Loading...
PC 2003 01 07CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 7, 2003 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Bruce Feik, Craig Claybaugh, Uli Sacchet, Rich Slagle and Steve Lillehaug STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior PLanner; and Mahmoud Sweidan, Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES CREATING 2 LOTS AND AN OUTLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND HIGHWAY CORRIDOR DISTRICT 1, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78TM STREET AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Public Present: Name Address Jeff King 767 Carver Beach Road Jack & Paula Atkins 220 West 78th Street Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Bob, I have one quick question. You said that they want to keep it. Who's they? Generous: The City. The EDA. Blackowiak: So it's EDA driven. Generous: Yes. Blackowiak: And is there a specific buyer in mind for this parcel right now? Generous: Not right now. They're discussing it with lots of people but no one's come forward. Blackowiak: Okay. Questions of staff, anyone? Feik: I just have one. The old town hall, what's it's current use? Generous: The Chamber leases it. Planning Commission Meeting -January 7, 2003 Feik: Does this limit the use, future use of that parcel at all? Generous: Just, you know it's whatever, whenever the City would lease it but we want to maintain it as a historic building is my understanding so we're not going to expand it. Feik: Right. Right, but there currently, the parking for that is currently on the parcel that is going to be removed from that. Generous: Right. And so we would preserve, that's why one of the conditions is to preserve the access to the parking. Feik: Just access. Is there cross easements on there as well? Aanenson: Correct. Generous: Yes. Feik: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. LuAnn. Sidney: Madam Chair. Wondering why the City brought this application and not the EDA. Generous: They're one. Aanenson: And the same. It would still be the same process. Sidney: Same process? Aanenson: Yep. Slagle: I've got a question. On this page 3 Bob, second paragraph if you will. Starting with 1998. I'll read it. There have been some discussions among the members of the community about leaving this property as open space and there has been strong opposition by the majority of the neighbors to any building on this site. However, this may not be the best site for preservation of open space because it is a small comer lot. I guess my question would be, defining small. I mean to me it's somewhat of a fairly large spot and the fact that it's tied directly to the west of really sort of the flavor and history of old Chanhassen, I guess you know I'm not going to go into the numbers part of it because it might be the EDA needs to sell this. The City needs money and all that stuff like that, but I guess I was sitting there going boy, if you could find more of a better spot to have a gathering area. You know whether it'd be an amphitheater, you know I don't know what, but it seemed like it was a good spot for it so I was just curious as to your thoughts. Generous: If you're looking at it, we're creating the library and the City center park here which will be our gathering area. This is sort of out around the perimeter of downtown. It has more utility as a commercial site to the community, and yes, the City is looking at a potential for revenue. Slagle: Okay. So one last question. So the concern that a piece of history, if you will, with the parcel to the east, the cemetery, the old church, I mean I'm just trying to picture what, a Planning Commission Meeting - January 7, 2003 Walgreen's or something, who knows. You know I'm just throwing this out but what that would look like so close to this part of history. Aanenson: Let me just comment on that. When the City bought the property, there was a commercial use on the property so there was always something there, historically. One of the older proprieties in town. Two, the staff at one time tried to put together some historic downtown standards. We got almost through the process and there were a couple people that got the wheels off the bus on that. Staff is concerned whatever goes on that property is, when I say staff, the planning staff, that is architecturally compatible and compliments what's down there because if you go back when we did the Vision 2002, or even the Highway 5 corridor standards, the steeple. The view of that steeple, the old St. Hubert's steeple, can be seen. It's a nice sight line from a lot of different directions. So as you're coming down that street, we want to maintain that. Again, there was something else in front of that prior to the City buying it, but the EDA bought that with the intention to redevelop the property so it is a valid concern. What you're saying is architecturally what's going to fit there. Slagle: Can I ask what the EDA paid for that? Aanenson: I do not know. