Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 11, 1997 \ '-...J (j u CITY of ANDOVER Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda February 11, 1997 Oak View Middle School 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order '\ 'J "' ,.J 2. Approval of Minutes - January 28,1997 3. Public Hearing: Rezoning (REZ 97-01) - R-l, Single Family Rural to SC, Shopping Center - Section 23 - Edward and Laura Hamilton. 4. Public Hearing: Rezoning (REZ 97-02) - R-l, Single Family Rural to R- 4, Single Family Urban - Section 23 - Ashford Development Corporation. 5. Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Chesterton Commons - Section 23 - Ashford Development Corporation. 6. Ordinance Review: Ordinance No. 206, Licensing of Contractors Ordinance No. 207, Regulating and Keeping of Equines Ordinance No. 209, Providing Salaries of the Mayor & Council Members Ordinance No. 211, Abolish the Position of City Clerkffreasurer and Creating the Position of City Clerk and City Treasurer Ordinance No. 212, Street Name Changes 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment , '\ U () '\ '0 CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 · (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Randy Peek on February 11, 1997, 7:03 p.m. at the Oak View Middle School, 15400 Hanson Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Lynette Barry, Mike Gamache, Jeffrey Luedtke, Jay Squires, Lorna Wells None City Assistant Engineer, Todd Haas City Planning, John Hinzman City Planning, Jeff Johnson Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 28, 1997: Correct as written. ,- \ V MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Wells, to approve. unanimously. Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING - 4-1, SINGLE FAMILY RURAL, TO SC, SHOPPING CENTER - SECTION 23 - EDWARD AND LORA HAMILTON 7:04 p.m. Mr. Hinzman reviewed the application of Lora and Edward Hamilton to rezone 23.5 acres located on the northeast corner of Hanson Boulevard m~ and Crosstown Boulevard NW from R-1, Single Family Rural, to se, shopping Center. He noted the applicable ordinances, adjacent land uses, and permitted and special uses allowed in the BC zone. The Comprehensive Plan, which dictates the zoning districts, designates the proposed area for commercial development; so the proposal is consistent with the Plan; plus it is in the MUSA. He was not aware of any plans by the county to upgrade the intersection of Crosstown and Hanson Boulevards, though a four-way stop has recently been installed there. Those stop signs are permanent, and it is anticipated that in the future that intersection will be signalized and turn lanes installed. Commissioner Wells asked whether video stores with adult use sections would be allowed. Staff explained video stores would be allowed under retail trade; however, the adult use portion is regulated based on square footage. ( "\ '-../ MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Barry, to open the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 7:13 p.m. John Cosqrove. 4944 17th Avenue. Minneapolis is the broker and consultant for Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton. The Hamiltons are working with / .. :.' -':-, '-j o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 11, 1997 Page 2 ", / {Public Hearing: Rezoning, R-1 to SC, Section 23 - Hamilton, Continued} the government for the construction of a post office on this site. The Post Office Department is looking only at this 23-acre site as the location for their Andover facility, and he anticipates they will be able to deliver that parcel to the Post Office Department within their budget. That should be done within the next few weeks. There was talk about fall construction of the post office, but they are now saying their construction will be in the spring. In answer to video stores and other less compatible uses to the larger neighborhood, the plan for this site is not to have retail businesses. They are having some success with attracting a clinic provider to the site. The two large land users, the post office and clinic provider, would set the tone for the area, which would not be a strip mall or shopping area. An SC zone will allow uses such as day care centers and financial institutions with drive-up banking, which is what they envision on the site, not an environment of more merchandising activities. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 7:19 p.m. Commissioner Barry had questions about the traffic patterns and the issue of anticipated traffic conditions. She felt the four-way stop is better than not having any control there. She also questioned the wisdom of allowing a curb cut to Hanson Boulevard from this site. Mr. ,. Hinzman stated the City has not seen any plans for the site. Mr. Carlberg stated in the past the traffic conditions and patterns were considered at the site plan stage; but in light of recent commercial development activities, he felt the Commission may want to consider that issue at this stage of the process. The county may not want an access directly onto Hanson. but the City has the final jurisdiction. Commissioner Squires stated it sounds like the intersection will always be controlled some how, whether it is stop signs or a traffic