Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />MemberKlausing asked, if the motion is approved, what is the future role for the Planning <br />2 <br />Commission in the second review of this project. <br />3 <br />4 <br />A general discussion of the decision process ensued. <br />5 <br />6 <br />Member Cunningham stated the site lines are irrelevant. The primary issue is not site <br />7 <br />lines, but land use. What other parcels of land are adjacent to park lands, churches, and <br />8 <br />single family land? The City will never have enough senior housing. <br />9 <br />10 <br />No action taken at this time because the motion was superceded by a motion to continue to <br />11 <br />January 13, 1998. <br />12 <br />13 <br />Motion #2 <br />: Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Klausing, to continue the <br />14 <br />previous motion (Motion #1, by Members Mulder and Wilke) to the Planning <br />15 <br />Commission’s next regular meeting of Wednesday, January 13, 1999. <br />16 <br />17 <br />Ayes: 3, Cunningham, Wilke,Klausing <br />18 <br />Nays: 2, Mulder,Rhody <br />19 <br />Motion carried 3-2. <br />20 <br />21 <br />Motion #3 <br />: Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Klausing, to recommend <br />22 <br />that the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 15.99, extend the time-line for <br />23 <br />agency review of this application for 60 days, from January 8, 1998 to March 9, 1998. <br />24 <br />25 <br />Ayes: 5, Wilke,Rhody, Cunningham, Klausing,Mulder <br />26 <br />Nays: 0 <br />27 <br />Motion carried 5-0. <br />28 <br />29 <br />The developer was requested to prepare sight-line plans, tree plans, and the staff was asked <br />30 <br />to review other possible parcels in the community that may be similar cases. <br />31 <br />32 <br />(No vote was taken, pending an amendment to the motion) <br />33 <br />34 <br />MemberMulder stated he would vote against the motion pending further information from <br />35 <br />the Council. <br />36 <br />37 <br />Member Cunningham expressed concern about sight lines and tree heights that should be <br />38 <br />studied. <br />39 <br />40 <br />MemberKlausing asked what will this look like from across the lake; sketches of the <br />41 <br />visual impact would help. <br />42 <br />43 <br />A general discussion ensued regarding the precedent. <br />44 <br />45 <br />Motion #4 <br />: Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Wilke, to amend and restate <br />46 <br />Motion #3 to simply ask for time extension, as per staff recommendation #5.4 in the <br />47 <br />project report, without further conditions. <br />48 <br />49 <br />Ayes: 4, Klausing,Rhody,Wilke,Mulder <br />50 <br />Nays: 1, Cunningham <br />51 <br />Motion carried 4-1. <br />52 <br />53 <br />Planning Commission direction to staff: Bring back list of similar projects; developer to <br />54 <br />bring back sight line study. <br />55 <br />56 <br />Page8 of 12 <br />