel stated that the Planning Commission has no authority to terminate an application and they should just refer it to Council. Commissioner Tilsen asked why the Planning Commission does not have the authority to terminate an application. Commissioner Friel stated that the Planning Commission is a recommending body and the Council makes the final decisions. Chair Duggan commented that they should refer the matter to the City Council without a recommendation. Commissioner Friel moved to refer the application to the City Council with no action from the Planning Commission. Chair Duggan seconded the motion. Page 1 10/28/99 Commissioner Lorberbaum recused herself from the vote. AYES: 4 NAYES: 1 PLANNING CASE NO. 99-39 SKD ARCHITECTS INC. — 1147 ORCHARD CIRCLE VARIANCE TO THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE Chair Duggan stated that the Planning Commission had received additional information regarding this application and that he had not had a chance to read the letter yet. Commissioner Tilsen stated that he had read the letter from the DNR and that it basically asked that the City's decision support compliance with all the requirements for the Critical Area River Corridor and potential variance prerequisites. They asked for cooperation in the future on the 30-day notifications for development projects within the Corridor. Commissioner Lorberbaum recused herself from the application. Commissioner Kleinglass recused himself from the application. Chair Duggan stated that constitutes a quorum. Mr. Steve Kleineman from SKD Architects explained the Baldinger's came to him and asked him to design a house for them on this particular piece of property. The property slopes to the Northwest with a ravine along the Eastern border and is accessed from Orchard Circle. The property is heavily wooded and the center of the property appears to have been somewhat cleared out at one time in the past. A road has been brought in, approximately 15 feet, meeting the requirements of a 5-foot sideyard setback, adjacent to the neighboring homes giving access to the property and have allowed for turnaround to circle back down. Mr. Kleineman explained that what they are planning on doing is to wrap the house around the contours with a walk-out on the lower side. Given the follow of the land, it is approximately 8 feet from the front of the property to the rear. The plan is a typical walk out home with additional bedrooms in the lower level and a study type loft that looks out to the rear. Existing vegetation is enough to block most of the view with exception in the upper study. For the most part there are trees that wrap the property. Chair Duggan stated that according to the report there would be removal of 18 trees, and 13 or 14 of them being Box Elders. Page 2 10/28/99 Mr. Kleineman commented that they would be planting 6 additional trees along the southern property line to minimize the view of the neighbor's property. The property on the right hand side has a fence. Chair Duggan asked how high from the current terrain the home would be when completed. Mr. Kleineman stated that from the tip of the roof the home would be 28 feet. Chair Duggan stated that the City, as well as the State, have concerns about building in this area and have put a lot of restrictions and requirement on this property, one being the relations to the soil and asked Mr. Kleineman to address what the plans were for soil removal and replacement for a stronger building. Mr. Kleineman explained that the house pretty much works with the grade and that they will be building up a bit around the garage. The house is handicapped accessible and the grade is held a little higher than normal on the front of the house, so they have proper slopes getting into the entrance and from the garage into the home. There are a couple of pockets where there is some soft soil and that would have to be removed and any soil that would need to be stockpiled in the front portion would stand there about a week and a half before it would get backfilled and then any extra soil would be removed from the site. Commissioner Tilsen asked Planner McMonigal for some history on the lot. Planner McMonigal commented that she was not with the City when the lot was created but it was her understanding that when Orchard Circle was built a provision was made for access to this property through the outlot that is shown as Outlot A so that this property could be used. Commissioner Tilsen commented that he thought you couldn't build on an outlot. Planner McMonigal stated that the Driveway is the Outlot and the buildable portion of the lot is a metes and bounds lot and the city does not require that it be platted. Commissioner Friel asked if a building permit had been applied for yet and commented that some questions will arise like the one Commissioner Tilsen is raising because there are some zoning ordinance requirements that apply in building in single family residential areas. Commissioner Tilsen stated that because this lot does not conform to the minimum width a variance would be needed in order