signal. He didn' t have as much concern with the traffic if it is totally controlled. If controlled, it will not have as much of a potential for serious traffic problems, but it will be busy. Jerrv Windschitl, Ashford Development - stated they have pulled back the streets in Chesterton Commons to the north to allow this site some flexibility with their entrances and egresses. There is no direct access from Chesterton Commons to this site. Commissioner Wells asked if there has been a response from the school district. Mr. Hinzman stated no, but the impact to the school district is minimal. Commissioner Gamache stated this is consistent with the Comp Plan, and the City needs commercial development. Though he'd prefer to see a light at the intersection, traffic control is already in place. / MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Gamache, to forward to the City Council the proposal as written by Staff to rezone to Shopping Center District that goes along with the Comprehensive Plan. This will definitely be a benefit and be an asset to the City. Motion carried unanimously. This item will be placed on the March 4, 1997, City Council agenda. 7:28 p.m. '- j .J Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 11, 1997 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING - R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RURAL TO R-4, SINGLE FAMILY URBAN - SECTION 23 - ASHFORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 7:28 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Ashford Development Corporation to rezone 104.1 acres west of Hanson Boulevard and generally north of Crosstown Boulevard from R-1, Single Family Rural, to R-4, Single Family Urban. The location is the proposed subdivision to be known as Chesterton Commons. As of August 1, 1995, the City cannot adopt an amendment to the zoning Ordinance which is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Open Space, Residential-Medium Density, and Residential-Urban Single Family; therefore, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is needed to allow the amendment to the zoning Ordinance. The property is in the MUSA and is in the 1995-2000 development time frame. Commissioner Squires asked why they don't have a Comprehensive Plan amendment before them at the same time. Mr. Carlberg stated during the sketch plan process, the proposal was consistent with the comprehensive Plan. The preliminary plat has changed from the sketch plan. This is the first rezoning since the August, 1995, law requiring an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for any rezoning that is in conflict with the land use map. First the Commission needs to decide if the proposal is indeed in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan; and if so, do they want to amend the Comprehensive Plan. That amendment can be initiated by the property owner as well. / Commissioner Apel argued when the Comprehensive Plan was being drafted in 1991, the theory was that gravity municipal sanitary sev,rer was not able to service the area beyond Ditch 37. Also, the Plan was developed with the intent that it was a guide, not the rule. He questioned the legality of the law to require retroactive enforcement and noted that issue has not yet been challenged in the courts. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the anticipated uses in the Open Space zone, which does encourage PODs with housing clustered while preserving the surrounding wildlife areas. Chairperson Peek recalled when the Comprehensive Plan was being developed, the discussion related to the development around the City Hall site as a city center with commercial and recreational development. There was also concern with housing to allow life cycle variations in the City, and the RM housing density was chosen to provide higher density apartments or townhouses for that life cycle housing. The commercial rezoning earlier this evening was consistent with the discussion when the Comprehensive Plan was developed for facilities to support the government core of the City. The RM zone was to provide a buffer between the commercial and single family residential areas and to provide alternative housing. The RM zone is for multiple housing and this proposal is for single family density. From his perspective, what is being proposed is not consistent with the intent of the Comp Plan. / The Commission debated whether or not the public hearing for the rezoning should be continued or tabled until the public hearing for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is held. Commissioner Squires stated given the law, they cannot vote on the rezoning until consideration is given to the Comprehensive Plan amendment. \J , v " Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 11/ 1997 Page 4 J (Public Hearing: Rezoning, R-l to R-4, Section 23/Ashford Development, Continued) Jerrv Winds chi tl, Ashford Development Corporation - stated this has caused a great deal of frustration. On December 2/ 1996/ they submitted the plan for Chesterton Commons. This issue should have been resolved by now, but he first received the agenda materials for the hearing this morning. Another plat in the City was submitted on October 28, 1996, and had complete approval by the City Council on December 30, 