2016-04-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Page 14 HR (High Density Residential); based on public input, Planning Commission 652 deliberation, and the comments and findings contained in the staff report dated 653 April 6, 2016; amended as follows 654 While not in opposition to what she considered a wonderful project, Member Cunningham 655 expressed ongoing concerns if she supported this request, she would be going against 656 past advice that the commission not change the comprehensive plan designation for a 657 specific project. Even if this was for another use, Member Cunningham stated that she 658 would have the same concerns, and therefore would be voting in opposition. 659 Member Bull stated his basis for the motion and support of this request was based on 660 staff’s acknowledgement that the current designation of LR is not appropriate in respect 661 to surrounding properties. From his perspective, Member Bull further noted that other 662 HDR and MDR designated developments are already in this area, and provided a 663 sufficient buffer from County Road B to properties on the south. 664 Member Murphy recognized that even though the motion before the body was to change 665 the comprehensive plan designation and it was not tied to any particular development, 666 there was simply a “for instance” proposal that went with the request to change the 667 comprehensive land use plan map re-designating the property. Member Murphy stated 668 that his support for this request was not based on a particular proposal, but in his review 669 of the map and HDR to the north and MDR to the east, with four lanes of roadway 670 separating this subject property from single-family residential properties on the south, he 671 found no issues from his perspective. Member Murphy noted that there had been 672 concerns expressed during public comment in January and discussion about negative 673 impacts to the neighborhood by allowing this project. However, Member Murphy noted 674 that in his review of the address change book, similar HDR developments throughout the 675 city were found immediately across the street or back yard from single-family residents. 676 Based on his familiarity with this corner parcel, results of the traffic study, and how well 677 this proposed development fit on this location, Member Murphy opined that the HR 678 designation was justified and therefore he would support the request. 679 At the request of Member Gitzen, Member Murphy clarified that this action was separate 680 from the rezoning request to follow; with the City Council and Metropolitan Council also 681 needing to approve the re-designation after the Commission’s recommendation to the 682 City Council. 683 Chair Boguszewski further clarified that this would require super majority support of the 684 commission and city council to support this recommended change in the comprehensive 685 plan designation; and admitted he would support the request as he could find no potential 686 findings for supporting denial. 687 Since this item had been tabled but not under a previous motion, Member Kimble advised 688 that she would not abstain from the vote on this motion; and offered her support for the 689 motion. Member Kimble spoke in support of HDR to the north, and agreed with 690 arguments made by her colleagues for this and future development at this intersection. 691 Member Bull stated that he was in support before the traffic study, and it only served to 692 further his support for this request. While anticipating the developer would proceed with 693 their particular development, Member Bull opined that the property would support either 694 MDR or HDR going forward. 695 Ayes: 6 696 Nays: 1 (Cunningham) 697 Motion carried 698 MOTION (REZONING) 699 Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Kimble to recommend to the City 700 Council approval of the proposed REZONING of the property located at 2025 701 County Road B from LDR-1 (Low Density Residential-1) to HDR-1 (High Density 702