HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-22-2005PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — FEBRUARY 22, 2005
PRESENT: MARILYN FORTIN, TOM SUPEL, DICK PICARD, MARY VERBICK, RON
JOHNSON AND LENNY LEVER. ALSO PRESENT CITY
ADMINISTRATOR CHAD ADAMS, PLANNING CONSULTANT SARAH
SCHIELD, CITY PLANNER ROSE LORSUNG AND PLANNING AND
ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE LARSON
ABSENT: TOM CROSBY
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Dick Picard called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. PUBLIC FORUM
There were no comments from the public.
3. DAVE TRUAX FOR KRISTIE HUNTER —1475 WILLOW DRIVE — VARIANCE
TO LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A LOT
SUBDIVISION — PUBLIC HEARING
Rose Lorsung went over her report to the Planning Commission. She stated that the parcel was
located in the Rural Residential zoning district and is also guided RR with a 5 acre minimum of
contiguous acceptable soils for private septic systems. The applicant is applying for a variance
to the lot size requirement due to a discrepancy in the lot size as shown on the survey. Code
requires at least five acres of contiguous soils suitable for a standard septic system and thus in
order to subdivide a property of 10 acres, there must be 10 full acres of the suitable soils.
R. Lorsung said although the survey shows slightly more than 10 acres, this included the 33' of
the west section of Willow Drive. Also in the SW corner of the lot, there is one wetland of 0.15
acres. The applicant is requesting a variance to the lot requirement and the issue is two -fold.
Taking out the 33' road easement there is only 9.423 acres and then there is the 0.15 wetland that
has been identified.
R. Lorsung said approval of the preliminary plat is subject to the approval of the variance. Staff
is recommending denial of the variance based strictly on the intent of the ordinance and feels that
there is no hardship that can be found. She also said staff recommends denial of the preliminary
plat, which is subject to the approval of the variance.
Tom Supel asked if the 9.423 acres excluded the ROW and if this was platted to show the ROW
would it be significantly less than 10 acres.
R. Lorsung said the slightly less than 10 acres includes the N-S Row and then you also have to
subtract the .15 of wetlands.
Mary Verbick wanted to know where the 10.0002 acres came from.
R. Lorsung said it is difficult to determine. She said if the 33' ROW is included the north parcel
would be 5 acres and the south parcel would be less than 5 when you take away the wetland.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2005
1
Dave Truax, representing the homeowner, said the 10.0002 acres comes from Hennepin County
information.
R. Lorsung said the Hennepin County website shows this parcel as 9.4 acres.
D. Truax said title work for this property does not show that an easement was taken for the road
(Willow). He wondered what our city attorney says.
R. Lorsung said the attorney says the city has a prescriptive easement.
D. Truax said the property was Torrens property before the ROW was taken. The 33' was taken
from the Korteum's without compensation. He said the wetland has been delineated at .15 acres
and it does not seem to be significant. The wetland area was clearly visible when the delineation
was done. He said they do not have an issue donating the 33' to the City which they do not have
now, but it seems beneficial to Medina to have the 33' easement and we will also cooperate on
other easements that Rose has mentioned and again said there are no recorded easements on the
property. Truax said this property it surrounded by 5 acre lots and they felt that this was too
much property for one home in this area.
D. Truax said the City has discretion to grant a variance with a hardship and he said it is apparent
to him that the hardship was created by Willow Drive and the taking of the 33' with no
compensation. He said it is clearly a benefit to the City to have a program to remove the 100+
year old house which is probably not safe and not habitable and to have 2 new homes on the 2
created lots. He said every recommendation Rose has made they are agreeable to. We would
change the preliminary and final plat with the driveway changes and we are in agreement with all
the City stipulations.
Dick Picard reminded everyone that the Planning Commission was an advisory body and the
City Council made the final decisions.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Jerry Korteum, Fairmount, MN, asked if there would be a park fee if the property was divided
and Rose said yes. He said with about $25,000 going to parks and two new homes, the city
would realize quite a bit. He said he bought the property in 1974 and there has only been water
in the wetland area a few times.
John Madson, 1455 Willow Drive, said his property is to the west of the Korteum property. He
said the only reason the wetland is there is because of the ditch on Willow. The water is the run-
off from the west side of the road.
D. Picard said the wetland area is critical because of the septic.
D. Truax said both the primary and alternate sites are far from the wetland area.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2005
2
Steve Jacobson, 2482 Bobolink Road, said a wetland is a wetland. There are frogs, etc. in the
spring that he can hear across his driveway and walking it in March thru May, it is very mucky.