1996. Yet it is February 11 and this plat is not close to being finished, Both plats had the same engineering firm and same engineer working on them. Concerning the land use map in the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Windschitl stated the RM zone is not an official zoning district in Andover's ordinances, with the only reference of a definition in the draft of December 1, 1991. It states that RM is intended for residential development with a gross density of six units per acre or less. He argued his plat meets the district requirements with slightly over two units per acre in density. He is not a density builder but rather is wanting to build a first-class development. j Mr. Windschitl stated the OS district shown in the Comprehensive Plan affects the 40 acres to the north. On that property they have set aside a substantial amount of open space; and in that zone they feel they also meet the definition of the zoning as proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. There is no density requirement in the definition of Open Space. He asked Staff last year to get the City Attorney's position on whether or not an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is needed. He had hoped that would be available this evening. His concern is with the amount of time it takes for the Comprehensive Plan amendment process and still being able to do the project this year. Mr. Carlberg stated there is no written opinion, but he did talk with the City Attorney about this issue. The Attorney indicated a Comprehensive Plan amendment is necessary to proceed. In reply to the allegations that it is taking more time on the Chesterton Commons plat than on others, he explained a comparison was done at the request of the Council which found that all plats are treated in a similar time frame. The reason Mr. Windschitl did not get a copy of the agenda material last Friday was that his engineer did not drop off the plans for the packet until mid-afternoon on Friday, so the packets were not prepared and delivered until late Friday afternoon. / Mr. Windschitl stated his point is this plat has been discussed and reviewed by Staff since December 2, and this issue should have been resolved by now. He asked if the Commission feels the Staff position is correct, again arguing the proposal of Chesterton Commons meets the definitions of the land uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the sketch plan and proposed plat are virtually identical. They changed the street in the RM area to eliminate a variance. The area covered by the OS zone is virtually identical to the sketch plan. The townhouseo were taken out and replaced by single family houses because at every meeting, Staff kept talking about all the things the City can require under a PUD development. As a developer, those uncertainties made it very difficult to cost the project. If the ordinance had more \,_/ \ '-..J Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 11, 1997 Page 5 .I {Public Hearing: Rezoning, R-l to R-4, Section 23/Ashford Development, Continued} definition on what is required in a PUD, it would simply be a matter of swapping the townhomes for what is being proposed now. If the Commission wants him to develop at a higher density, they should tell him so. Commissioner Squires asked Mr. Windschitl if he is willing to make an application for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Windschitl stated they do not feel it is needed. It is a City issue, but it would have been extremely nice to have it raised earlier in the process. Knowing the past performance of the Metropolitan Council, it could take months and years to get approvalj and there is no guarantee. At this point he would not be willing to table the rezoning application to allow time to make application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Carlberg stated the frustrations with the Metropolitan Council are valid, but the law has changed and there have been changes in the Met Council staffing. Mr. Windschitl again asked if the Commission wants him to develop to the higher density. At this point, there is no zoning district in Andover for R.."1. He would have to come in under an M-2 or M-l. Discussion continued as to how to proceed at this point. Since the developer is not willing to table the item, the 60-day rule is still applicable. MOTION by Barry, Seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 8:28 p.m. Mr. Windschitl asked that the item be passed onto the City Council without a recommendation. Don Peterson, 1374 161st Avenue - asked what specific law the Commission was discussing and asked for clarification on what the land use designations mean in the Plan. Commissioner Wells explained the law requiring that the zoning Ordinance cannot be changed to conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan must first be amended. Mr. Carlberg explained when the Plan was adopted, it was to be used as a guide and the ordinances were law. Since then, the law has been changed that the Plan is what the City must go by. The sketch plan of the development generally met the Comprehensive Plan land use proposals with the proposed PUD. The discrepancy arose when the preliminary plat came in without the PUD. Mr. Windschitl then stated