pm_060408 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 04, 2008 Page 9 those issues and concerns; and potential elimination of access to Alta Vista with access onto Larpenteur. Mr. Lloyd clarified the requested land use actions and opined that any use would generate traffic onto Alta Vista; and advised that the City’s Traffic Safety Committee would be alerted to the traffic concerns and potential signage requirements to pursue these real and significant safety issues. Commissioner Wozniak recognized staff’s comments; however, opined that he didn’t want any of this existing traffic going onto Alta Vista north; and was prepared to deny the application based on that alone. Commissioner Boerigter noted that existing traffic accessed Alta Vista; and any other permitted use could continue that practice; and further noted that traffic issues apparently pre-existed this proposed use. Chair Bakeman concurred with Commissioner Wozniak; opining that she was uncomfortable approving rezoning without addressing and resolving traffic issues; and further opined that she would be inclined to deny rezoning, as the safety of the neighborhood and its children was more important than rezoning. Further discussion ensued regarding outside traffic, as opposed to local traffic, impacting the neighborhood from this proposed use; impacts of other potential uses currently allowed in B-2 and/or B-3 Zoning Districts and potential for lower traffic patterns anticipated with this use as opposed to those other permitted uses; and desire to encourage redevelopment from the current unproductive office center. Mr. Paschke cautioned Commissioners of the need for findings of fact to support denial of a rezoning request tied to the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan and how this use could be deemed inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan of create much greater impacts than currently exist, either as a function of the area of under current zoning. The City Planner admitted that staff was challenged to come up with findings for denial, based on how this use would create a greater impact; while recognizing the very real issues brought forward during this discussion were site issues, not rezoning issues. Mr. Paschke advised that access and parking were site design issues, not rezoning issues, and that existing policies and ordinances would guide staff in making sure site conditions were achieved. Commissioner Wozniak questioned if a finding for denial could be that the Commission believed that having a PUD, with underlying zoning would allow the City to apply stronger and more specific conditions. Mr. Paschke advised that he could not recommend such a finding, as there was not a mechanism to require a PUD; and that a property owner could come forward with a redevelopment proposal for a three-story building that would meet all code requirements, and create greater impact, but not allow the neighborhood, Planning Commission or City Council any voice, since it would be a permitted use, with approval based on the same code and design requirements. Commissioner Best opined that he liked this use; that it represented a much improved use of the site; and concurred with observations of Commissioner Boerigter regarding traffic issues pre-existing this proposed use; and that it would have a lower impact than some other potential but permitted uses. Commissioner Best further noted that, while the property owner was not compelled to provide a sidewalk and other amenities, he appeared more than willing to work with the neighborhood and staff; and that this appeared to be a good use of the site and good for the community overall. Commissioner Martinson opined that this was a good addition for the neighborhood and that this represented a type of neighborhood business as previously discussed by the Commission, with this type of facility fitting in. Commissioner Martinson suggested