Loading...
2002.06.10 PC Meeting PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY June 10, 2002 7:00 p.m. Crystal City Hall - Council Chambers 4141 Douglas Dr N A. CALL TO ORDER B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • May 13, 2002 meeting C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application 2002-8: Site Plan Review to construct a 9,978 sq. ft. office building at 3200 Douglas Drive North (P.I.D. 21-118-21-23-0114), submitted by Zev Oman (applicant and property owner). 2. Application 2002-9: Lot Combination and Division for 3528 Brunswick Avenue North (P.I.D. 21-118-21-22-0014) and 3538 Brunswick Avenue North (P.I.D. 21-118-21-22-0113), submitted by the Economic Development Authority of the City of Crystal (applicant), Dorothy Hyatt (owner of 3528 Brunswick), and Larry and Laureen Larson (owners of 3538 Brunswick). 3. Application 2002-10: Consider adopting a proposed Storm Water Management Ordinance in accordance with Metropolitan Council directives. D. OLD BUSINESS 1. Review City Council action on bylaw changes previously approved by the Planning Commission. 2. Set date for joint work session with the City Council. E. NEW BUSINESS F. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. City Council actions on Planning Commission items. G. OPEN FORUM H. ADJOURNMENT May 13, 2002 CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: Kamp, Koss, Krueger, Magnuson, Nystrom, T. Graham and VonRueden. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter and Community Development Assistant Dietsche. Commissioner K. Graham arrived at 7:20 p.m. Commissioner Kamp excused himself at 9:00 p.m. Prior to the meeting, a letter of interest was submitted by Mr. Iver Iverson regarding the agenda item related to Edgewood Gardens. Staff distributed the letter to the Planning Commission for review. Call to order Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to approve the minutes of the April 8, 2002 meeting with no exceptions. Motion carried. 2. Public hearings ❑ Consider Application 2002-07 for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales at Buffalo Wild Wings (5590 West Broadway). Planner Sutter stated that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the addition of a patio to an existing building for the purpose of providing outdoor seating and sales. The proposed concrete patio would be approximately 17' x 32', enclosed with a 4' decorative metal fence and screened with shrubs. The patio would hold approximately 9 tables, with seating for 36 customers and have controlled access through the restaurant only. Hours of operation would be 11:00 am to 1:00 am, Monday through Saturday and 11:00 am to midnight on Sunday during the summer and fall months. Staff can foresee no negative impacts resulting from the request. However, in order for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales to be approved, the following conditions must be met: The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring or abutting residential uses; Since the property is only surrounded by commercial uses, fencing and/or screening is not necessary. However, the applicant is proposing to install both a fence and shrubs to provide privacy from surrounding uses. 2. The area is limited to 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principle use; The restaurant has a gross floor area of 5,234 sq.ft. The proposed floor area of the patio is 544 sq.ft., which is well below 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principle use. 3. Sales area is surfaced to control dust; The patio would be surfaced with a cement floor. 4. All lighting shall be hooded and directed so that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way and neighboring residences; Lighting for the patio is not specified on the site plan, but is not anticipated by staff to be an issue. All lighting will need to comply with the conditions listed above, as well as any other applicable lighting requirements listed in the city code. 5. The area does not reduce minimum parking space required for the establishment; The addition of the patio would not reduce the parking for the establishment. 6. The provisions of Subsection 515.53, Subd. 1 (e) of this code are considered and satisfactorily met: 515.53, Subdivision 1 (e): The Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Its judgment shall be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: ❑ Relationship to municipal comprehensive plan. ❑ The geographical area involved. ❑ Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. ❑ The character of the surrounding area. ❑ The demonstrated need for such use. Planner Sutter stated that staff feels that the proposed patio would be consistent with these requirements and recommends approval of Application 2002-07 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor sales at Buffalo Wild Wings (5900 West Broadway). The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation for City Council consideration. The City Council will consider the request at its May 21, 2002 meeting. The Planning Commission agreed that the request was very straightforward and no discussion was necessary. Moved by Commissioner Kamp and seconded by Commissioner Koss to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Moved by Commissioner Koss and seconded by Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-07 for a Conditional Use Permit for a patio to provide outdoor sales. Findings of Fact are as stated in the staff memo. Motion carried. 