he is trying to develop at a lesser density than what the Comprehensive Plan calls for. Richard Fursman, City Administrator, explained the Staff's position is the appropriate discussion for the zoning is with the Planning Commission. Possibly the question should have been brought up earlier. Staff is not supporting higher density. It appears there is an inconsistency, and Staff is asking the Commission for direction. J Ron Beckelman, 1261 Crosstown Boulevard - asked why the people weren't informed of the proposal for higher density in that area when the Plan was developed in 1991. Until receiving notice for this meeting, he has never received information from the City. Mr. Carlberg explained the process including a task force, public hearings, announcements, etc. \ , ~"-~) o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 11, 1997 Page 6 \ / (Public Hearing: Rezoning, R-1 to R-4, Section 23/Ashford Development, Continued) Kathv Beckelman. 1261 Crosstown Boulevard - asked if there is any way to stop building stores so close to the schools. So many people have been killed on Crosstown and Hanson Boulevard. The stop signs don't mean anything, since people run right through them. She is afraid to let her children ride their bikes on the road, and it is only going to get worse with a shopping center. Build the stores further south away from the schools. The Commission and Staff explained the legal rights of the property owner, the ordinance regulations and her ability to voice her opinion to the Council. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Luedtke, to close the public hearing, Motion carried unanimously. 8:54 p.m. Commissioner Apel felt the proposal and rezoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In reading the definitions of the proposed land use zones in the Comprehensive Plan, other than the PUD statement, the proposal meets the definitions. Commissioner Luedtke also felt that the definitions of RM and OS are met by the proposal. For the RM district, the plan meets the definition of less than six per acre for density. The OS definition encourages PUDs with housing clusters but doesn't necessarily require them. He didn't think an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is necess3.ry and would be in favor of the rezoning. / Commissioner Squires felt the proposal and rezoning is inconsistent with the intent of the OS to allow the City to work with the developer, perhaps under a PUD, to allow flexibility. The portion slated for RM was intended for multiple family. Only the 20-acre parcel is consistent. With three different classifications on the 104 acres proposed in the Comprehensive Plan, the developer is presenting only one particular type of land use, that being single family. In his mind that seems inconsistent. That's not to say he wouldn't support a change if it gets to that point, but it must be dealt with one step at a time. Chairperson Peek also felt the rezoning is inconsistent. Commissioner Barry stated she felt the proposal is inconsistent with three classifications in the Comp Plan and only single family use now being requested. Commissioner Wells agreed, stating she would not vote to violate the law. She read from the August 6, 1996, City Council Minutes which stated there is a possible conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, so this was brought up early in the process. Commissioner Gamache agreed with Commissioner Apel that the open space area would be consistent because clustered housing is not required, but he did feel the RM zone is inconsistent because of the intended use for multiple housing. J MOTION by Squires, Seconded by Wells, to forward to the City Council the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission that the rezoning request be denied on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with the request that these differences try to be worked out, and perhaps before the City Council meeting there can be some effort to get the Comprehensive Plan amendment in the works so that we can deal with the problem. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-No (Apel, Luedtke) vote. \ V <) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February II, 1997 Page 7 ./ (Public Hearing: Rezoning, R-l to R-4, Section 23/Ashford Development, Continued) Mr. Windschitl asked if he brought back a rezoning that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would it be approved. If the single family zoning is not acceptable, he is trying to find out what he can do with his property. The Commission stated an application is needed before an answer can be given. It is not necessarily that the single family zoning is not acceptable; it is that it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that issue must be dealt with first. This item will be placed on the March 4, 1997, City Council agenda. 9:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT - CHESTERTON COMMONS - SECTION 23 - ASHFORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 9:05 p.m. The Commission discussed how to proceed given the recommendation to deny the rezoning request for the proposed plat. Jerrv Windschitl, Ashford Develooment Corooration - asked that it be processed to go with the rezoning. He was not willing to waive the 60- day time requirement. Mr. Carlberg then reviewed the request for the preliminary plat of / Chesterton Commons which consists of 219 single family residential lots. The property is cnrrent.ly zoned R-1, Single Family Rural, and is within the ~1TJSA. The Commission has just found the land use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, so an amendment to that Plan is necessary to develop as proposed. Mr. Carlberg then discussed five issues regal.'ding the plat as outlined in the agenda material - - the question of whether or not an Environmental Assessment Worksheet should be required, conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan, sidewalks and trails within the plat, and the extension of the trunk watermain and sewer service to the property. The issue of a pedestrian way to connect the proposed subdivision to the trail along Hanson Boulevard has been eliminated. Mr. Carlberg also noted the comments of the Andover Review Committee on the variances being requested, the question on lot remnants and outlots and corrections to the preliminary plat as listed in the agenda material. No application was made for an area identification sign for the plat. Chairperson Peek asked if the City is comfortable that the ownership of the property sold to Cambridge Capital since the sketch plan stage is a totally separate entity from Ashford Development Corporation. Mr. Carlberg stated the City has not been provided documentation that it is a separate entity. He does not know who Cambridge Capital is. " MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Barry, to open the publ ic hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 9:37 p.m. ,I Jerrv Windschitl, Ashford Develooment Corooration - believed the Staff did have some information on Cambridge Capital. Neither he nor his wife '-) '-~ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 11, 1997 Page 8 {Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat Chesterton Commons Ashford Development, Continued} have any interest or ownership, either direct or indirect, in Cambridge Capital. Any inquires about the corporation should be directed to that company. Commissioner Squires stated Phase 3 of Chesterton Commons shows a connection of the road up through the property of Cambridge Capital. Has there been efforts to coordinate that with them? Mr. Windschitl stated the only reason that piece exists is because the ordinance requires it. That parcel will not be developed until something happens west of Hanson Boulevard. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff will continue to do research on Cambridge Capital and have that information for the City Council. He also noted that the Commission does not have to make a decision on an EAW, though they can make a recommendation to the Council. It is a Council decision. Mr. Windschitl addressed the variances, pointing out there appears to be a different interpretation of the ordinance. He was measuring the depth from the center of the lot, which then exceeds the 130 feet; but Staff is interpreting these to be variances because of the unusual shape of the lots. The variances for Lot 1, Block 4 in Phase 1, and Lot 1, Block 1 in Phase 3, is not needed. One variance is to be added, and that is for the Crane StY."eet cul-de-sac. He didn' t think it exceeded the temporary cul-de-sac length, but Staff's interpretation is that it does. Typically they don't build cul-de-sacs on the short stub streets. Their review of the variance shown under Item D in the agenda, Lot 7, Block 1, Phase 3, indicates a variance is not needed. Mr. Windschitl stated the variance on the maximum length of blocks noted under Item C in the agenda material was not determined to be variances for many, many years. There are identical blocks in Hills of Bunker Lake, Hidden Creek, Woodland Terrace, Woodland Creek and North Glen. There has been a major effort in the plat to try to save trees. Some revisions this week were designed to save trees. The issue of an EAW is a source of frustration. Staff raised the EAW question some time between December 16 and 20. He answered on December 31 that an EAW was not required by statute. Generally this issue is brought to the City Council for a decision, which he felt should have been done by Staff in January to get resolved. It is frustrating to have this left until now and brought to the Planning Commission which can potentially cause another delay in the plat. / Mr. Carlberg responded the EAW was mandatory from the sketch plan phase, and he explained normally that is done prior to the preliminary plat being submitted. Four months later a preliminary plat has been submitted. Staff is raising the issue of whether the selling of the 60 acres to Cambridge Capital, Inc., by Ashford Development Corporation eliminates the need for an EAW or should one still be required because the development of Chesterton Commons can be considered part of a "connected action" where mul tiple proj ects and multiple stages of a single project must be considered in total when comparing the project or projects for the threshold of mandating an EAW. Mr. Carlberg stated throughout the process the developer has been informed of the EAW process. ',-) v Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 11, 1997 