Laserfiche WebLink
17-3948 <br />July 17, 2017 <br />Page 7 of 7 <br />11) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a <br />demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; No <br />evidence has been presented to suggest otherwise. <br />12) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to <br />minimize environmental impact; There are minimal natural, scenic features of the site. <br />13) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right- <br />of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; The site plan shows minimal measurable <br />light at the ground off site; and <br />14) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. There is no evidence <br />that the proposed use will have detrimental effects. <br />A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP <br />shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing <br />in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of <br />conditional uses. <br />Summary of Issues for Consideration <br />The Commission should consider the following questions in reviewing the proposal: <br />1. Is there justification for the necessary CMP amendment and rezoning to allow the guiding of this <br />property to be converted from commercial office to residential? If that conversion is not allowed, <br />what other uses for the site might be acceptable (aside from office)? Would the City see greater <br />benefit by waiting for commercial development of this property, or is this the appropriate time and <br />location to make the change? <br />2. Is there sufficient justification for flexibility as requested? <br />3. Planning Commission should discuss whether this development should be required to create the <br />RPUD standard 10% private recreation space. If so, do the Pond Pavilion and surrounding yard <br />areas satisfy that requirement? <br />4. Staff recommends that a 10' trail easement be retained along the south boundary of the property. <br />This requirement may go away as plans for the 112/ Wayzata Blvd project progress. <br />5. Should the Conservation design requirements be waived. <br />6. Are there any other issues or concerns with these applications? <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A. Application <br />Exhibit B. Building Plans <br />a. Sheet A 1.0 title Sheet & colored elevation <br />b. Sheet A2.1 Site Plan <br />c. Sheet A5.0 Exterior Elevations <br />d. Sheet A3.0 Lower Level Plan <br />e. <br />Sheet A3.1 First Floor Plan <br />f. <br />Sheet A3.2 Second Floor Plan <br />g. <br />Sheet A3.3 Roof Plan <br />Exhibit C. <br />Airphoto <br />Exhibit D. <br />Comp Plan Map: Land Use Plan <br />Exhibit E. <br />Comprehensive Plan Excerpts <br />Exhibit F. <br />Stonebay PUD No. 4 Excerpts <br />- Exhibit K — Special Conditions <br />- Exhibit M — Development Fees <br />Exhibit G. <br />RPUD Ordinance <br />