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Uli. Sacchet: Yeah. Question or a half. On page 4, in that table. Lot 1 and Lot 2. The square feet areas are reversed, right? Like the Lot 2 is the 54,000 and. Generous: No. Lot l's the big one. Sacchet: Oh, the other one is 7,000, okay. I have to look at these punctuations correctly, alright. My real question, can you help me understand, since we're talking variance here and we're talking a hardship, what exactly is the hardship here? Generous: The city's idea is to preserve only the public ground there... Sacchet: Yeah, I understand that but then you could say well that's for the purpose of increasing the value of the rest, isn't it? Generous: Unless they sold the whole thing. Aanenson: Yeah, we could sell the whole thing with one lot, sure. Generous: This one lot they could go like that and then we wouldn't preserve the historic. Sacchet: And then you wouldn't preserve the historic thing. Aanenson: Or structure the terms of the sale such that the building had to stay there and. Sacchet: So is the hardship that we could not preserve the historic part if we would reduce the variance? Is that the hardship? I mean are we that hard pressed here? Planning Commission Meeting - January 7, 2003 Generous: Well to expand it, I don't. The utility of the piece, as you take more out from what's future development could go in there. We could expand what we've retained, but the use of the City would make. We just have, the improvements are there that the City wants preserved. Sacchet: Right, right. What I'm trying to understand, if somebody else will come with this. We look hardship and increase value, I would say no way. Now it happens to be the city. That makes really not that big of a difference. But to at least mitigate it, I mean I can see that the frontage towards the street is probably the most critical in terms of value of the remaining part. Would there be a possibility to make the lot that goes with the historic part a little bigger to the south? I mean it' s kind of a funny shape there with all these comers. Generous: Yeah, what it is, it's following the parking lot. Sacchet: Is there a reason why not part of this parking lot could go with this property? Aanenson: The City owns the lot. Generous: We own the whole thing. Sacchet: The City owns it already so. Generous: And one of the conditions is to expand it slightly so that we maintain the 10 foot setback for the structure itself. Sacchet: So it's already going a little bit into the parking lot. Generous: Yes. Blackowiak: But, excuse me Uli. The parking lot will be tom up as part of this development. Aanenson: Not necessarily. Generous: Not all of it. Just where the building pad would go in. Blackowiak: At least the northern half and. Aanenson: No. We've been working on designs. I don't think so. Generous: The majority of it will remain because it's pretty tight in there, how you configure it. Plus we have to preserve the access for the Remax so that drive area is defined. Blackowiak: Right, okay. I'm sorry. Sacchet: Well I think I got as much of an answer as I possibly can at this point, thank you. Generous: Uli, one more thing. If we had expanded this so that the Lot 2 was marketable as a redevelopment site, then yes. It would not make sense. Sacchet: Yeah, I understand. The intent was not to remarket that Lot 2. The intent is to preserve the historic and you did give me a framework in terms of what the pressures are on this so I appreciate that. Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting - January 7, 2003 Blackowiak: Questions? Lillehaug: I think some might have already been answered here but I do have a question. If it is developed, it would probably be typical that a building would go on the north end of that lot. And Kate mentioned that it, trying to preserve the site lines to the steeple of that church. I mean if there's a building that would more than likely be placed on the north end of that lot, wouldn't that really fall in line with obstructing the sight line. Aanenson: I'll go back to where the footprint was before, and I think when this comes in we're going to show that where the footprint was before, the original Pauly's building and consistent with that. Sacchet: ...it was pretty low the Pauly's building. Aanenson: Right. Slagle: So when you say, when it comes up, I mean is there a pretty active effort right now on this site? Aanenson: Yes. Yes. The EDA, .and the City Manager, have been working on this project. So when we say the EDA, the City Manager represents the EDA so that's the process... Lillehaug: Then my other question would be, is Outlot A, does the City intend on maintaining ownership of that lot? Aanenson: That's correct. Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn, go ahead. Sidney: One more question. What are the drawbacks to maintaining a 10,000 square foot lot and 100 foot frontage for the old Village Hall? Why can't we maintain ordinance on that lot? Aanenson: Well I think we could except that if we own the property and somebody else owns it, then we're going to mow and maintain our property. And could it be structured another way, sure. Would it affect the purchase price? Possibly. That's a decision, you're going to make a recommendation to council and let the council make that decision. Could it be structured differently? Yes. Slagle: The side setback on the larger parcel, did I see somewhere where it was 10 feet? Generous: There's no internal setback. Slagle: Okay, so ....the building could be 10 feet from. Generous: It's a building code requirement that you maintain a 10 foot setback from the property line or you have to go to a different fire rating for the wall and you can't have openings