3. Old Business ❑ Continue the review of land uses along Douglas Drive, south of 36th Ave N to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a Special Area Plan. As part of the process for considering an application for development at 3200 Douglas Drive North, staff received indications from some City Council and Planning Commission members that the Future Land Use designations for the entire Douglas Drive corridor south of 36th Avenue might be flawed. Staff agreed with this assessment and began reviewing the current designations and whether there were alternate approaches that might make more sense given the conditions in this corridor. Over the past few months, staff has developed a proposal to modify the Future Land Use designations for the areas near Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue. The proposal would also create a place in the Comprehensive Plan for Special Area Plans, with the first such plan being a description of what type of development the city would find acceptable in this corridor. The Planning Commission discussed staff's concept at the January and February meetings and, at the March meeting, voted to initiate the application and public hearing to consider the proposed Special Area Plan including both new text and changes to the Future Land Use map. Based on the testimony received at the April 8th public hearing, the Planning Commission discussion following the public hearing, and additional study since then, staff suggests the following additional changes for Planning Commission consideration: 1. 3443 Douglas to be guided Neighborhood Commercial, not MDR. This is a single family rental house located between the Douglas Drive medical clinic (3501 Douglas) and a recently -built 8 -unit townhouse development (3421-3435 Douglas). Staff feels it is much more likely that this property will be converted to office use or be acquired and demolished by the adjacent commercial use for more parking or other expansion. In any event, its potential as a stand-alone MDR property is extremely limited and for this reason staff is recommending that this parcel's land use designation match that of the medical clinic. 2. How to deal with existing neighborhood -compatible commercial uses. As originally proposed by staff, all existing business properties in the corridor would have become lawful non -conforming uses except Lamplighter Square, the medical clinic and the two strip centers near 36th Avenue. (Please note that some of these, like the service station at 3401 Douglas and the used car lot at 3201 Douglas, are already lawfully non -conforming with the Comprehensive Plan.) Some Planning Commissioners and members of the public expressed a desire to accommodate commercial uses that would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff feels there are two main ways to do this: Alternate A: Designate certain parcels as Neighborhood Commercial. This is essentially the status quo for existing businesses. The problem with this approach is that the NC designation would allow many more uses than the relatively benign office uses that were the focus of much of the discussion. For example, the current B-2 zoning (which is roughly comparable to the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation) includes, as permitted uses, the following potentially problematic uses: Amusement places (such as dance halls or roller rinks; bowling alleys; dry cleaning including plant accessory thereto; electrical appliance stores including incidental repair and assembly but not manufacturing; retail stores of new furniture, used furniture, or both new and used furniture.; record and music shops; restaurants, tea rooms, cafes, taverns and off -sale liquor stores; schools (commercial) - music, dance, business, etc.; theatres, not of the outdoor drive-in type; and variety stores, 5 and 10 cent stores, and stores of similar nature. Even assuming we tighten up the Neighborhood Commercial classification a bit, by its very nature it is likely that some NC uses will not be compatible in this corridor. For this reason staff does not favor this approach. Alternate B: Allow office uses by Conditional Use Permit. This approach would continue with staff's original plan to guide the commercial properties MDR but would also state in the text that the intent is to allow, by Conditional Use Permit, limited neighborhood -compatible offices and accessory retail uses adjacent to Douglas Drive. The text would state that the revised Zoning Ordinance should provide for this type of CUP as part of the MDR zoning district but that as an interim measure the standards in ,., 515.27 Subd. 4 [e] & [f] should be applied to properties adjacent to Douglas Drive. Staff supports this approach because it gives the city greater control over the type of commercial uses in an otherwise overwhelmingly residential zone. 3. Should the entire Gale property (3148 Douglas) be auided MDR? . The current proposal is to guide the west half Medium Density Residential and the east half Low Density Residential, with the transition at Colorado Avenue. Some Planning Commissioners have expressed an interest in possibly guiding the entire Gale property for MDR. Staff believes that the rationale remains strong for transitioning from MDR to LDR in the