Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-13-1999PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — JULY 13, 1999 PRESENT: LENNY LEUER, JERRY BROST, ELIZABETH WEIR, FRANK MIGNONE, CAROLYN SMITH AND SUSIE MACKAY. ALSO PRESENT: MAYOR JOHN FERRIS, COUNCILMEMBER JOHN HAMILTON, PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR LOREN KOHNEN AND PLANNING AND ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE LARSON. ABSENT: KATHY COOK AND BRUCE WORKMAN. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION — 6:10 P.M. The planning commission went over the draft of the newsletter that will be sent out to everyone for the open house/public hearing for the comprehensive plan. Paul said that the schedule that he had in mind was to send out the newsletter/public hearing notice the 1st week in August with the open house/public hearing being held on Tuesday, August 24t". The open house would start at 5 p.m. and the public hearing at 8 p.m. The next work session for comprehensive plan discussion will be Tuesday, July 27t" Break from 7 — 7:30 p.m. Chairperson Lenny Leuer called the planning commission meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. 1. ALETA MATHIESEN — 4635 BROOK STREET — FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTS — PUBLIC HEARING — 7:32 P.M. Loren Kohnen read his memo to the planning commission and put up an overhead of the site and plans for the addition. He stated that the hardship would be the size of the lot. He also said that this was presently a 1-bedroom house. The small shed to the rear of the lot was planned to be removed. Aleta Mathiesen said that they were trying to improve the house and to have a basement with keeping the yard as large as possible. Gia DeYounq, 4629 Brook Street, said that they feel this will lower the value of their home, with the Mathiesen house being closer to them. There was some discussion on which side of the Mathiesen lot the house would be closer to and which side it would be farther away. A. Mathiesen said this plan would put the house in the middle of the lot and be the same distance (8.8') from both side lot lines. 1 The house will be closer to the DeYoung's and farther from the Hasek's. Elizabeth Weir asked if they were going to lop off the porch and Aleta said yes. Lenny Leuer asked if the shed would be left up until the house was done. Jeff Spears said yes, it will be nice to have some storage space while they are building. Frank Mignone asked if there had been similar variances in the area and Loren said yes. Carolyn Smith said these are rather small variances — 10' feet is needed and they are asking for 8.8' E. Weir asked if the house is brought closer to Lakeshore Ave.. could this make the front yard variance less. B. Smith said that it will be a great benefit to get cars off of Brook Street. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY CAROLYN SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WITH THE HARDSHIP BEING THE SIZE OF THE LOT, NO ADJACENT PROPERTY AVAILABLE, SIMILAR VARIANCES HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THE AREA AND THIS IS A DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT WITH ONE CONDITION: 1. The shed in the back is to be removed within 30 days after the permit is finaled. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES: FRONT YARD: 10' VARIANCE (2) SIDE YARD: 1.2' MOTION PASSED. 2. ROLLING GREEN BUSINESS PARK - COUNTY ROAD 116/MEANDER ROAD RE -ZONING — LOT COMBINATION/PLAT — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFFICE WAREHOUSE — PUBLIC HEARING — 7:44 P.M. Loren Kohnen read his memo to the planning commission regarding the rezoning part of the application. He put up an overhead of the area. Lenny Leuer said that there are three action items: rezoning, subdivision, and conditional use permit. Edward Farr of Edward Farr Architects introduced those present for this application: Kirt Woodhouse, Steve Pellinen and Don Anderson. L. Kohnen re -iterated that when Lundgren Brothers came in with the plans for Foxberry Farms, it was noted that this property in question was guided for commercial zoning. 2 Edward Farr, Edward Farr Architects, presented a colored site plan on the rezoning. He pointed out what the site was bounded by and also pointed out on the city's guide plan the area guided for commercial zoning. He also noted that the city has ordinances in place for buffering between zones. Kristin Johnson, 905 Foxberry Farms Road, asked what the guide was currently for this property. L. Leuer asked that comments be held until the public hearing is opened. E. Farr said that 50% of the property is wetland and unusable. He also said that 3 out of the 4 residences have sold to the developer and those properties are part of this plan. L. Kohnen said that he spoke with Mr. Peterson (the 4th house) earlier this evening. The only thing he was concerned about is that his property does not get rezoned so that he stays a conforming use. Loren also said that this property is the one impacted the most. Kirt Woodhouse said that he had no comments. He also said when and if Mr. Peterson sells, there could be a fourth building in the development. Bill Ciora, 915 Sunset Court, asked if they had an option on the Peterson property and Mr. Woodhouse said no. B. Ciora asked if they had any plans for the concern of the Foxberry residents on berming of the project. K. Woodhouse said that it was more important planning a pleasing building. He said that he has built