to be approved and said as long as they would be dealing with that, they might want to plat it to one parcel instead of two. Commissioner Tilsen asked if there was going to be any fill needed with the construction of the house. Page 3 10/28/99 Mr. Kleineman stated that the only fill needed was where the property goes up because of the handicap accessibility and that there was just a little bit of fill needed on the bluff side. Commissioner Tilsen asked if Mr. Kleineman had any problems with the conditions in the planners report. Mr. Keleineman said he did not. Commissioner Tilsen asked for clarification of a signed certificate of survey that the planners report referred to. Planner McMonigal stated that it was a certificate of survey that showed the location of the house on the property. Commissioner Tilsen said he still thought it needed a variance and that the application was published as a variance to the Critical Area Ordinance. Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister commented that he wasn't sure that a variance for the lot configuration is necessary and that the Council did deal specifically with this piece and the little access there was at the requirement of the Council. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the critical issue for him was really the views and to demonstrate for the neighbors that it really is not obstructing the views and in a critical area the view is very much a critical part of the ordinance. Commissioner Tilsen felt that that has not been demonstrated to him and that the view that needs to be looked at is not only the view from the top of the bluff but also from the valley up and what effect it has from all directions. Chair Duggan commented that the letter from the DNR states clearly that to them the rear elevation plan showed both the exposed basement and an upper level and that in the Critical Area you are allowed two stories maximum. Chair Duggan stated that they are interpreting the loft to be a third story and that Mr. Kleineman may have to clarify to them what the upper level is. Commissioner Friel asked Planner McMonigal for clarification with respect to Item #6 of her recommendation. Planner McMonigal stated that that was incorporated when she was talking with the city engineers about this home and they suggested that you do not want all the roof runoff to occur in one place, so gutters for example, may not be the most appropriate to drain the water off of the roof and they would like the builder to propose how the roof would drain and show that it would not all accumulate in one place to cause erosion. Commissioner Friel stated that the Building Inspecter would look at that so there would be no focused drainage. Commissioner Koll stated she had three issues, two of which have been covered; Page 4 10/28/99 (1) being the view of the neighbors, and (2) being drainage. In sec. 2.3 part B, 4 and 10, a plan delineating the existing drainage of the water and the proposed drainage plan. Mr. Kleineman stated what they are trying to do is to maintain the existing flow with the exception of where the house itself is, but even off the backsides of the roofs the water will hit and evenly drain across to a very similar pattern that it is right now. Mr. Kleineman explained that they had previously met with the Ccty and discussed the requirements and the issues and the City was encouraging them to move more of the water into the ravine, but in general the flow will remain as it is right now. Chair Duggan asked if as a result of the home being built, a problem should arise with erosion, the applicant and Mr. Kleineman would take appropriate action to correct the issue. Mr. Kleineman stated they would. Commissioner Koll stated her third issue would be Fire Safety and the turn around ratio. Planner McMonigal commented the length of the driveway was approximately 300 feet. Chair Duggan stated it was a private turnaround. Chair Duggan asked if there was anyone in the audience that had any comments about this application. Mr. Steve Golias, Deputy Mayor of Mendota, expressed his concerns regarding the potential runoff from the lengthy driveway as well as the roof and was wondering if there should be some ponding. Mr. Kleineman stated that they could sit down with the city engineers and could look at that for more specific information but in general there is a ravine that runs along the side and a couple of catch basins that the drainage would be going into. Mr. Kleineman commented that he had no objection to sitting down with the city engineer to better assess the matter. Chair Duggan asked if there was anyone else that wanted to comment. Commissioner Tilsen moved to close the Public Hearing. Chair Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAYES: 0 Page 5 10/28/99 Commissioner Tilsen asked if it was there initial thought that there would be gutters on the house. Mr. Kleineman stated that they thought that they would disperse the gutters except where they would need specific control. Chair Duggan suggested that Mr. Kleineman sit down with the Baldinger's and