2014-07-09_PC_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Page 22 remained in place, and supporting the community preferences for the Twin Lakes 1069 Redevelopment Area historically over the years. 1070 Members discussed whether or not to vote on these revisions tonight following the Public 1071 Hearing or discuss issues and defer or table action until a later date. 1072 Mr. Paschke suggested that, if there are areas supported by the majority they could 1073 recommend those for approval this evening and pass action onto the City Council; and 1074 for other areas needing more review and discussion (e.g. Food Trucks), they didn’t have 1075 to move forward, nor did they have to be all packaged together.From staff’s perspective, 1076 Mr. Paschke advised that they were trying to get things implemented so those developers 1077 and/or property owners in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, who have remained in 1078 limbo for some time, could move forward confident of changes to the existing code.Mr. 1079 Paschke advised that it was difficult for staff to keep telling those frustrated parties that 1080 changes remained pending, and wanted to facilitate them moving forward; however, he 1081 advised that staff also wanted the Planning Commission to take its time in revising the 1082 language, and certain areas they thought required more thought and/or research.Mr. 1083 Paschke advised that staff was trying to get things in place so this area under a 1084 regulating plan can continue to redevelop and bring finality to other areas without 1085 regulating plans; with closure on what can and cannotbe done. 1086 Public Comment 1087 Bonnie Vogel 1088 For their business, Ms. Vogel advised that passing zoning and finalizing that zoning was 1089 an issue due to their pending financing package, which would also determine the amount 1090 of improvements they could make in that whole package.Ms. Vogel advised that they 1091 were pursuing a twenty-year Small Business Association (SBA) financing package; and 1092 they would not guarantee that financing with only a five-year Interim Use Permit.Ms. 1093 Vogel stated that the final passing of the zoning to make it their business a permitted use 1094 would make a huge difference to them and their business. 1095 Lisa McCormick 1096 Ms. McCormick sought clarification on this proposed action based on Ms. Vogel’s 1097 comments, with Chair Gisselquist advising that this case was for a text amendment, but 1098 the agenda item immediately following this was for rezoning of the same area. 1099 Dan Regan, Launch Properties 1100 As the owner of a twenty-acre, three parcel area located on County Road C between 1101 Snelling and Fairview Avenues, which his firm had ownedfor some time, he noted the 1102 current obsolete building, seriously needing demolition and a redevelopment of the site. 1103 Mr. Regan advised that his firm was supportive of staff’s recommendations and the 1104 Planning Commission moving these text amendments forward to removed property 1105 owners from this long-term limbo situation.In continuing to monitor the situation, Mr. 1106 Regan noted that he and other property owners presented great opportunities for 1107 redevelopment of the city, but for many there wasa definitedistinction at this time with 1108 the west side of Fairview Avenue having a regulating plan in place, but the east side not 1109 having a regulating plan in place.Mr. Regan advised that this was a roadblock that they 1110 kept coming up against, to see whatwas intended east of Fairview, and what they could 1111 redevelop there in order to determine the best path to follow.Mr. Regan advised that his 1112 firm was very motivated to see this process come to closure, and was fully supportive of 1113 the consistency with the CMU District and standards in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment 1114 Area, opining that it would make it a much better place.Mr. Regan opined that the sooner 1115 this could be accomplished the more beneficial it would be for the City and property 1116 owners in that area. 1117 Chair Gisselquist closed Public Hearing at 9:58 p.m.;no one else spokefor or against. 1118 Member Murphy supported Mr. Paschke’s suggestion to divide the issue depending on 1119 the consensus of the Planning Commission majority; and suggested considering 1120