and things like that but structurally they could build out to the property line as long as they can protect it. For the fire code they could go closer. Planning Commission Meeting - January 7, 2003 Slagle: Can I just ask your thoughts on that? For this upcoming, I mean are you in support of that or are you going to try and bring it you know as far away from the existing structure as you can? Aanenson: Right now there' s some design concerns of some of the uses that are looking at it. It does come down to sight lines. Visual appeal from the street. It still has to come in for review. Whatever comes in, you'll certainly review that same concept. Give a second read on it. Sacchet: One more specific question. The area to the south of old Village Hall, that's pretty much all drainage and utility easement? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: So nothing could be built in there anyhow? Generous: No structures. Just... Sacchet: No structures, okay. So that is a good answer, thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? Sure, go ahead. Sidney: Another question. Why isn't this coming in with a proposal and why is this not in direct conjunction with a proposal, because I'm having a hard time thinking about a building on that corner and thinking well we still could have more room for the old Village Hall. Why are we doing it now and not later? That would make more sense to me. To be platted at that time. Aanenson: Well there's no ordinance requiting that. Generous: And the purchaser wants, the purchasee would want to know what they're buying. Aanenson: Right. I think that's part of it, yeah. Blackowiak: Okay. Feik: I have one more. Blackowiak: Okay. Feik: This isn't specifically related to the application, or the issue in front of us, but what you anticipate coming in ultimately being built on this parcel, do you anticipate a relatively variance free construction or are we looking at thinking, you're down the garden path a little bit with your thought processing and some other things. Are you expecting significant setback variances and other things that would compound what we're doing here tonight? Aanenson: No. Those two are separate things. The concern that we have is the architectural designs, and getting a use the architecturally is compatible with what's in that district. Feik: Okay. Aanenson: That's the only area we've got a grouping of historic buildings. No matter if it's this Planning Commission Meeting - January 7, 2003 use that we're working with now or something else, that is the driving concern. We always try to get it variance free so what we do tonight wouldn't impact that. It does complicate the matter when you have two buildings on one lot. That's also a building code and a site plan issue too so whoever purchases this property or what they're needing for square foot, what's on the property and eliminating the complexities. When it comes through we're going to do our best to get a good site plan, which we're doing now and again you'll any site plan that comes on the property too. Feik: Thanks. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Claybaugh: I've got a question Alison. Blackowiak: Oh sure. Claybaugh: Is it possible to flip this over and structure Lot 2 as the 10,000 square feet, 100 foot frontage and if someone comes in and the use that's proposed requires more square footage, they come in and obtain a variance. Essentially, I don't know what the recording process for recording the lots if that just doesn't work but, I understand why the City wants to do it. Aanenson: Right. Our recommendation stands in the report. You certainly can recommend something different. Claybaugh: But I mean if you did it, how complex would it be for someone to come back in? Aanenson: Again I'll go back to what the original footprint is. That's what we're trying to stay within kind of some of those perimeters. I think that's on one of your sheets. Generous: We have the second sheet shows a parking lot. It doesn't have the... Aanenson: This one here is harder to see... Claybaugh: What I'm driving at Kate is, the thrust behind the variance for the frontage and the square footage is to maximize the marketable lot, correct? Generous: And just preserve what the City, the public... Claybaugh: Right, but I mean you would be preserving it if you had 100 feet of frontage and 10,000 square feet. It'd still be preserved. Generous: You'd have 34 additional feet on West 78th Street. Aanenson: Right. We're selling it all as one lot with the condition they have to preserve a piece of property. Claybaughi Right. But then Lot 1 would not be as marketable or desirable is the concern, and it would be a limiting factor in terms of marketing it. But is there a way to do it like that and then possibly have the petitioner come in and obtain a variance if it's deemed necessary so we've got additional information on that. Planning Commission Meeting - January 7, 2003 Aanenson: Well let's be clear on this. We don't have a purchase agreement. Claybaugh: I understand that. Is it a possibility or is it just too cumbersome a process? Aanenson: I think that's a cumbersome process but you're certainly welcome to make any recommendation different from what we have. Blackowiak: Okay. This item is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Jack Atkins: My name is Jack Atkins. I live at 