many buildings in Plymouth and he said his buildings are as pleasing if not more so than the residential. B. Ciora said they would like the building hid from their sight. K. Woodhouse said that they have followed city code with their plan and the residential property to the north (Peterson) of the proposed building will be screened, but the proposed building is not adjacent to Foxberry. He said they have planned to have berming and screening to the west. He said that the city ordinance strictly requires screening of the adjacent property. Dave Klaiman, 950 Sunset Court, said that the property in question is currently zoned rural residential and has anyone evaluated property values in Foxberry if the property is rezoned commercial. L. Leuer said he does not know if any evaluation has been done, but he does know that the property has been guided for commercial zoning before Foxberry was developed. 3 K. Woodhouse said that whoever sold these people the property should have told them that the property was guided for commercial. K. Johnson said she understood the property was guided for commercial but did not know what guided meant. The potential was to consider it could be urban commercial, but did not think it was written in stone. She said she understood it could be changed from that guiding. Timothy Allen said that they moved here in 1997 and the city told them the property to the south was guided for urban commercial. L. Leuer said the City of Medina is typically reactive and not proactive and we are now reacting to a proposal. K. Johnson asked if there was anyway a strip could remain rural residential zoning. L. Leuer said by current ordinance such a mechanism does not exist. He said they were talking about changing the ordinance for things to be done between residential and commercial. K. Johnson asked if this would have to follow the new ordinance. L. Leuer said any new construction would conform to the new ordinance. He said lets stay on the re -zoning issue now. Troy Schouviller, 955 Sunset Court, asked about the urban commercial zone. L. Leuer said current proposal will follow todays ordinance. Tim Butler, 4235 Foxberry Court, asked if it was required to have a plan to request rezoning and if not what controls are there for the development. L. Leuer said no there does not have to be a plan and when there is the development is controlled with a conditional use permit. K. Johnson asked in future CUP action if residents could be notified within 500' instead of 350'. T. Butler asked if there was any economic pluses for the city. John Ferris said no, there is no TIF for this project. The public hearing was closed for the re -zoning. Frank Mignone said that the Peterson property disturbs him with his house being so close to the proposed development. 4 MOVED BY CAROLYN SMITH AND SECONDED BY ELIZABETH WEIR TO RECOMMEND THE REZONING OF THE 4 PARCELS FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO URBAN COMMERCIAL. MOTION PASSED. 8:17 P.M. — SUBDIVISION Loren Kohnen read the portion of the memo concerning the combination/subdivision of the 4 lots and put up an overhead of the proposed subdivision. He stated that the engineer would require easements around all wetlands. Edward Farr, Edward Farr Architects, said they had reviewed the staff and engineer recommendations and are in full accord with it. The public hearing for the subdivision was opened. Kristin Johnson, 905 Foxberry Farms Road, asked if the city has considered a voluntary EAW and what else has the city looked at. L. Kohnen said the city has only required an EAW one time and that was on the Hennepin County site and the wetlands were being disturbed. He said on this site, the wetlands are not being disturbed for the proposed development. K. Johnson said she did not think that Mr. Woodhouse would have gone this far with this site if he did not think that Meander Road would continue and that would be by the wetlands. L. Leuer said that when this goes to the watershed district it would then be determined of an EAW was warranted. L. Kohnen said the city council would discuss this. K. Johnson asked if the long term impacts had been thought of. L. Kohnen said this is not appropriate at this time — it is one step ahead of what we are discussing now. Bill Ciora, 915 Sunset Court, asked who had the financial responsibility for the road and Loren told him the applicants. Dave Klaiman, 950 Sunset Court, asked if anyone did an EIS for the road — it is required by state statute when there is potential for impact on wetlands. Carolyn Smith said that the road does not go into the wetlands at this time. When the development goes further we will require that the applicants come in once again. 