calculate runoff, not only for the owners but for the City of Mendota. Commissioner Tilsen recommended that gutters be put on in those areas suggested, but also that they be connected to the storm sewer man hole in front and that way in a theoretical 1 inch rain, you would make sure that your volume of water would be no more than it is today. Commissioner Koll asked what type of material the roof was to be. Mr. Kleineman explained that what they were proposing was a timberline, 25-year shingle. He stated that the color that is used most often is a weather wood, which is a dark brown/grayish, much the same as what a cedar shake is like after being on a roof 6 months to a year. Commissioner Tilsen asked the Baldinger's if they were planning on building this year and if the Planning Commission could possibly table the application for one month in order to address the drainage concerns and the views from the different directions. Mr. & Mrs. Baldinger commented they would prefer not to. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council approve the Critical Area Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Proposed driveway grades and erosion control along the driveway must be shown and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 2. All soil stabilization and fill recommendations in Soil Condition report by Advance Surveying & Engineering are enacted and inspected before foundation footings are poured. 3. A signed Certificate of Survey is submitted prior to issuance of the building permit. 4. Replacement trees are planted as shown on the Tree Plan. 5. Silt fence is properly installed as shown on the Site and Grading Plan. 6. The builder reviews the roof drainage with the City Engineer prior to issuance of the building permit. 7. That it be designed to maintain the drainage volumes to be going over the hill no greater than the pre-existing conditions. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAVES: 0 Page 6 10/28/99 Chair Duggan informed the applicants that their planning case would go before Council at the November 2, 1999 Meeting. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chair Duggan opened the Public Hearing to review and discuss the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Steve Gritman and Ms. Deb Garross presented an overview of the current proposed Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission discussed infill sites and made the following recommendations. Site #1 Existing Zoning Designation: I Existing Land Use Designation: I Proposed Land Use Designation: LB-PUD Recommendation: Leave proposed Land Use Designation as is. Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Duggan Vote: 6-0 Site #2 Existing Zoning Designation: R-1 Existing Land Use Designation: LR Proposed Land Use Designation: LR Recommendation: Leave proposed Land Use Designation as is. Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Duggan Vote: 6-0 Site #3 Existing Zoning Designation: B-1A Existing Land Use Designation: B Proposed Land Use Designation: B Recommendation: Leave proposed Land Use Designation as is. Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Duggan Vote: 6-0 Site #4 Existing Zoning Designation: B-3 Existing Land Use Designation: B Proposed Land Use Designation: B Recommendation: Leave proposed Land Use Designation as is. Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Duggan Vote: 6-0 Site #5 Existing Zoning Designation: B-1 Existing Land Use Designation: Page 7 10/26/99 Proposed Land Use Designation: B Recommendation: Leave proposed Land Use Designation as is. Motion made by: Commissioner Koll Motion seconded by: Commissioner Duggan Vote: 6-0 Site #6 Existing Zoning Designation: R-1 Existing Land Use Designation: LR Proposed Land Use Designation: LR Recommendation: Leave proposed Land Use Designation as is. Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Duggan Vote: 6-0 Site #7 Existing Zoning Designation: B-1A Existing Land Use Designation: LB-PUD Proposed Land Use Designation: LB-PUD Recommendation: Re-designate to B rather than LB-PUD. Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Tilsen Vote: 6-0 Site #8 Existing Zoning Designation: R-1 ( , Existing Land Use Designation: LB-PUD Proposed Land Use Designation: INS Recommendation: Leave proposed Land Use Designation as is. Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Duggan Vote: 6-0 Site #9 Existing Zoning Designation: R-1 Existing Land Use Designation: LR Proposed Land Use Designation: LR Recommendation: Re-designate as OS rather than INS Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Tilsen Vote: 6-0 Site #10 Existing Zoning Designation: R-3 Existing Land Use Designation: Highway R-O-W Proposed Land Use Designation: MU-PUD Recommendation: Re-designate as OS rather than MU-PUD Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Duggan Vote: 6-0 Page 8 10/26/99 Site #11 Existing Zoning Designation: MR-PUD Existing Land Use Designation: MR-PUD Proposed Land Use Designation: LR Recommendation: Leave proposed Land Use Designation as is. Motion made by: Commissioner Tilsen