220 West 78th Street, about 2 blocks east of this property. My wife's lived in Chanhassen, her family has for over i00 years. This is traditionally the old downtown of Chanhassen and I guess my biggest concern is not letting the site...like that but some fast food establishment, excuse me. That some fast food establishment with garish fluorescent lights going at 11:00 at night, and those are things to put in there. So I don't know how, if we clear the slate and make it as easy as possible to get any variances, we don't have any leverage over what people do along those lines I'm not sure but that's my concern about a carte blanche variance before we even know who the buyer is and what they're trying to do. Aanenson: Let me just make some, we're not, even if we didn't sell the property, we have the same concerns. The staff. The planning staff does. Subdividing this. Even if we didn't subdivide it and they came in, they could request some variances. I'm not saying anybody has at this point but we are concerned about the type of architecture, the lighting. This is a different feel in the neighborhood. Jack Atkins: I've heard rumors that a Dairy Queen or a Grill and Chill is going in there and they have light, fluorescent lights all the way around their buildings and it sounds completely incompatible with the property. I don't know how that could be addressed but if we're just trying, the city's just trying to improve the marketability or the market value of the property here, I know that they have budget restraints right now and they'd like to get a lot of money for the property but I'd like the City to be able to have some leverage over the buyer so we don't get something tasteless... Aanenson: Well the best leverage that we have is that we own it, and we can decide who to sell it to. Jack Atkins: So if somebody is the high bidder, we'll refuse because we don't want that on there? Aanenson: Sure, we own it. We can decide who to sell it to, sure. Blackowiak: Kate, can you talk a little bit about the zoning and what it's zoned. What we expect. Aanenson: It's zoned central business which is probably the most permissive. Has the greatest amount of uses that would be permitted, right. Generous: And the least restrictions. There's no internal setback requirements. There's no impervious surface limitations. Planning Commission Meeting -January 7, 2003 Blackowiak: Okay we're looking at platting, well I guess it's my question. I'm sorry Jack, I didn't mean to cut you off. Are you? Jack Atkins: No, I was done. Thank you. Blackowiak: You're done, okay. Should we be looking into rezoning this too? Aanenson: You can make a recommendation, sure. That maybe that if you want to make that as part of this, whatever you decide on this that the council to look at that. Blackowiak: It was just interesting because he said it was the least restrictive and if that's a concem. Aanenson: Yeah, it was a bar there before, right. I don't think anybody's, we haven't talked to anybody that's going to put another bar type activity there, but you're right. It could be a fast food. It could be a drug store. It could be a lot of those things. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Debbie. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Sorry I missed the early discussion on it. This, the subdivision findings in the report really bother me. I mean I don't understand why the City should get a variance on this parcel. I think we should stick with the code. With the 100 feet minimum width. Finding number one, it says the variance for Lot 2 is needed to maintain the minimum lot area for the old Village Hall and plaza. That doesn't logically make sense to me. It's not needed. Without a variance they can still meet the minimum lot requirements for the old Village Hall and for a new lot. I think we're giving up some valuable open space. That's a beautiful feeling when you drive by the resident. It just kind of ties the Dinner Theater, the other kind of old feeling, but the new buildings like the Medical Center and the opposition comer, the clock tower, and to imagine a building being built in that comer using, when I hear Bob say no restrictions on impervious surface. I mean that's giving up green space. No side line setbacks for the building. I like the idea Alison of possibly rezoning. I just think that land is tremendously valuable in the center of the city. Keeping some green space for a community is quite important. There was something else in here. I'm shaking tonight. This is like the old days. It was something about the purpose of the variance would not support increasing the value of the lot. Well it does. It definitely increases the value of the other lot. I don't have it marked I guess... Sacchet: It's on page 6, point C. Debbie Lloyd: Oh, the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The City should be held to the standard of any citizen I think in this case. The intent does seem to increase the value of the land for the City, and I understand we need money, and I'm not for increased taxes, but. And then I don't understand point D. The last sentence under finding. The site for future development exceeds minimum code requirements. So wouldn't have then, I mean wouldn't, at what value does that give? So it exceeds requirements. It' s like... Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I'd like to think in terms of why we ripped down Pauly's and the old bank building in the first place. I think it was considered kind of a blight on the neighborhood, and we wanted to get rid of that to have a little aesthetic opening to Planning Commission Meeting - January 7, 2003 our city there. And now we're talking about reinstating some other type of commercial development there which defeats that purpose if that's what was the original reason for ripping down those buildings. And you talk about a gathering place. The library is not a gathering place. The building is not a gathering place. Open space is a gathering space. If they could afford it I guess, I'd like to see it remain as open space. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to comment? Okay, seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Comments from commissioners. We'll stag down. Lillehaug: I'd like to ask one more question if I could and that kind of follows up to the last gentleman' s question as why does the city own this property. Aanenson: We bought it to redevelop the property. We had another project that came in and that's what kind of spurred, actually it was a two story building and that actually spurred the plan that the planning staff took on to call the old Village area, which we kind of came up with design standards that were kind of the old town that were more compatible with the historic development. As I say, that plan moved along it fell apart and since that time it hasn't been heavily marketed but it was the intent to redevelop the property. I think that issue at that time was the height and compatibility, which we're all, as a planning staff are more sensitive to... Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. And then my comments, and it would be on one variance findings. And it would be on C. I guess I disagree with the finding on C. I really think that the intent of this is to increase the value of Lot 1, but in the second breath I would say that I think this is probably the perfect situation of why we would want to use a variance in this case, because we are, I mean it's a special situation. A developer's not coming in here to develop both parcels and I feel that this is an intent of a variance and I do support the variance and I do support staff's position. Thanks. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli. Sacchet: Well I guess my position I made somewhat clear with my questions. I however think we need to find a balance here with what's doable. I mean my philosophy is to see how it can be approve it a little bit and there's a give and take. I don't see any reason why this lot cannot be 10,000 feet by extending it to the south. It's all utility and drainage easements on this spot that can be built upon. And I mean it's, I don't see the hardship directly except it's a hardship towards the City if we cannot sell as much so that's an acceptable hardship in terms of the frontage variance but I think at a minimum I would like to see that remain maintain the size of the lot because there's no reason why it can't be expanded to the south and that lot line is very awkward. If that parking lot does get torn up...landscape it or whatever so it fits into the context. As far as the development on that site, I mean we have to trust that city staff and whoever is going to make the decision to put something in there that since the City owns it, the City does have control over it and I don't see an alternative except having trust that these people are going to make a good decision and put in something that really fits. And if something comes in that doesn't fit with neon lights all around, I would hope that they, and trust hopefully, that they have the decency to make a good call about that. That's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Rich. Slagle: I just have two quick questions, and then I'll make comments. The church that we, Colonial. Where do they park? t0 Planning Commission Meeting - January 7, 2003 Aanenson: Yes. They also use that lot. That will be maintained as a municipal lot because the Chamber uses it for the old Village Hall and then the old church building is also used by that lot. Slagle: Any sense, second question. Any sense that there will be issues of parking with a potential? Aanenson: No. It's offset uses. Slagle: Occasional type. Aanenson: Yeah. I'm not sure how much activity they have on Wednesday night or other night time activities but most of that's Sunday morning activities, yeah. And there's also a shared with the Remax too. Slagle: Remax, okay. My only comment is that you know in my heart I want to vote against it not because I think it's such a bad thing. I think staff is doing what they should do given the times, but I just in some respects, you know 10 years from now to think that that site could have been opened and who knows. Open space. So it's just where I'm torn. I almost feel like saying we should deny it and make a recommendation that we rezone it. But I also know that given the situation in today's world, the City needs the money so, which I think goes against the variance l(c) so I'm confused. That's where I'm at. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: I'd agree with Uli in many of his points that I just don't see a hardship with this application for a variance. I think the city should be held to the same standards as other applicants that come before the Planning Commission, and I don't see any reason why the lot size can't be maintained at 10,000 square feet. 100 foot frontage. It seems like what we're, what we have before us right now, the lot size for the old Village Hall is much too stingy and I just don't feel that really is respectful of the historic value of that building. I was trying to, and I was commenting earlier that I think, you know I have the feeling like I'd like to see the request for a variance in the same application as the site plan. Well for the preliminary plat site plan application, and I would really like to put the burden for a variance, or variances on the developer because in that way we might produce a series of buildings that really work together better. I just don't want to see the building size maximized on the maximum size lot that we could ever have on this in this area. I just think we need more space around the old Village Hall, otherwise we're creating a non-conforming lot which would in my mind maybe force the issue of moving the building somewhere else and I don't think that's really where I want to go with this. So anyway, I really can't support this variance. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Bruce. Feik: Yeah, thank you. My concern is that we are treating the current applicant very differently than we treat other applicants. Like it or not the City bought this as a speculative investment. They chose to buy this, these parcels to develop them on a future basis. I think if we were to approve this tonight we would be setting a standard that I think sitting up here I would be hard pressed to deny or to make a recommendation I should say to deny other developers in a like situation, the same, deny the, I'm tripping over my own words here but I don't think we would be treating the average citizen equitably unless we also approve this. Approved the average citizen bringing a like proposal, and I don't think this body would do that. I really don't think if this was being brought in by any of the developers we've seen in the last, and I've sat up here for the last 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 7, 2003 year and a half, that we would approve this and at the same token I think this is a unique parcel to Chanhassen. It's owned in common by all of Chanhassen, not just the residents within 500 feet of Chanhassen. And I can't support it as laid out. If it was a private developer, I would certainly not support it and I would hope that the City wouldn't have brought this before us. Blackowiak: Craig any comments? Claybaugh: Comments fall along the same lines. Typically there's comments when other variances come in front of this panel and it's equated by a percentage. This roughly 35 percent variance on two different categories. My concern is that whether the variance is approved or not, the property's going to be marketed. The site will be developed at some future stage. I would rather see the emphasis put on possibly approving a variance like this with the contingency of providing a more restrictive zoning in conjunction with it. I don't know how doable that is, but that's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I think that's kind of the information that will be forwarded to City Council because I've got comments I guess in the same vein. I just think of people coming before us with their garages and they say you know I'd like 2 feet on this side and we say you know, you could actually build it back here and not need any variances and so we deny it and I keep looking for a reason to go ahead and approve this, and I haven't found it yet. We can do this lot split without variances. It is possible. Okay, and that's so often the reason we give to applicants. You do have a way to do this without variances so therefore we're not granting you a variance. Variances are special circumstances, and I understand that there is a desire to maximize income for the City, but that does fly in the face of finding number 3. C actually saying that it's not based on a desire to increase value or income potential, which I think we're trying to do in this case. So I look at that as number one, there's no hardship. Number two, we can do the split without variances. Number three, there is a desire to increase income potential and number four, it is a self created hardship because you can do it without variances. Two more comments. I'm glad that the Atkins came this evening. I was commenting earlier today when I spoke with LuAnn on the phone, there are only, from what I could tell, two residents that were listed on the list and I'm surprised. I would think that, I don't know how the 500 feet was drawn for this but when this does go to City Council, I would hope that the mailing list would be greatly expanded to include more of the neighbors that are going to be directly affected by this because it just seems rather limited of the let's say, 27 names. I see 2 that I think are, maybe 3 are residential. The residents need to be notified so I would hope that we would notice at either 1,000 feet or 1,500 or whatever it's going to take. We need to get more people to find out about this. Having said that I don't feel it meets any of the hardship requirements, the only way, and I'm not saying that I would do this, but the only