Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, July 13, 2009 <br />Page 15 <br />to allow the construction of amulti-tenant commercial office property (PF09- <br />003) <br />Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon summarized the Request for <br />Council Action dated July 13, 2009, and revisions to the original concept plan re- <br />view previously before the City Council. Mr. Trudgeon reviewed those changes, <br />including expansion of the landscape islands to almost double the previous con- <br />cept plan, with elimination of one parking space; shifting of the original building <br />location by two feet to the west from Lexington Avenue to better address staff and <br />Council concerns for better site lines at access points to avoid pedestrians; pave- <br />ment markings and signage for vehicular traffic to be aware of pedestrians; and <br />reduced parking, now at minimum requirement, by alternating landscaping and <br />parking spaces. <br />Klausing moved, Roe seconded, enacting Ordinance No. 1385 entitled, "An Ordi- <br />nance Amending Title 10 of the City Code, Changing the Zoning Map Designa- <br />tion of Certain Real Property at 1126 Sandhurst Drive and 2167 Lexington Ave- <br />nue to Planned Unit Development from Single Family Residence District and <br />General Business District Respectively." <br />Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion, as a matter of policy, <br />based on her concern in rezoning without an underlying zone; and amount of de- <br />viation required from the zoning code. Councilmember Ihlan advised that her <br />primary concerns were with setbacks, amount of remaining impervious surface <br />and lack of green space. <br />Councilmember Ihlan suggested that the City Council look into the existing park- <br />ing code. <br />Mayor Klausing sought clarification from City Attorney Anderson related to su- <br />per or simple majority vote on this request. <br />City Attorney Anderson advised that his office had researched this issue and <br />found nothing specifically referencing the need for a super majority vote for <br />PUD's in Minnesota law. However, City Attorney noted that, since the PUD was <br />being created by rezoning a former residential portion to commercial use, state <br />law did stipulate that a super majority was needed for that. City Attorney Ander- <br />son advised that, to be safe, the Council should seek a super majority vote. <br />Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion; opining that the project improved <br />the intersection and has had extensive review. Mayor Klausing expressed appre- <br />ciation to the developer, Planning Commissioners, staff and the neighborhood in <br />achieving the current proposed project; opining that they resulted in significant <br />improvements that should create a plus for the neighborhood itself and the com- <br />munity as a whole. <br />