vicinity of Colorado Avenue. Allowing MDR to extend east to Brunswick Avenue would raise the question of why the underutilized parcels in the same area north of 32° would remain LDR. The concept of the Gale property transitioning from MDR on the west to LDR on the east is compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the adjacent land uses. 4. Should the Planning Commission continue this item one more month to allow time for any potential applications to be submitted? The potential office building at 3200 Douglas would be permitted under the present designation (needing only Site Plan Review). However, it would be either prohibited or in need of a Conditional Use Permit after the proposed changes become effective. While there may be additional property owners considering similar "before the change" applications, none have submitted any preliminary plans for discussion or review, and none have submitted a formal Planning & Zoning Application for Site Plan Review. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission discuss whether it wants to continue this item so that applications currently under development can be submitted and considered under the present land use designations. Continuing it to the June meeting would require formal applications to be submitted by May 17th; continuing it to the July meeting would require formal applications to be submitted by June 14th. Please note that either continuance will require the 60 day decision period to be extended for an additional 30 or 60 days, respectively. The proposed Future Land Use designations, if adopted along with the proposed Special Area Plan text and any additional changes detailed above, would facilitate development that is more consistent with the rest of the Comprehensive Plan and more compatible with adjacent existing single family residential neighborhoods. Staff recommends approval of Application 2002-2, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a Special Area Plan covering areas near Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue. Commissioner Magnuson questioned what type of potential commercial building might be proposed for the property at 3200 Douglas Dr N and whether or not it would blend with the surrounding area. She mentioned that the sample sketch included in the staff memo appeared to be too large for the site. Parking, access, and expansion of the use would be major issues of concern. Planner Sutter stated that staff would have to review any applications for issues of this nature, but as of this date, staff has not even received a formal application. It is up to the Planning Commission to decide whether or not the possibility of receiving an application for this site justifies delaying action on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Commissioner Kamp stated that he would hate to take away the opportunity for possible development on this site, but he is not sure whether that is a good enough reason to delay. Kamp also stated that he would like to see all of the Gale property (3148 Douglas Dr N) guided MDR and would like to see the NC properties continue their use. Kamp agreed with staff that 3443 Douglas Dr N should be guided NC. Commissioner Nystrom stated that she would like to delay discussion of changing these designations until an application is submitted for 3200 Douglas Dr N. Commissioner Magnuson replied by pointing out that if the commission were to continue discussion of this topic and consider the possibility of an application for a commercial use, it would be going against the new designation for the corridor, which is MDR. Commissioner Koss agreed that the new designation for the corridor is for it to be MDR, not NC. The Planning Commission has worked on this plan for many months and it is finally taking form. The property owner had the opportunity to submit an application to develop this site for a commercial use for a long time, and therefore the Planning Commission should not let this property delay the decision process for the entire corridor. Commissioner T. Graham agreed with Koss and stated that it is best to go ahead with the new designation as a MDR corridor. The Planning Commission should not backtrack to accommodate this one property. Neighborhood Commercial is available elsewhere in the city, but is not suitable in this area anymore. In reference to the Gale property, T. Graham asked Planner Sutter if there are any other cases in the city where a single parcel has been divided and zoned differently? Planner Sutter responded that there is potential for this to be an issue with other properties in Crystal, but would have to be dealt with on an individual basis. Commissioners Von Rueden and K. Graham both stated that if the property is zoned two different ways, there is a possibility for the property to be less favorable to developers. Guiding the entire parcel MDR would be most logical. '- Commissioner Magnuson said she was concerned about the possibility of NC expanding onto adjacent properties if NC zoning remained. Planner Sutter stated that in the case of Twin Oaks Realty, the adjacent property is zoned partially commercial, which lends the possibility for expansion in the future. He suggested the best solution for this particular property, as well as others with similar circumstances along the corridor, would be to guide them MDR according to Alternate B in the staff memo. Zev