He said the 5 acres for septic systems is to keep the planet cleaner. Medina does not want
smaller lots with septic systems. He said the argument for the 33' ROW doesn't make sense as
this area would never be used for a septic system. Jacobson also said that Public Works has said
Willow Drive will be expanded in the future for a wider roadway. We have had an inordinately
dry fall. He said he has about 1/10 of an acre frozen in his backyard and he has to put up with
drainage in his yard. Jacobson said he worries about the wetland on the subject property for
several matters — the environment and the health of people in the area. He said he feels it is
wrong for the City to with smaller and smaller lots unless the property is re -zoned.
S. Jacobson said he feels 5 acre lots are reasonable and even though he does not have that much,
he is present to fight for Medina's rural areas. He said the old house can be fixed and maintained.
Kristie Hunter, said she lived there her whole life wither Mom and Mom could not keep up the
house. She said she wished it was livable. Hunter said she just wanted this done as it was very
emotional for her.
Marilyn Fortin asked when property is torrence property what does it mean.
R. Lorsung said the property was torrence before the ROW was taken and after many years the
City can take it (the ROW). The property being torrence property is not necessarily part of this
application. The hardship boils down to suitable soils for septic systems. Lorsung said in the
engineer's comments he says the wetland needs to be verified. She again said the north lot
would have 5 acres, but the south lot would not because of the wetland.
S. Jacobson asked if the driveway to the south of this property was part of this application and
Rose said no — that is a private drive.
Lenny Leuer said he feels there has been a precedent set when in 2001 the City approved the
division of property on Pinto Drive. There were 10 acres of acceptable soils and the City wanted
a road easement and that left 1 lot with less than 5 acres. He said this wetland appears to have
been created when the private drive went in and if this wetland is .15 acres or about 6,000 square
feet, he thought in the ordinance there were certain square footage exemptions, called a
dimeneous (?) wetland. Leuer said he thinks this it tied to type and size of wetland. He asked
what staff felt about it.
R. Lorsung said she has been told the wetland has been there for many years and the watershed
will not look at it until there is preliminary approval.
L. Leuer said he wanted to ask Tom Kellogg to define a `dimeneous' wetland and the value of it.
D. Picard said there are 5 different kinds of wetlands and said we would not know what kind this
is until spring.
R. Lorsung said our engineer says that nothing can be determined until growing season.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2005
3
S. Jacobson said even if the wetland is filled you still do not know if it would become suitable
for septic.
L. Leuer said the surveyor shows the septic sites and the wetland area is not one of them. He
said we have many smaller lots when our ordinance required 2 1/2 acres of conventional soils. He
also said there is not a good place for access to the north lot and why not the accesses for both
lots come from the private driveway.
K. Hunter said we split the way we did out of my request to try and save the house.
L. Leuer said if we did have access on the private road there would be more on the private road
and part of it would need to be paved. He said because of the proximity of this property to
Medina Morningside which has sewer and water, we should have a sewer overlay to see how the
property would be developed in the future with sewer and water. He said maybe we should
possibly look at the entire area and the traffic flow on DeerHill etc.
S. Jacobson said the precedent was for the City's convenience and not a hardship. He said these
people are looking for a variance to make more money. He said the Deerhill Road residents love
their lack of access and privacy.
M. Verbick said adding in the questions we have and the staff comments, I don't feel we have
enough information to look at all the details.
D. Picard talked about the acreage and the differences that are noted. He said he cannot see
sewer coming north and this would be septic systems on suspect acreage. We have to be very
careful when septic systems are involved.
The Public Hearing was closed.
L. Leuer said we could table with the applicant reworking their application with changes; access
to the private drive, paving of the private drive, the ROW and trail. He said 1 lot is less than 5
acres, but he still feels a precedent has been set.
T. Supel said Lenny raises a good point about a precedent, but the Planning Commission has be
very careful about voting because of precedents. The ordinance talks about hardships and about
reasonable use of the property. He said this is a beautiful piece of property that can be used as 1
lot. Supel said it is hard for him to understand why the property does not sell as Mr. Truax has
stated. He said the ordinance has 6 criteria for hardships that must be met for variances.
D. Truax wanted to clarify that they started with this application last summer and had the
application going both with Josh and then Sarah, Planners, and then the application was lost.
