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. Sheet A3.1 First Floor Plan <br /> f. Sheet A3.2 Second Floor Plan <br /> g. Sheet A3.3 Roof Plan <br /> Exhibit C. Airphoto <br /> Exhibit D. Comp Plan Map: Land Use Plan <br /> Exhibit E. Comprehensive Plan Excerpts <br /> Exhibit F. Stonebay PUD No.4 Excerpts <br /> - Exhibit K—Special Conditions <br /> - Exhibit M—Development Fees <br /> Exhibit G. RPUD Ordinance <br />