5 L. Leuer said the watershed district gets involved. L. Kohnen said the need for an EAW depends on the city engineer and the watershed district. K. Johnson said Glenn (city engineer) told her he recommends an EAW. B. Ciora said if the subdivision is put in and at some point the developer wants to build on the other 2 parcels and it shows there will be an impact on the wetlands, the developer will have a hardship because they cannot continue their development without filling in some wetlands. John Ferris, Mayor of Medina, said that the city will not violate any environmental laws. C. Smith said that wetlands can be impacted, you just have to mitigate them at a 2:1 ratio. K. Johnson said that Mr. Woodhouse is a big developer and probably has wetland credits he could cash in. L. Kohnen said that the city has been talking about Meander Road for 10 years — MnDOT wants it for a frontage road — the city wants it — the DNR — everyone. Edward Farr, Edward Farr Architects, pointed out on the overhead where the road would go — he said we are talking about a 20' x 60' piece. L. Kohnen said the actual road surface would be 28' wide. Tim Butler, 4235 Foxberry Court, said it is clear that Meander Road will go thru sometime — wouldn't it make sense to do the EAW now to see the environmental impact. J. Ferris said once again, the city will not violate any environmental law. T. Butler said he is not saying the city will, but it should be looked at — take small steps until you are forced to take a larger step, variances, etc. it seems prudent to go down the path sooner than later. L. Kohnen said it is a chance Mr. Woodhouse is taking. He said the proposal is not impacting anything now. C. Smith said maybe they could come in from the other side. 6 Kirt Woodhouse said that Meander Road is not his idea — it was someone (the city) else's idea a long time ago and now have me pay for it. J. Ferris said that the city has no motivation, no vested interest and the city has no interest in commercial tax dollars — we are not looking for the revenue. T. Butler said if the city does not desire it, if we don't desire it and Mr. Woodhouse doesn't want to pay for it, why not do the EAW. K. Johnson said she can understand what the residents fear — looking at a 40 acre parcel with potential of development. She asked if the existing wetlands could be filled in. L. Leuer said if it is mitigated elsewhere. K. Johnson or cash in credits. B. Ciora asked Mr. Woodhouse if he had wetland credits. K. Woodhouse said he did not think so. He said two future buildings could be sold to someone else — that is not the intent now. Don Verbick, 855 Foxberry Farms Road, said when looking at adding two buildings, Woodhouse could dictate that - - - B. Ciora asked if the subdivision could be done saying wetlands could not be filled in. L. Kohnen said they have a perfect right to fill in if it is mitigated. K. Woodhouse said it does not make much economic sense to fill in wetlands. J. Ferris said that the wetlands are very deep there. The public hearing was closed on the subdivision. L. Leuer asked the applicants the possible future lot lines if there are four lots. E. Farr explained what is proposed now and also showed where another line would be if there would be a building in the NW corner — if two different owners — two different buildings then would divide the northern part. C. Smith said future lines should not be shown on the preliminary or final plat. Loren said they were not. L. Leuer qualified where the easements would be and qualified the property being talked about. 7 MOVED BY FRANK MIGNONE AND SECONDED BY ELIZABETH WEIR TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. All existing buildings be removed, wells and septic systems properly abandoned before final plat is recorded at the county. 2. All conditions that the city engineer may have. 3. Abstracts be updated and reviewed by city attorney before final approval. MOTION PASSED. 8:55 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Loren Kohnen read the conditional use permit portion of his memo to the planning commission. He put up an overhead of the site. He said there would be wing walls to help screen the trucks. He showed the site line from Foxberry and said that the ordinance does not require screening to Foxberry, just the Peterson property. Don Anderson of Edward Farr Architects walked pictures around of the proposed building. Edward Farr, Edward Farr Architects, said this would be an 111,504 square foot building and the site is just under 12 acres. They would be staying out of the wetlands, the site would be cut and filled for the building. He stated that the parking lot would be below co. Rd. 116. He said there is a requirement for buffering between residential and commercial districts and they will be doing that between the building and Petersons — coniferous trees and crab apple trees on the east side — will save the spruce trees on the corner of the Peterson property. He said they have extended the screening to the west although they know they are not hiding the building completely. The existing NURP pond on the Flagship property will be extended. Exterior lighting will be shoebox style fixtures and there will be no illumination on the north side of the building. Kirt Woodhouse said that they might have some lighting on the sign on the corner of 116, which is technically on the north side of the building. Carolyn Smith asked if the sign would be lit all night. K. Woodhouse said maybe and she said maybe not. E. Farr, said the signage would be standardized for all future tenants, possibly two ground signs — Rolling Green Business Park (one sign for the entire 40 acres) and 1 sign for the building. He said they were familiar with the city requirements and they will be met. The plan was shown with the site lines from Foxberrry and E-W views. 