S. Schield said at no time was a formal application submitted prior to now.
There was further discussion on the timing of the application.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2005
4
MOVED BY TOM SUPEL AND SECONDED BY DICK PICARD TO RECOMMEND
DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR 1475 WILLOW DRIVE.
MOTION FAILED WITH 2 AYES AND 4 NAYS.
T. Supel said back to the 6 criteria, one of the criteria asked if the property can be used
reasonably and it can, so all 6 criteria cannot be met. Whatever the planning commission and
city council did in the past has to be set aside. He said our focus needs to be on what is being
asked for now and our ordinance We shouldn't grant variances because of past ordinances. He
said the criteria we have in front of us and the reasonable use of the property means like it or not,
the right decision is to deny this application.
MOVED BY LENNY LEUER AND SECONDED BY RON JOHNSON TO TABLE THIS
APPLICATION BECAUSE OF NEEDING INFORMATION ON:
1. — Unified driveway with maybe access to private road
2. — Better definition of the wetlands (dimineous)
3. — Overlay or potential sewer
4. — Private road agreement and paving of the private road
5. Park dedication fee
Staff has concerns with Lenny's motion. Staff said they have never seen motions to table an
application with conditions based on items not related to the application, like the private
driveway.
L. Leuer said he observed in the past that the applicant would need to agree to have the
application tabled and if they do not, he would withdraw his motion.
D. Picard asked if any of the items that the applicant is being asked to verify will change the
soils.
R. Lorsung said no and you have the variance criteria in front of you.
M. Verbick lets give the applicant time to see if they want this tabled.
Chad Adams said some of the conditions on the motion are unreasonable. The comprehensive
plan does not show a road going thru where the private road is; park dedication fee is not a
condition, the ordinance states what they are. These things should not be a part of tabling and re-
arranging lot lines and a private road does not change the sustenance of the application.
L. Leuer said with the request to table or re -apply, if the other planning commissioners agree to
the re -working of the application, 1 lot will always have the lack of soils and by tabling it, it
shows the applicant we are willing to go along with less than 5 acres.
D. Picard still questioned the total number of acres and usable acreage.
T. Supel said if we vote to table, we are saying we support the variance.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2005
5
R. Johnson said he feels tabling it is appropriate because the square feet is still in question. We
need to know the correct figures for both lots.
M. Verbick said her feelings on tabling this is that there was information tonight that was
beneficial, but said her intent is not to definitely go along with the variance. She said she does
not see a hardship and the septic question is an issue of health and water quality and she does not
feel this is too much property for 1 house. If we recommend approval of dividing the property
we are creating a non -conforming lot that did not previously exist.
C. Adams said the motion for tabling should be withdrawn.
LENNY LEUER WITHDREW HIS MOTION AND RON JOHNSON WITHDREW HIS
SECOND TO THAT MOTION.
MOVED BY MARILYN FORTIN AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO
RECONSIDER THE MOTION FOR DENIAL FOR A VARIANCE AND PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR 1475 WILLOW DRIVE DUE TO NO HARDSHIP CAN BE FOUND.
MOTION PASSED 4 AYES AND 2 NAYS.
4. ACE PROPERTIES — 5065 COUNTY ROAD 101— PRELIMINARY PLAT TO
COMBINE 2 LOTS, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW RETAIL SPACE IN EXCESS OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET — PUBLIC
HEARING
Rose Lorsung went over her report to the Planning Commission showing slides of the proposal.
She said the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a retail building exceeding
10,000 square feet and also for a drive-thru business, a site plan review for the expansion project
and a preliminary plat to combine the Phase I parcel to this Phase II parcel. The site is within the
Urban Commercial (UC) zoning district.
R. Lorsung said the retail in excess of 10,000 square feet and the drive-thru business are what
require the conditional use permit. Phase I was proposed as mixed -use and a CUP was not
required and Administrative CUP's were utilized for the tenants. Because of the combination of
lots and the expansion of the building, an approved CUP would supersede the need for
Administrative CUP'S. The proposed expansion meets all the required setbacks including
building, parking and residential and also meets the required lot size of 1 acre.
R. Lorsung said the mass of the building will be broken up with color and architecture. The
parking ratio used for the Phase I project differs from this review due to this building being
entirely retail. Access to the site is a topic of concern for this proposed expansion. Currently the
only access to this development is off of County Road 101. A condition of the final plat for
Phase I states the 101 access is temporary and must be removed if and when a road is constructed
west of the property and the road off of Clydesdale (Clydesdale Court) is currently being
proposed to be constructed with this project. The two things that staff recommends are: 1 —
there be a maximum of 19 tenants with 1 access off Clydesdale and 2 — the applicant is
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2005
6
encouraged to work and meet with Ryan Companies (if the Ryan project, to the west, is
approved) about a shared driveway.