Oman, 3200 Douglas Dr N, stated that he would like to see NC remain. He feels that Douglas Dr N is a busy street and therefore is best suited for commercial uses, not residential. Wally Anderson, 3525 Adair Ave N, stated that parking is an issue for his business and would like to eventually expand for that reason. His son plans on continuing the commercial use for years to come and therefore he would like to see it remain NC. Kay Kamke, 6115 36th Ave N, asked Planner Sutter if a NC property is sold, would the new owner be able to operate as a commercial use. She also inquired about single family homes, and if there was a possibility for expansion even if the property was guided MDR. --� Planner Sutter explained that NC could operate under a new owner as long as the business was not out of operation for more than one year, no more than 50% of the property was damaged (as in the case of a fire), or the use is not intensified. Also, the single family home could expand under MDR. The land would remain zoned R-1 (the holding zone) until there was a proposal for development under MDR. Moved by Commissioner T. Graham and seconded by Commissioner Kamp to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-02 for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create a Special Area Plan for Douglas Drive N, south of 36th Ave N. Plan elements different from the May 13th staff proposal include the following: • 3443 Douglas Dr N to be guided Neighborhood Commercial • Guide commercial properties MDR, as stated in Alternate B, as well as the property located at 6307 34th Ave N and allow office uses by Conditional Use Permit • Guide 3148 Douglas Dr N entirely MDR Findings of Fact are as stated in the staff memo. Motion carried. ❑ Continue the discussion of the Preliminary Plat of Edgewood Gardens. Planner Sutter explained that the Economic Development Authority of the City of Crystal (EDA) has acquired the following four parcels for infill redevelopment: Parcel A: 3818 Florida Ave N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0013 Lot 9, Block 1, Colonial Acres Status: Vacant. Owned by the EDA. The platted utility easement across the east 2.5' of this parcel has been vacated. Parcel B: 3821 Douglas Dr N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0001 unplatted land Status: One single family house. Owned by the EDA. Prior owner (Karen Stombaugh) has permission to occupy house through April 30, 2002 and the rest of the property (garden area) through June 30, 2002. The EDA will rehab and sell the house on the open market. Parcel C: 6404 38th Ave N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0006 Lot 2, Block 1, Colonial Acres, together with unplatted land .-� Status: One single family house plus outbuildings. Owned by the EDA. Prior owner (Jeff Tepfer) has permission to occupy property through April 30, 2002. The EDA will demolish the house and outbuildings. Parcel D: 632838 1h Ave N P.I.D. 17-118-21-44-0005 Lot 1, Block 1, Colonial Acres Status: One single family house. Owned by the EDA. The EDA is presently rehabbing this house for resale as an affordable home for a first-time home buyer. The area is guided Low Density Residential and zoned R-1. This allows single family subdivisions of single family detached homes at densities not to exceed 5 units per acre. The density of the proposed subdivision will be 3.5 units per acre. All of the proposed lots meet the city's minimum width (60'), depth (100') and area (7,500 sq. ft.) requirements. It should be noted that, while the cul-de-sac lots are not 60' wide along the curve of the street right-of-way, they are at least 60' wide at the building setback line. For cul-de-sac lots, past practice in Crystal (and standard practice in most other communities) is to measure the lot width at the setback line for compliance with lot width requirements. The plat includes the following streets and easement dedications: • 7' along Douglas Drive (to provide a full 40' width along the west side of the centerline in accordance with Hennepin County's requirements); • 45' radius (90' diameter) cul-de-sac right-of-way; • 10' drainage and utility easements along all front lot lines; • 5' drainage and utility easements along all rear lot lines; • 5' drainage and utility easements along all side lot lines except as follows: The north sides of Lots 1 and 5 will have 10' drainage and utility easements to better accommodate side yard drainage between the new homes and the existing homes to the north. The north side of lot 8 will have no easement due to the existing house having a lawfully non -conforming setback of 2.7'. To serve the new homes on lots 1-5, a new cul-de-sac would be built just south of the existing Edgewood Ave N dead end, approximately 300' south of 39th Ave N. Water and sanitary sewer lines to serve lots 1-5 would be extended a short distance south from their current termini at the dead end. The improved street would have b6-18 concrete curb and gutter and bituminous pavement in accordance with standard city street requirements. The cul-de-sac would have a .., 30' radius (60' diameter) from curb -to -curb, which has been approved by West Metro Fire and Rescue staff. Drainage issues are addressed in the attached memo from the City Engineer. The cul-de-sac and five driveways would drain north along Edgewood Avenue following the natural slope of the land north of the