Motion seconded by: Commissioner Duggan Vote: 6-0 Site #12 Existing Zoning Designation: B-2/B-1 Existing Land Use Designation: B Proposed Land Use Designation: MR-PUD Recommendation: Re-designation as MR rather than MR-PUD Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Tilsen Vote: 6-0 Site #13 Existing Zoning Designation: R-1 Existing Land Use Designation: GC Proposed Land Use Designation: GC Recommendation: Leave proposed Land Use Designation as is. Motion made by: Commissioner Friel f ( Motion seconded by: Commissioner Kleinglass Vote: 6-0 Site #14 Existing Zoning Designation: B-2 Existing Land Use Designation: B / Highway / R-O-W Proposed Land Use Designation: MU-PUD Recommendation: Planning Commission declined to make recommendation until Joint Workshop with Council Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Kleinglass Vote: 6-0 Site #15 Existing Zoning Designation: R-1 Existing Land Use Designation: GC Proposed Land Use Designation: GC Recommendation: Leave proposed Land Use Designation as is. Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Duggan Vote: 6-0 Site #16 Existing Zoning Designation: R-1 Existing Land Use Designation: LR Proposed Land Use Designation: LR Page 9 10/26/99 Recommendation: Leave proposed Land Use Designation as is. Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Kleinglass Vote: 6-0 Site #17 Existing Zoning Designation: R-1 Existing Land Use Designation: LR Proposed Land Use Designation: OS Recommendation: Defer action until further research on whether this Motion made by: Motion seconded by: Vote: 6-0 is open space. Commissioner Friel Commissioner Tilsen Site #18 Existing Zoning Designation: R-1 Existing Land Use Designation: LR Proposed Land Use Designation: LR Recommendation: Leave proposed Land Use Designation as is. Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Kleinglass Vote: 6-0 Site #19 Existing Zoning Designation: B-1 Existing Land Use Designation: LB Proposed Land Use Designation: LB Recommendation: Leave proposed Land Use Designation as is. Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Tilsen Vote: 6-0 Site #20 Existing Zoning Designation: R-1 Existing Land Use Designation: LR Proposed Land Use Designation: LR Recommendation: Leave proposed Land Use Designation as is. Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Kleinglass Vote: 6-0 Site #21 Existing Zoning Designation: R-1 Existing Land Use Designation: LR Proposed Land Use Designation: LR Recommendation: Leave proposed Land Use Designation as is. Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Kleinglass Vote: 6-0 Site #22 Existing Zoning Designation: B-1 Existing Land Use Designation: BL Page 10 10/26/99 ) Proposed Land Use Designation: OS Recommendation: Leave proposed Land Use Designation as is. Motion made by: Commissioner Friel Motion seconded by: Commissioner Duggan Vote: 6-0 Site #23 Existing Zoning Designation: R-1 Existing Land Use Designation: LR Proposed Land Use Designation: LR Recommendation: Leave proposed Land Use Designation as is. Motion made by: Commissioner Duggan Motion seconded by: Commissioner Kleinglass Vote: 5-0-1(Friel) See attachment from NAC for further details about recommended changes on the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Friel moved to continue the Public Hearing to the November Planning Commission Meeting and to adjourn to a Workshop with the Council at a suggested date of Tuesday, November 9, 1999. Chair Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYES: 0 Commissioner Friel felt that the Planning Commission should meet 1 hour before meeting with the Council to discuss the focus areas. VERBAL REVIEW Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister provided a verbal review of previous planning cases. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, Linda Shipton Page 11 10/26/99 OCT-28-1999 .14 22 NC 612 595 9837 P.02/02 NM.0 NORTHWEST AS*5 0„CAI AT.E D CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT COMMUNITY PLAN NINO SION MARKET; RESEARCH TO: Mendota Heights City Coupon . Kevin Batcheider, City.Administrator FROM Deb Garross / Steve,Grittrnan DATE: 28 October 1999 RE: . Planning dornmiSSion Recommendations - Comprehensive *Plan, Update. FILE NO: 284.01 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memo is to forward the recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding the draft Comprehensive Plan Update. The public hearing' was scheduled before. the Planning CommisSion on October. 26, 1999. •The Planning. Commission made a series Of recommendations concerning, the Comprehensive Plan and Technical Plan documents which are outlined herein. The Commission was not able to. complete review of the Comprehensive Plan prior to.the close of the meeting, therefore, no recommendations are available for the focus area element of the plan. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Planning Commission would like to hold a joint .meeting with the City Council,on Tuesday November 9, 1999 to review the 'Comprehensive Plan "Infill" and "Focus Area" land use ,designations. . • • • . 