R. Lorsung said there needs to be further landscaping to the north and to the west and is also
requesting further detail about the construction materials for the plaza floor. Staff recommends
brick pavers. The retaining wall along the north side of the pond is shown but does not show a
lot of detail. Engineering needs to be provided for the retaining wall which is greater than 4 feet
in height. Construction materials for the retaining wall are proposed to be concrete block and
staff recommends material of a higher design, such as field stone or boulders.
R. Lorsung said staff has reviewed the lighting plan and sees the need for further detail on the
pole height of pole mounted luminaries. She said the current lighting is in compliance. Lorsung
also said staff recommends motion sensor lights for all building mounted luminaries.
R. Lorsung said city engineers have provided comments on grading, etc. and before final plat
approval all conditions will have to be met. Elm Creek Watershed approval and conditions must
also be met.
Steve Oliver, architect for the applicant, distributed color renderings of the building. He said the
strength of this project is the building is strong and handsome. He said they are willing to work
with staff requirements. He said the 101 access is a tough one and said they have met with the
county.
Larry Palm, Ace introduced his business partner, Gary Gniftke and said they have met with the
county and city staff and they can see the concerns. He said they do not have a problem as long
as they can work with the developer of the adjacent property.
S. Oliver said they can widen the driveway to 40' and also will have discussions with the
developer of the adjacent property to see if we can work with them and look at additional access
farther up to the north. We do have a meeting slated with them. He asked about the no parking
signs on Clydesdale.
R. Lorsung said the signs are per the city engineer and public works director Jim Dillman.
S. Oliver said they also have a problem with the trail easement being requested on their property
rather than in the ROW along 101. He said the grass boulevard and trail are there (8'). He said
bringing it all on the property hinders our area for our NURP pond.
R. Lorsung said the trail on Clydesdale is part of our comprehensive plan and generally it is
located on property. She said staff does not recommend a trail outside of property lines.
S. Oliver wondered if the sidewalk on 101 was the trail.
Tom Supel said that is a point well taken. The 101 trail is on county property and assuming the
county agrees to use part of their easement for a trail, that would be a good idea.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2005
7
R. Lorsung said there is not enough room.
S. Oliver said you could wrap the grass and trail on 101 around the corner. He said this corner is
more of an urban setting than a rural one. He also said plantings are a good way to keep peace
with the neighbors to the north. He asked about the retaining walls.
R. Lorsung said staff recommends an architectural upgrade. She said there have been complaints
about retaining walls in the city and also the retaining wall specs will have to go to the city
engineer.
S. Oliver wondered if the existing wall on site had been done by the county and Palm said yes.
R. Lorsung said since the wall is being relocated staff has the right to ask for a higher design.
S. Oliver said boulders would not be efficient here and they would have to look at other options.
T. Supel asked if what is there would be torn down and then relocated.
S. Oliver said yes. He also said that the county uses a higher grade of material than a person
normally uses. He said he would hope to re -use some of the material and then put a fence on top
with material that looks like wrought iron.
L. Palm said we are electrical contractors and he said it would be impossible to put motion
sensor lights on a commercial building to give security to employees and customers. He said
they could use HID (bright light) tubes with motion. He said a regular motion sensor light takes
2-8 minutes to re -light and that is not very safe. Palm said you cannot see the light source on any
of the fixtures that are there (on the current building). He said there are 20' poles on 3' bases
with shoe box lights and the same would be carried forward for this addition. He said again he
has a high degree of concern with motion sensors.
R. Lorsung said she did address the lighting in her report and yes the current lighting does meet
the ordinance, but there is an issue with some of the lights being too bright. She said maybe
lower wattage could be used.
L. Palm said they are in compliance now and are at or below what is required.
Elizabeth Weir, 1262 Hunter Drive, said the lights are quite bright in Cherry Hill and shines in
their bedrooms.
L. Palm said we can look at it, but our light does not leave our property line.
Mary Verbick asked how much activity there would be behind the building during the dark hours
to make a motion sensor go on and off
L. palm said it does not take people or cars to set off motion sensor lights, leaves, animals, wind,
etc. can all affect it.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2005
8
Gary Gniftke, said they do not anticipate anyone other than employees to be behind the building.