development. Other drainage will continue to the west, south and east as it has always done. While there may be existing drainage problems in the neighborhood, the opinion of the City Engineer is that this project will have no significant impact on these pre-existing problems. The new home on Lot 6 and the existing (rehabbed) home on Lot 7 would be served with existing infrastructure on 38th Ave N. The existing (rehabbed) house on Lot 8 would be served with existing infrastructure on Douglas Dr N. The standard park dedication requirement is now $1,000 per new residential unit. Since this plat would result in a net gain of 5 units, park dedication in the amount of $5,000 is required. The EDA will dedicate as parkland 7,764 sq. ft. (0.18 acres) of the property. At the Hennepin County Assessor's estimated value of $1.15 per square foot (memo in the 6328 38th Ave N rehab project file dated March 6, 2002), the value of this dedication is $8,929. In addition, the EDA is proposing to install a wood chip footpath -type trail to connect the new Edgewood Ave N cul-de-sac with the Florida Park property to the west. The value of this improvement probably approaches $2,000, meaning that the EDA proposing park dedications and improvements roughly double the minimum required by city code. The rehab of the existing homes at 6328 38th Ave N and 3821 Douglas Dr N is expected to be completed by early summer and both homes will be marketed at that time. Site work and installation of public improvements would begin in mid- summer 2002 and be completed by fall. The lots for the six new homes would be sold in the fall and construction on the new homes would be expected to be completed by spring 2003. Staff recommends approval of Application 2002-3, a Preliminary Plat of Edgewood Gardens. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for City Council consideration. The City Council would consider the application at its May 21 st meeting. Commissioner Magnuson addressed the letter submitted by Mr. Iverson and stated that it would be forwarded to staff and the City Council. Mr. Iverson has some legitimate concerns, however, most would be best addressed by the EDA. The Planning Commission is to consider zoning, and if the proposal fits wihtin the zoning, the Planning Commission has no reason to deny. Mr. Iverson, 3828 Edgewood Ave N, and his son Bob Iverson reiterated that they feel the cul -du -sac is not the best option. There will be many negative impacts to the neighborhood with the way the development is currently laid out. Loretta Ruby, 3909 Edgewood Ave N, agreed with the Iverson's opinions. She was concerned about additional traffic and how the new homes will blend with the existing. Planner Sutter did mention that the city did look at extending Edgewood Ave N through, however, it just was not economical and there would not be any real benefit to the city or neighborhood. The development is a typical cul -du -sac with proportional lot sizes to the surrounding area. Traffic will increase, but not more than a typical suburban neighborhood. The convenience of the residents living on a dead-end is not a reason to prohibit this development. Most of the new homes are anticipated to be two-story, however, the city will take design into consideration when selecting a builder. Drainage issues have been brought to the City Engineer's attention and will be addressed in the next street reconstruction project for that area, if necessary. As a precautionary measure, a 10' utility easement along the north side of lots 1 and 5 will be provided to give builders room to accommodate drainage on each of their own lots. Tom Schneider, 3845 Edgewood Ave N, stated that water was definitely a concern of his with the addition of several driveways. He explained that currently, there is no storm drain and the excess runoff from the new homes may cause the water to back up toward the existing homes. '"1 ''*N Commissioner Krueger inquired about the anticipated timeline for the project and Planner Sutter stated that grading and marketing of the lots should take place by the end of summer 2002. Moved by Commissioner VonRueden and seconded by Commissioner Koss to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2002-03 for a Preliminary Plat of Edgewood Gardens. Findings of Fact are as stated in the staff memo, lot sizes to meet city requirements, and drainage issue to be acceptable as stated by the City Engineer. Motion carried. ❑ Review City Council action on bylaw changes previously approved by the Planning Commission. This item was postponed until June 10, due to the longevity of the meeting. ❑ Set date for joint work session with the City Council. This item was postponed until June 10, due to the longevity of the meeting. 4. New Business 5. General Information • City Council actions on Planning Commission items • Quarterly development status report • Resignation of Commissioner Koss, effective June 1, 2002 • Request by Commissioner Krueger for the 2001 attendance records 6. Adjournment Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m. Secretary T. Graham Motion carried. Chair Magnuson M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 7th, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (for June 10th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Application 2002-9: Lot Combination and Division for 3528 Brunswick Avenue North (P.I.D. 21-118-21-22-0014) and 3538 Brunswick Avenue North (P.I.D. 21-118-21-22-0113), submitted by the Economic Development Authority of the City of Crystal (applicant), Dorothy Hyatt (owner of 3528 Brunswick), and Larry and Laureen Larson (owners of 3538 Brunswick). A. BACKGROUND The Crystal Economic Development Authority (EDA) is in the process of purchasing 3528 Brunswick for demolition and re -sale of the lot for construction of a new house. As part of this acquisition, the EDA has also reached an agreement with the owners of 3538 Brunswick to realign the common lot line between their property and 3528. The following informational items are attached.