2. The Planning Commission recommends that a detailed letter outlining all .proposed • • land use changes should be sent to the affected property owners and ,adjacent lot owners. The notice should be site specific, include. a detailed) description. of the proposed .. changes and how the property will be affected and include an acknowledgement section wherein the owner would sign and return a document indicating that they have been notified Ofthe proposed land use change. • • Staff Comment While this procedure. proVides a higher degree of notice, .there is no statutory requirement for .a Municipality to specifically, notify each. individual property owner of prbposed Comprehensive. Plan ,sLand'Use amendments/changes. The City may desire to consult. its -legal. counsel. on this matter. • 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 61 2-595-9636 •FAX 612;5.9.5-9637 TOTAL P.02 OCT -20 -1999 12:25 NAC 612 595 9837 P.03 /06 3. The Planning Commission recommends that Comprehensive Plan land use designation changes should be made concurrent with notice and publication of rezoning. Staff Comment: An issue for consideration by the City Council concerns the ability and desire of the City to develop legal descriptions for each of the sites and to initiate rezoning prior to finalizing the Comprehensive Plan. While it is true that land use plan changes have greater impact under the current statutes, rezoning at this time may be premature. 4. The Metropolitan Council's Aviation Policy Plan (December 1996) contains information related to how infill development sites and reconstruction or additions to existing structures should be addressed. The Planning Commission recommends that appropriate language and policies be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan Update to address infill site issues. The draft plan should be amended to add strategies that the City will implement (for the infill sites), to reduce inconsistencies with the Aviation Guide Plan. Such a policy could include land acquisition measures, insulation, building /construction standards, processing requests through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and /or and ground noise attenuation, as well as acknowledgement of operational changes at the airport. Staff Comment: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation and would suggest that appropriate language be added to the Airport Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan Update. 5. The Planning Commission recommends that the descriptions of the residential land use categories within the Comprehensive Plan Update should be modified to incorporate all of the various zoning classifications within the Zoning Ordinance. (example, specifically call out the R -1 A, R -1 B, R -1 C zoning districts rather than referring to only the R -1 classification). Staff Comment: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation. 6. The Planning Commission recommends that all references to the density of development permitted within each residential land use category should be deleted. Staff Comment: The Metropolitan Council will require the Comprehensive Plan to specify the density of development per acre for each of the residential land use categories. This is the standard method used to develop housing goals, population, household and employment estimates as well as to determine the level to which the local Comprehensive Plan conforms to the numerical regional policy elements of the Metropolitan Council. This being the case, staff recommends that the density figures should remain in the plan. 2of5 OCT -28 -1999 12:26 NRC 612 595 9837 P.04/06 7. The Planning Commission recommends that the Mixed -Use land use category be deleted from the Plan because the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance allows for this type of development. Staff Comment: The Mixed Use land use category is a new category proposed for the Comprehensive Plan that will afford the City more control over the development plans for the specified focus area and infill sites than is currently available. The objective of this land use category is to identify that key parcels will need to be comprehensively planned as a unit with certain performance standards which will ultimately be identified in the Zoning Ordinance. The Mixed Use land use designation is a tool that is becoming more and more common within municipal Comprehensive Plans to ensure coordinated planning /development efforts are accomplished in key areas of the community, 8. The Planning Commission recommends that all reference to PUD's within the draft Comprehensive Plan Update be deleted as the PUD is a zoning tool. Staff Comment: it is possible to change the Comprehensive Plan Update to identify that the PUD is an integral element of the Mixed -Use land use category. It is not necessary to specifically call out the term SPUD" on the Land Use Plan /Map however it provides a quick, up -front notice to the public that a PUD will be required in order to develop within an area designated as MU. 9. The Planning Commission recommends the addition of the following two policy statements under Goal 3, Transportation Goals & Policies of Technical Plan D. a. Encourage the use of new technology to develop aircraft designed to reduce noise. b. Encourage efforts to relocate the MSP airport. 