He said the residents say why not turn off the lights at 10 or so, but once someone decides to stay
late, then they would have to leave in the dark.
L. Palm said the lights are strictly for security.
S. Oliver said they want to be good neighbors and more landscaping is going to help.
R. Lorsung said staff is recommending more landscaping to the north.
L. Palm said he would like to believe they are good neighbors. He said they spent $4800 on 1
yard in Cherry Hill to screen our building.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Steve Jacobson, 2482 Bobolink Road, said he thought there were motion sensor lights that would
work. Also, if there is to be a drive-thru for a coffee shop, the busy times are early a.m. and late
at night and sound travels quite well. The volume of the loudspeakers should be addressed.
R. Lorsung said we do not have a sound ordinance, but there is a nuisance ordinance and there is
a limit of how many decibels can leave the property line. She said the conditional use permit will
address the hours of operation, etc. that would impact the neighbors.
Ron Johnson asked the applicant if they were willing to go along with staff recommendations
and Palm said yes. Johnson said with the traffic flow and the patio island it looks narrow where
the traffic would go around the building.
S. Oliver said we would not expect traffic in the parking area and there are sidewalks provided.
He said the drive-thru meets the width requirements.
R. Johnson asked if the patio area could be smaller so it did not come out so far.
L. Palm said if the island is not there, the traffic could clip cars on the corner.
Marilyn Fortin asked where the drive-thru was and Palm said on the west side.
S. Oliver showed how the traffic would flow. He said their engineers have made sure there is a
good flow of traffic, have checked the turn radius and the traffic in the SE corner.
R. Lorsung said that City engineers have looked at the site plan and have listed their concerns
and the drive-thru is not an issue with them.
There was discussion of a 2nd access to the north (on west side of building).
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2005
9
R. Johnson asked if they had an idea of how many cars per day would use the site and Palm said
he couldn't guess.
R. Lorsung said there would be a maximum of 19 tenants including both phases.
L. Palm said they are negotiating with tenants and he did not feel there would be any where near
19.
Lenny Leuer said on page A1.0 of the application on hardcover calculations, it seems to be
slightly over.
R. Lorsung said in this zoning district there can be 60 hardcover and they are .9% over — the
applicants will have to address that.
S. Oliver said we will look at it.
L. Leuer said the Ryan application did not get a favorable review at the planning commission
and wondered if the application could stand alone without the Ryan development. He also asked
about infrastructure.
R. Lorsung said that would be a market research question. She said the only infrastructure they
would have in common is the shared access (2nd access that is being discussed).
There was further discussion about a 2nd shared access if the property to the west develops.
L. Leuer said the hardcover will be greater when the entrance is widened.
S. Oliver said they will look at it.
There was further discussion on what is requiring a conditional use permit for this application
and how the 1st phase was handled.
D. Picard asked how we could put hours, etc, in the conditional use permit when we do not know
what is going to be there.
R. Lorsung said the conditional use permit is for the size of retail and the drive-thru and any
other conditions so desired may be put in.
There was further discussion on tenants
D. Picard said it seems, from the report, that the Ryan proposal is already approved and he is
uncomfortable with that.
L. Palm said we were the ones that brought it up. We wanted a meeting arranged so if it (Ryan)
did go forward, we could entertain the idea of the 2nd access.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2005
10
T. Supel said he agrees with Dick, that it seems like Ryan has been approved.
L. Palm said it was never put to us as a requirement to meet with Ryan. He said again it was the
City's idea.
T. Supel asked Mr. Palm if he was comfortable that he could proceed without Ryan and Palm
said yes. Supel wanted to know if our concern for the 2nd access was primarily for traffic flow or
for safety. He said couldn't the 101 access that is being closed be used for emergency vehicles.
L. Palm said Bob Byers from the county said just that.
T. Supel said he did not think it was a good idea at this time for the planning commission to
come up with conditions for the conditional use permit.
R. Lorsung said staff can work out the issues.
T. Supel asked what would be the simplest. Can we just say we agree with the retail space over
10,000 square feet and that each tenant comes in and see staff?
There was discussion of staff being comfortable with administering the tenants, etc.
L. Leuer wanted to know if staff and applicant had gone thru the conditions for a drive-thru.
R. Lorsung apologized and said she had not, but there were items in the ordinance for a drive-
thru in 831.07, Subd 3 — item (k).