8 K. Woodhouse said they chose this building scheme with the narrowest end facing Foxberry and they are planning more berming and screening than the ordinance requires. Public Hearing re -opened for conditional use permit. Bill Ciora, 915 Sunset Court, said they feel they have no options on the rezoning or the subdivision, but they cannot allow this building. He said the length is longer than two football fields — trailers coming in all day — will be looking at that from our backyards — the pictures we have been shown are from ground level. He said the city required that Rolling Green Country Club berm the barn along County Road 116 and they could require a bigger berm here. We don't want to look at trailers and traffic all day lone. He said that Flagship is 50,000 square feet and this 111,000+. He said he knows a better job could be done on planning this. There is nothing aesthetically pleasing about this. He said the lighting is the least of the concerns. He said they felt this was being thrown in the face of the homeowners with no thought except for the north side of the building. L. Leuer said that he shares some of these concerns. Kristin Johnson, 905 Foxberry Farms Road, said this is a major issue — she said in the plans, the depiction of the Flagship building is clearly out of scale — the city engineer says the proposed berm serves no one other then Peterson — it is just a parking berm - she said the city engineer is truly concerned about the residents. She asked if there could be two buildings perpendicular to County Road 116 with the docks to the south — she said the city has full authority to impose conditions on the developer. She said she invites the planning commission to come on her deck and view the property. Tim Butler, 4235 Foxberry Court, said the issue is with how the use of the building is being portrayed. The plan suggests higher use of warehouse than office. K. Johnson said she would like to see an attempt to have the occupants have their main use at different hours so everyone is not coming and going at the same time that we are leaving and coming home and it doesn't appear to be that way. Marc Anderson, vice-president Lundgren Brothers, said that Lundgren's has known of the guiding of the property and did disclose it to prospective buyers. We did what we could with berming, landscaping, etc and have done the entire southern portion except one portion because of the wetlands. We have done all we could do except fill the wetland. He said that in his experience with Opus he rarely saw a building of this size except when it was a major use with trucks and trailers. He said the problem is the truck court faces part of Foxberry. He saw the solution: 1.) extend with wing wall the total width of the structure and or 2.) berming and landscaping. He said that the berming is not effective because Meander drops down 15-18' and the drop from 116 to back of the building is an even 12' and trees wouldn't cover tires of a truck — this concludes that this is the wrong orientation and the wrong size. Under a conditional use permit there is broad discretionary powers to meet these concerns — they have not done 9 so. He said that Elm Creek turned their building around to put the truck court at the south. He said Lundgren Brothers would welcome trucks to the south and offices to the north. He said we (Lundgren) have figured out how to build a 20' berm with 14' trees and it is not that difficult. He said commercial developers should be forced to do this too. Dave Klaiman, 950 Sunset Court, said he had met with Sandie this afternoon and got a copy of the performance standards. He quoted the "objectionable effects" (828.15). He asked how the planning commission feels this plan meets the nuisance part of the performance standards. Mary Verbick, 855 Foxberry Farms Road, said there seems to be a lot of anxiety about this plan — uncomfortable with the unknown. She said the residents are concerned with the quality of life. She said they love being in Medina and she senses that Medina has the best interests of their citizens. She said this shouldn't be a precedent setting that places commerce over the residents. She said she does not feel there has to be a good guy/bad guy. There can be compromises. Pam Allen, 930 Sunset Court, asked about the height of the building — is it one story. K. Woodhouse said yes it is one story — it has a clear height of 24-25'. He said the total at the highest is 32' with the truck bays. He said yes this is twice as big as Flagship, but it is not out of the ordinary. Don Verbick, 855 Foxberry Farms Road, he said yes it is true there could be a compromise — 1 — lower the building by digging down — 2 — could be two buildings with trucks between — 3 — what about parking lot lights 4 — does sign have to be lit at night- 5 — traffic and noise concerns 6 — agree that covering up the barn on 116 with the berm — could easily have a 20' berm with 14' trees — he said we need a visual release — will see back side of building not just the north side — He said this will lower the value of my property. Tom Mertens, 4205 Foxberry Court, asked if refrigerated trucks would cause this to come back to the planning commission and also wanted to know if there were any tenants committed. K. Woodhouse said no one was committed. L. Kohnen said that each tenant comes with the owner for an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. He said at that time, hours, etc, are looked at. 10 K. Johnson asked if the exterior of precast concrete was similar to Elm Creek. She said personally she thinks it is ugly. She said something of this size needs brick or something like that, especially on the fagade. T. Mertens asked about the back of the building. E. Farr said the back would have the same wall panel system. John Shishilla, 4335 Shorewood Trail, said out of fear of something like this, they did not buy one of the southern lots, but