Laserfiche WebLink
developer, the plan before the Commission was designed. He indicated the proposed plat would <br />give the seven property owners access to the river. He stated Village Bank would prefer the <br />northern route for the frontage road as it would impact the homeowners less. He believed the <br />plan would benefit the City. <br />Chairperson Levine questioned how the Commission should move forward. Development <br />Services Manager Gladhill suggested the Commission close the public hearing and begin <br />discussing each item requested from Village Bank. <br />Commissioner Brauer asked if the applicant would be willing to move forward with this case <br />even if the location of the frontage road was unknown. Mr. Deers stated this was a tough <br />position and was hoping to have the frontage road moved to the north. <br />Commissioner Brauer commented the alternative would be that the Commission could take no <br />action. He had concern with the City stepping on MnDOT's toes. Mr. Deers believed that after <br />conversations with MnDOT, the frontage road was a City issue. <br />Chairperson Levine inquired if the Planning Commission had to take action this evening, or if the <br />request could be delayed. Development Services Manager Gladhill reported the Planning Case <br />could be delayed, as the City could extend the Planning Case another 60 days, which would <br />allow staff time to review the final report on the MnDOT Highway 10 Access Study. He stated it <br />would be appropriate to approve or deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. <br />Motion by Commissioner Bauer, seconded by Commissioner Brauer, to close the public hearing. <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Levine, Commissioners Bauer, Brauer, Maul, and <br />Nosan. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner VanScoy. <br />Chairperson Levine closed the public hearing closed at 7:57 p.m. <br />Commission Business <br />Development Services Manager Gladhill further reviewed the options available to the <br />Commission for this Planning Case. He commented a variance was being requested for the cul- <br />de -sac length and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would entitle the plat to move forward. <br />He stated if the plat were approved as presented, the rear road was in conflict, and this alternative <br />would have to be removed from the study. <br />Commissioner Bauer believed that residential made the most sense for this parcel. <br />Commissioner Brauer was in favor of waiting to take action on this Planning Case until MnDOT <br />weighed in on this. Development Services Manager Gladhill stated the Commission could wait <br />for the final study from MnDOT or wait for direction from MnDOT. He reported the <br />Commission could make a recommendation contingent upon this information. He proposed <br />holding a joint worksession with the City Council and Planning Commission for this item. <br />Planning Commission /July 10, 2014 <br />Page 5 of 10 <br />