L. Leuer asked if the security lights stay on for 24 hours, do the parking lot lights have to stay on
also.
R. Lorsung said there is a separate lighting ordinance that deals with hours, etc.
MOVED BY LENNY LEUER AND SECONDED BY MARY VERBICK TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL BULDING OVER 10,000
SQUARE FEET INCLUDING A DRIVE-THRU BUSINESS AT 5065 101 WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Hours of operation to meet all requirements of the Urban Commercial Zoning ordinance
2. Staff will review each tenant for compliance with the zoning code - including business type
and fascia signage.
3. If a use requires a conditional use permit, the applicant will be required to come back to the
Planning Commission.
4. If a use is a permitted use, the tenant will see staff for an Administrative Conditional Use
Permit
MOTION PASSED.
MOVED BY LENNY LEUER AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2005
11
1. The building must be fully sprinkled per code.
2. The landscaping plan shall be revised to incorporate additional plantings.
3. Additional construction material detail shall be submitted for the plaza floor.
4. Additional construction material detail shall be submitted for the decorative fence.
5. Engineering specifications, including material upgrades, shall be submitted for the
retaining wall.
6. The lighting plan shall be revised for pole size and follow pre curfew and post curfew lighting
hours per lighting ordinance. The applicant will submit revised plans showing the pole size
for Phase II.
7. The sign plan shall be revised for size and design per code.
8. The applicant must comply with all conditions of the Hennepin County planning and roads
department as stated in the January 26, 2005 letter.
9. The applicant must comply with all the conditions of the Elm Creek Watershed District
regarding the property.
10. The Applicant must comply with all the conditions of the city engineer as stated in the
February 8, 2005 letter.
11. The applicant must comply with all the conditions of the City Public Works Director
as stated in the February 3, 2005 letter.
12. The applicant must comply with any conditions set forth by the City Fire Marshall and
Building Inspector.
MOTION PASSED.
MOVED BY LENNY LEUER AND SECONDED BY MARILYN FORTIN TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ACE RETAIL WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The final plat must show the closure of the access off of County Road 101.
2. The final plat shall show the right-of-way for Clydesdale Court as the primary access off of
Clydesdale Trail.
3. The final plat must show the widening of the Clydesdale Court right-of-way access from 24'
to 40'
4. Subject to city approval of the development of the property to the west, the applicant shall
work with that developer to determine the feasibility of a shared access.
5. The vacation of Clydesdale Court easement shall be determined with the shared secondary
access proposal.
6. The final plat must show a 15' wide trail easement for a 10' asphalt trail that is not located in
the City ROW. The trail shall be located on the north side of Clydesdale Trail from the
property line on the southwest side to the intersection of Clydesdale Trail and County Road
101 per the City's comprehensive plan.
7. Hardcover requirements must be met.
MOTION PASSSED.
5. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2005
MOVED BY MARY VERBICK AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
MOTION PASSED.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2005
12
There was discussion of TIF.
Chad Adams said the Planning Commission should not as a function, as a body, use TIF or any
financial tools as a reason for denial.
T. Supel said he would like to meet the city council on this.
C. Adams said we have done that and can do it again.
D. Picard said that would be very positive.
6. PLANNER'S REPORT
Rose Lorsung said that the city council approved the preliminary plat for Robert Bradley,
Charles Cudd; the site plan for Farr Development and the City's water treatment plant.
Lenny Leuer wanted to know how the Fire Marshal was dealing with Farr.
Sarah Schield said there will be a meeting with the Fire Marshal and the applicant and they will
work it out per the City Council's direction.
R. Lorsung said at the next council meeting there will be the resolution for Farr and the
Creekview application.
S. Schield said the applicants for Creekview resubmitted the same information as before and it is
insufficient. It looks like the ponding needs to be increased and there are some serious
constraints with the soils.
R. Lorsung said at the March Planning Commission meeting there will be a discussion on the
Uptown Hamel Traffic Study.
D. Picard said he will not be at the March meeting.
S. Schield said that the Ryan application will be delayed until the April 5th City Council meeting.
She said the City Council is having a work session on TIF on March 29th from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
Chad Adams said that Ron Johnson's term on the Planning Commission is up on March 1st. the
deadline for applications is February 28th and the appointment will be at the March 1st City
Council meeting.
MOVED BY MARY VERBICK AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO ADJOURN.
MOTION PASSED
Meeting adjourned at 11 p.m.
Planning and Zoning Assistant Date
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2005
13