- Li ttached:❑ plat map showing the existing and proposed property lines; and ❑ reduced (not to scale) survey showing the existing and proposed property lines, together with the proposed land transfers necessary to accomplish the proposed realignment of lot lines. B. STAFF COMMENTS Upon approval of the request, the properties would each be approximately the same dimensions: 85' wide and 196' deep, with an area of 16,660 sq. ft. (0.38 acre). Staff can foresee no negative impacts resulting from the request. The dimensions of both parcels would appear to allow their use with or without approval of the request. The main effects of this request would be to (1) rearrange the lot lines to give both parcels a more typical lot layout, and (2) complete the Brunswick Avenue right-of-way by granting the west 10' of 3528 Brunswick to the City of Crystal for street purposes. C. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Application 2002-09 for Lot Combination and Division at 3528 and 3538 Brunswick. Findings of fact are that the request is consistent with Crystal City Code. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for the City Council to consider at its June 18th meeting. M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 7th, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (for June 10th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Application 2002-10: Consider adopting a proposed Storm Water Management Ordinance in accordance with Metropolitan Council directives. A. BACKGROUND As part of its review of our Comprehensive Plan update in 2000, Metropolitan Council informed Crystal that we would need to adopt a Storm Water Management Ordinance. Staff had asked that Metropolitan Council allow the city to wait until the watersheds' Second Generation Storm Water Management Plan is complete before adopting new regulations, since the regulations will have to be significantly revised once the Second Generation plan is done. Metropolitan Council has refused this request. For this reason, staff is bringing the Metropolitan Council's model ordinance to the Planning Commission and City Council for your consideration, even though it will need to be significantly revised once the Second Generation plan is done. A copy of the draft ordinance is attached. B. STAFF COMMENTS The ordinance either does not typically apply to projects in Crystal or it duplicates what the city already does as part of its plan review processes. Nevertheless, failure to adopt Metropolitan Council's model ordinance may jeopardize applications for Livable Communities funding and requests for approval of Comprehensive Plan amendments. C. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the request for the City Council to consider at its June 18th meeting. If First Reading is approved at that time, Second Reading would occur on July 2nd, publication would occur on July 10th and the ordinance would be effective on August 9th, M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 7, 2002 TO: Planning Commission (for June 10th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Set date for joint work session with the City Council In response to the Planning Commission's request for an annual joint work session with the City Council, staff is suggesting the following possible dates for such a meeting (all assumed to be from 7-9 p.m.): Thursday, June 20th (Note: This is just two days after a regular Council. Also, the Environmental Quality Commission meets the same night.) Monday, June 24th (Note: This is midway between the June and July Planning Commission meetings. Also, the Human Rights Commission meets the same night.) Thursday, June 27th (Note: This is the same night that the City Council normally holds their monthly work session. This makes for convenient scheduling since the Council members already have this date blocked out. However, it could become a problem if other issues come up that the Council has to discuss that evening.) Staff would prefer the Thursday, June 27th date because we can be assured of strong Council participation due to it already being on their schedules and there being no conflicts with other Commissions' meetings. The Planning Commission is asked to discuss these options and select the best one. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS (since last Planning Commission meeting on May 13, 2002) May 21, 2002: 1. APPROVED: Application 2002-2 for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a Special Area Plan covering areas near Douglas Drive south of 36th Avenue. 2. APPROVED: Application 2002-3 for a Preliminary Plat of Edgewood Gardens. 3. APPROVED: Application 2002-7 for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales at Buffalo Wild Wings (5900 West Broadway).