said he still has some concerns, value of property, etc. He said a lot of people in our neighborhood are around all the time. He wondered if this was the kind of commercial the city wanted with all the truck traffic. Carolyn Smith said that at the public hearing last winter we had residents from Foxberry here saying they would rather have warehouse and trucks than townhouses. K. Johnson said specifically said we would have office/showroom and said we would deal with commercial when it came. Dick Theis, 805 Meander Road, said that it was too bad that you (Foxberry residents) weren't here 5 years ago when Lundgrens came in and we didn't want you. He said if commercial development had come in 1st , would you have been here? He said no matter how you do this, somebody won't be happy "now I'm here, shut the door". K. Woodhouse said he will not make any comments about the houses in Foxberry. He also said that the market here will not bear office/showroom facilities. He said there will be fewer trucks then they (Foxberry) will imagine. He said he would be surprised if at any given time there would be more than 5 trucks. He said they will not dictate when tenants come and leave work. He said they are proposing this 1st quality building and said for this type of zoning, it is not a huge building.. He said that Lundgrens could have done lots of berming on the southern part of their property instead of selling lots there. He said it is unfair and insulting to say they couldn't have done some berming there. T. Stoffel, 875 Foxberry Farms Road, said that he agrees with most of the comments tonight. He said he is concerned with how much the developer is concerned with the impact on our neighborhood and what they would do to work with us to be a good neighbor. K. Woodhouse said he could show you what we could do. He said they are building an aesthetically pleasing project. He said that last night at the neighborhood meeting, people jumped all over him saying this was an ugly building. We do have the residents at heart. B. Ciora said that the city engineer did say to berm on the north side of Meander for the residents. 11 , said yes the building is aesthetically pleasing from the front, but you are missing the point, we are dealing with it from the back, K. Woodhouse said turning it would put the back wall to 116. E. Farr said that the engineers letter was received late, but let it be said, that we have looked at grading Meander by placing berm on the north side of the road — 20' berm with 3:1 slope would take 120-200' of land and there is no land available for that. We are not attempting to hide the building, but are following the city's guidelines. D. Klaiman said there are benefits of having the building below 116 and if the building were turned around, that would hide the docks from the road. K. Woodhouse said if the building were turned around the loading docks would have to be 4' higher so that the personnel entrances would be at grade. K. Johnson said she still thinks a different orientation of the building should be looked at. T. Butler said that the residents have come up with ways to accommodate this. The public hearing was suspended so that the planning commission could ask some questions. Lenny Leuer said 1) Flagship building is 45,000 square feet and this is 111,000+, 2 '/z times the area — Flagship is on 17 acres and this is 11.1 acres. The finished concrete floor is 4' higher than Flagship. E. Farr said their engineer says Flagship is 1' higher than us. Flagship is at 997' and we are at 996'. L. Leuer said it is 31 '/2' from finished floor to the top. Flagship is 24'6" so this is 7' higher than Flagship — our ordinance says 30' is the top L. Kohnen said the Polaris building is 36', but the extra is a parapet around the edge. E. Farr said there is a 3 %' slope from front to back. L. Leuer asked if the parapet stayed level around the building and Farr said yes — he (Farr) explained the roof levels, etc. Lenny then mentioned that the Flagship building is setback from 116 230' and your proposal shows 160'. E. Farr said they are giving 40' additional ROW for 116 and 10' trail easement. L. Leuer said that 2 buildings back to back make more sense — 1 long building is a problem. 12 Frank Mignone said he also thought 2 buildings would be better. C. Smith said then we should be changing the ordinance in fairness to the applicant. L. Leuer said that the way we are going in the comprehensive plan is for campus style development. What we are looking at is not in line with that. F. Mignone said he sees it the same way. Can we minimize this for the residents and what can we do for the applicants. C. Smith said that it has been demonstrated that home values do not go down when a development like this goes in by residential. Elizabeth Weir said that we have to consider this application under our present ordinances. Susie Mackay said that we cannot pretend that we do not know what we are talking about for the comprehensive plan. L. Leuer again mentioned the concept of 2 buildings with the loading docks facing each other. K. Woodhouse said that they did not want that for a host of reasons. F. Mignone said that we have broad power with a conditional use permit. L. Leuer said that when Flagship was here we were adamant about them turning the building. C. Smith said that she wishes we could see the lighting plan. She also said, wish we could screen the back of Lundgrens — she knows they (Lundgrens) have not plant 14' trees. She said they should be doing 80 in the back yards of residents — no matter what we do we can't keep Foxberry from seeing the building. The applicants should try to screen the west side of the building. E. Weir said how about sinking the building farther and use soils to berm to the west — even an extra 1-1 1/2 feet down would make a difference. John Ferris said the problem when you back trucks to dock, they need to be on the same level. C. Smith said it is a big problem on the north end of the property. She said where there is not wetlands, should berm closer to the Foxberry homes. 