way that I would even support City Council going forward with the variances would be that there be a stipulation that the zoning be reconsidered and also that Lot number 1 would stay with old Village Hall. In other words, there would never be any other use than old Village Hall on that lot because we're creating a non-conforming lot and if old Village Hall goes away for some reason, I don't want something sandwiched in there in the future and that's really I think what my biggest worry is. Is that we're making a decision based on right here, right now, but as a Planning Commission I think our job is to look out 5, 10, 15, 20 years and say okay, maybe right today we need that dollar but in 10 or 15, 20 years, is that, is it worth it? And I don't know that it would be. So I would hope that if the City Council would choose to grant these variances, that there would be some sort of a stipulation that nothing other than old Village Hall or historic building or something that would limit any future potential on that other lot, so those are my comments. I would like a motion please. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 7, 2003 Lillehaug: Could I make one more quick question? The existing lot for the old town hall, does that 66 foot follow the existing lot line for that town hall? Generous: Yes. That's our assumption that it follows, except for it's technically on the whole property. Blackowiak: Isn't it technically one lot right now? Generous: Yes. Blackowiak: Right. So there is no lot line interior right now. Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. Blackowiak: So would anyone like to make a motion? Feik: I'll try it. Blackowiak: Okay. Feik: Do I have to read the whole thing? Because mine only has to do with about the first 10 words. I recommend we deny. Blackowiak: And you just go ahead then. Staff recommends that. Feik: I recommend the Planning Commission recommend denial of the application of the plat of 2.59 acres of land zoned CBD located at the southeast comer of West 78o' Street and Great Plains Boulevard, period. Blackowiak: Okay. And then make sure our comments are attached for forwarding to the City. Aanenson: ...I'm assuming that Alison's are going to be your f'mdings? Feik: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. And anybody else. Feik: And anybody else. Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second please? Sidney: Second. Feik moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the preliminary plat of 2.59 acres of land zoned CBD located at the southeast corner of West 78th Street and Great Plains Boulevard. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Blackowiak: Motion carries 6-1. This item goes before City Council on the 27th and I hope we can get an expanded mailing list. Thank you. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 7, 2003 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Feik noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 19, 2002 amended to include Steven Lillehaug as present. Slagle: I just have a question regarding the last City Council meeting. I don't know whoever was doing the notes. Feik: I went. I didn't do notes. I apologize. Slagle: Okay. little walkway concerns? Can I ask what happened with the sidewalk along the west side of the hotel. The in the parking lot and I'm trying to think what else. Did it have any other Aanenson: Yes. Additional landscaping... Slagle: Yeah any, what happened? Aanenson: Left out. Slagle: Was staff in agreement with that? Feik: No. Slagle: You didn't agree with that? Feik: I'll give you. Aanenson: We gave the options and presented your recommendation. Feik: Staff did not recommend what we had discussed or spent significant amount of time on. Aanenson: We forwarded your recommendations but we did not support removal of the landscaping for additional sidewalk. We felt the landscaping was more important...application based on transportation models. Council did hear both... Slagle: Can I just see a copy of your, of the documents given to the council? Aanenson: Sure. Slagle: I mean I just, what I'm wondering, is it a pretty fair shake that you say here they're both or is it? Aanenson: We try to. We try to, right. I mean it was going to go forward with two different recommendations based on this, the one right here ultimately. Right. Slagle: I guess I'm. Aanenson: I think I try to, you can ask Bruce, try to...the concerns that the Planning Commission had regarding the location of the sidewalk, what the issues the Planning Commission had and what the staff thought. I try to portray the concerns you had about the stucco and the signs, so I'd be happy to give that to you. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 7, 2003 Slagle: Okay. Of all areas that we're talking about pedestrian friendly. Blackowiak: Yeah. Slagle: Well if you could get the minutes. Aanenson: They're on the web. Slagle: I know if you've got, I think Acrobat. Right now I don't have Acrobat. Blackowiak: Okay, open discussion. Aanenson: Technically we adjourn. That open discussion is actually... Blackowiak: Well yeah, I know I was looking because it had adjournment afterwards. Okay, any other items anybody would like to address before we adjourn? Then we'll discuss the City Code Update. Alright, meeting adjourned. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 15