Page 9 ./ (Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat Development, Continued) Chesterton Commons Ashford Mr. Windschitl argued the determination of whether or not an EAW is needed should be done in a timely fashion. This has nothing to do with the preliminary plat and is something that should be resolved by the City Council. Responding to a question on remnant lots in the plat, Mr. Windschitl stated the ordinance requires remnant parcels to be attached or conveyed to adjacent property owners. In their contract with Cambridge Capital, it states the outlots would be deeded to them. To attach them to adj acent lots would create some very unusual shaped parcels, but he would be willing to do that. He has been having conversations with the DNR to give them title to the wetland. There is some question as to whether they can convey it to the DNRi and if that cannot be done, it will deeded to one of the conservation clubs, They are making no alterations to the DNR wetland. The Commission noted that historically the City Council decides the issue of whether or not an EAW is required, and they agreed to forward this issue to them without comment. MOTION by Barry, Seconded by Wells, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously_ 9:58 p.m. / Mr. Haas then reviewed the comments of the Engineering Department as outlined in a memorandum dated February 11, 1997. The housekeeping items will be reviewed with Mr. Windschitl tomorrow. Items still pending are internal sidewalks and bikeway/walkways, the outlots, the location of the park in Phases 1 and 2 which will be reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission, and the need for the developer's geotechnical engineering report to evaluate the proposed low floor elevations. The Andover Review Committee is also recommending an 80- foot wide right-of-way to accommodate left and right turn lanes at the intersection of 154th Lane and Hanson Boulevard and Avocet Street and Crosstown Boulevard. Other issues to discuss with Mr. Windschitl are those items listed in the February 10, 1997, letter from TKDA. The Commission asked if these items should have been resolved prior to the public hearing. Mr. Carlberg explained one of the issues the Andover Review Committee will be discussing is the completeness of these documents. While timing is an issue and Staff wants to be cooperative, the completeness of a plat before coming to the public hearing is an issue. Staff is trying to create a processing schedule on commercial site plans and plats, a table and checklist of items to be done. The ordinance does state what needs to be done, and the City could take the hard line and not go to the public hearing until everything is donei but they are trying to work with developers to keep the process going. Mr. Windschitl stated the changes on the plat were requested by the Coon Creek Watershed Board to eliminate an impact on adj acent property. Another was to eliminate a variance the City had raised. , \-...> ) 'J Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February II, 1997 Page 10 .' {Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat Development, Continued} Chesterton Commons Ashford Commissioner Wells asked about the possibility of having a trail along both sides of Hanson Boulevard. Mr. Haas stated there is always that possibility, but it is a question of cost. If the trail is located on the west side, the crossing would probably be at the intersection with Crosstown Boulevard, which at some point will be signaled. The area to the north of this has high buildable land. Mr. Windschitl stated a trail on the east side of Hanson Boulevard will come to an abrupt halt because of the DNR wetland. There is no possibility of getting a permit to go through it. Looking at the flow of a trail between the parks and the schools, the west side might be a better choice for the movement of pedestrians. MOTION by Squires, Seconded by Luedtke, given the fact that the Commission recommended denial of the rezoning, move to recommend denial of the preliminary plat application on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If, in the event that the Comprehensive Plan were amended to allow single family housing as envisioned by the preliminary plat, in that event recommend approval with the sidewalks and trails preserved as noted in the February 11, 1997, memo that was handed out to us and with the variances as noted in " the Staff report and qualified by Mr. Windschitl to the extent that he was correct that certain .variances won't be needed and one that wasn't mentioned woul.d be needed as well. Include comrnenLs from the two memos from the Engineering Department and TKDA. Include the developer's requirement to get all necessary permits from other agencies. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-No (Apel, Peek) vote. This will be placed on the March 4, 1997, City Council agenda. 10:28 p.m. ORDINANCE REVIEW MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Gamache, to table Item 6 to the next meeting. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Wells, to adjourn. unanimously. Motion carried The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. , R. espectfull~~~~.~tt; / \\'\ ~ C(>~ovL-- M~r~lla A. Peach Recording Secretary .I