13 There was further discussion on the orientation of the building — berming on the north property line — etc. C. Smith said she knows that it is not possible to go all the way across the north, but it would help the proposal and future proposals for the other lots to berm along the edge of the wetland going north. K. Woodhouse said that Flagship is a different type of building. He pointed out on the plan how it would be possible to move the building slightly, plant trees and virtually hide the building. E. Farr explained shortening Meander and so landscaping would be there to hide the loading area. C. Smith asked if a fence could be put up along the parking lot where the trucks would be. L. Leuer said that would be similar to a sound barrier — would be ugly. K. Johnson said then use trees. E. Farr said this is at the edge of the wetland — the `bottom of the bowl' — we can do dense landscaping at the S curve. K. Woodhouse mentioned reducing the curb cut and have a different way for the trucks to come in and then berming and trees. E. Farr pointed out on the overhead the proposal — extend the berm with 12-14' trees — it would shield the trucks. L. Leuer said the building is too big for the land available — it does not meet the campus style of development we are talking about — it said it is a nice try, but doesn't cut it. K. Woodhouse said they are just following the city ordinances — we wouldn't be here if it had to be campus style. K. Johnson said the CUP authority allows the city to impose different conditions. L. Kohnen said that when a developer comes in, you have to hand them the ordinances, performance standards that are current. We cannot tell them when they come here that we want them to meet standards me might have. C. Smith said this is not a simple front to back turn like Flagship. When they meet the present ordinance she said she has a problem saying they have to go beyond of what 14 might happen in the future. She said we have to try and solve the problems, shorten building, etc. F. Mignone wants to say we will take the broadest approach S. Mackay asked if it was difficult or impossible to move the building. K. Woodhouse said mostly impossible. K. Johnson said the applicant should have asked the city where the comprehensive plan was going — she said there are things other than visual that bother her. B. Ciora says if the visual has a negative impact on neighbors you have to fix it. K. Woodhouse said the residential property does not mean yours in this case — we ask the planning commission to act on this and not keep dragging it out. S. Mackay said it is more than the campus style of developing — it is too big for the property. K. Woodhouse again said that they meet the ordinances. He said he offered a solution with changing the entrance and planting more trees. He said moving the building is not an option. E. Weir asked if it would be impossible to center it slightly to the west. D. Klaiman said that in meeting the ordinance, it is the minimum requirement. He said if the planning commission or city council find the application incompatible with the land, they can deny it. M. Verbick said the reasons are economic — the size of the building is a big issue — we have to think of the quality of life for the residents. D. Verbick said he cannot think of a single project he has worked on that he hasn't had to change something. He stated that the Carlson One building had bermed and used trees to protect the homes behind it. He said he had walked over to the yards and you cannot see the building from the back. K. Woodhouse said he had done that building. E. Farr said they had contacted the county — they are requiring an east side by-pass lane and no entrance on 116. A straw vote was taken to see how the planning commissioners felt about this project. Carolyn — needs a lot more berming and trees 15 Elizabeth — lower the building Susie, Frank, Lenny — against project The public hearing was closed at 11:15 p.m. The applicant said they would like the planning commission to take action tonight. Lenny Leuer said to get adequate screening, this building is just too big. MOVED BY LENNY LEUER AND SECONDED BY ELIZABETH WEIR TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ROLLING GREEN BUSINESS PARK: 1. Screening inadequate for dock area 2. Building too big for buildable area of land Carolyn Smith asked why the county was not requiring a southbound right turn lane into Meander — she said that is needed. MOTION PASSED. 5. MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 1999 Lenny Leuer — page 5 — change bet to get in Broghammer statement. MOVED BY CAROLYN SMITH AND SECONDED BY FRANK MIGNONE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MOTION PASSED. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY SUSIE MACKAY TO ADJOURN. MOTION PASSED. Meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Planning and Zoning Assistant Date 16