2012-10-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 03, 2012 Page 2 District. Analysis of the request was detailed in the staff report dated October 3, 2012. 44 Staff recommended approval of the request as outlined. 45 Applicant Representative, John Kohler, Architect with Semper Development (80 46 th South 8 Street, #1275, Minneapolis, MN 55402) 47 Mr. Kohler advised that he was in concurrence with staff’s presentation. 48 In response to Member Boguszewski, Mr. Kohler advised that Purchase Agreement 49 closing for the development was pending, depending on tonight’s action, with 50 construction drawings begun upon approval; and anticipated construction starting next 51 spring. Mr. Kohler advised that it was not the intent of the applicant to begin construction 52 during the winter season due to cost ramifications. 53 Public Comments 54 No one appeared to speak for or against. 55 Vice Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing for File 12-018 at approximately 6:43 56 p.m. with no one appearing for or against. 57 MOTION 58 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Lester to recommend to the 59 City Council APPROVAL of a drive-through facility as a CONDITIONAL USE at 2700 60 Lincoln Drive, based on the comments and findings of Sections 4 – 6 and the 61 recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated October 3, 2012. 62 Ayes: 6 63 Nays: 0 64 Motion carried. 65 Staff advised that anticipated City Council action is scheduled for October 22, 2012. 66 b. PLANNING FILE 0017 67 Request by the Planning Division to amend the permitted uses chart of Table 1005- 68 1 to include Limited Production/Processing 69 Vice Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 0017 at approximately 70 6:44 p.m. 71 City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the request for amendments to the Zoning 72 Ordinance, based on actual use of the updated Zoning Ordinance, and issues during its 73 actual application related to non-conforming uses that are being found to create 74 limitations on use and reinvestment for existing structures and their potential re-use. Two 75 specific areas addressed by Mr. Paschke included areas north and west of Rosedale Mall 76 and County Road B-2. Staff’s analysis was detailed in the Request for Planning 77 Commission Action dated October 3, 2012. 78 At the request of Vice Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the requested text 79 amendments were all based on actual usage after the Comprehensive Plan had been 80 updated followed by the updated Zoning Code, and not prompted by any specific citizen 81 and/or business request. Mr. Paschke advised that, even during updating of the various 82 documents, several areas had been identified for monitoring based on their historical use 83 and operations; and noted that those areas had continued under review. Mr. Paschke 84 clarified that staff had fielded calls from area realtors on potential tenants in some 85 buildings that they found problematic based on limited uses or uses that could be 86 deemed on-conforming. Therefore, Mr. Paschke advised that it made sense to expand 87 permitted uses as recommended by staff when those uses were found not to be that 88 impactful to a Zoning District. 89 At the request of Member Lester, Mr. Paschke advised that, based on operations, staff 90 determined limited uses versus unlimited use or limited production versus normal/heavy 91 production, as defined in City Code as it related to other definitions and higher levels of 92 manufacturing/production. 93