10.A number of minor "word" and "bullet statement" changes are recommended by the Planning Commission which Staff will incorporate into the final plan. 11. Several specific recommendations are forwarded concerning each of the "Infill" Sites. The specific recommendations will be described in item number 5 below. In general, the Planning Commission recommends the following: • That any land use designation changes be preceded by public notification and processing similar to that required for rezoning petitions. • The "Mixed Use - Planned Unit Development (MU-PUD)" land use category should be deleted from the plan. • The Zoning Ordinance PUD regulations are sufficient and there is no need to establish a land use category for PUD in the Comprehensive Plan. • Many of the infill sites are smaller than 5 —10 acres and therefore do not qualify for the PUD designation proposed in the Comprehensive Plan Update. Further 3 of 5 ( OCT-28-1999 12:26 WIC 612 595 9837 P.05/06 discussion should occur concerning the minimum land area required to qualify for a PUD. • A discussion should occur at the joint meeting concerning those parcels that will in effect, be down-zoned due to the proposed change in and use designation. 12. The Planning Commission reviewed each infill site and recommended approval of the majority of proposed land use designations. The sites where the Planning Commission recommended changes to the proposed land use designation are outlined on the following pages: Site # Proposed Land Use Designation Planning Commission Recommended Land Use Designation Comments 1 LB-PUD Withhold recommendation until after joint meeting with the City Council This site is proposed to change from (I) Industrial to (LB) Limited Business. The Planning Commission is concerned about the implications "down-zoning" associated with the change in land use plan designation and would like to clarify this issue and the matter of owner notification prior to making a recommendation. 5 B LR This site recently received approval for a residential development and the land use plan status should accurately reflect the residential designation. 7. LB-PUD LB The Planning Commission is opposed to the PUD land use classification and therefore recommends that the site be designated Limited Business. 9 LR OS This site is the former Dodd Road right-of- way located south of Highway 110. The Planning Commission recommends that it be designated as Open Space and not developed as Low Density Residential. 10 MU-PUD OS This site is the former Dodd Road right-of- way located south of Highway 110. The Planning Commission recommends that it be designated as Open Space due to the natural features on site and as a means to expand the natural area adjacent to the Dodge Nature Center. 11 LR LR This site is currently zoned and guided as Medium Density-PUD with the proposed land use to be Low Density Residential. The Planning Commission concurs with the LR designation but recommends that the City initiate rezoning as soon as possible. 4 of 5 OCT -20 -1999 12:27 NAC 612 595 9837 P.06 /06 Site # Proposed Land Use Designation Planning Commission Recommended Land Use Designation Comments 12 MR -PUD MR The Planning Commission recommends that the PUD land use designation be deleted as the Zoning Ordinance provides for PUD's. The Planning Commission perceives the proposed land use as downzoning and therefore public hearings consistent with the rezoning process of the Zoning Ordinance should be initiated immediately. 14 MU -PUD Withhold recommendation until after joint meeting with the City Council This site is the subject of a redevelopment concept plan and as such, the Planning Commission desires to withhold a recommendation pending further discussion of this matter with the City Council at a future joint workshop. Furthermore, the Commission is not comfortable with establishing a land use designation for a site that has not been defined. 16 LR OS The Planning Commission recommends designating the parcel as OS in anticipation of the possibility that the site may at some future date, be purchased by the City and incorporated with Wentworth Park. 17 OS Withhold recommendation until after joint meeting with the City Council The Planning Commission directed City Staff to investigate whether or not this site was required to be platted /planned as open space within the Townhome development. 23 New Site LR This site is located at 750 Mohican Lane and is proposed to be added as an Infill Site. The Planning Commission recommends that the Land Use designation be LR, which is also consistent with the underlying R -1 zone. This site is within the airport noise contour areas and should be called out as such within the Comprehensive Plan to assure that it is treed as an infill site, according to the Metropolitan Aviation Policy Plan. 5 of 5 TOTAL P.06