MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Bergman, to approve the agenda. The motion carried 6-0.

MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Bergman, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0 (2 abstentions-Melander, Burke).

Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. with the standard remarks.

City Planner Tom Lovelace introduced the item. He distributed a letter in which the petitioner requested that the public hearing be opened and continued to the next Planning Commission meeting to allow their "architect to prepare an even more creative and exciting plaza area."

MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Melander, to continue the public hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 6-0.

Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer introduced the project. She stated that Traffic Consultant Glen Van Wormer reviewed the revised grading plan after the meeting packets were distributed to the Planning Commission. In his oral comments to Bodmer he noted that the grades were revised so that parking areas have slopes that do not exceed 5%, but he still expressed concerns. Van Wormer outlined four criteria that, if met, would resolve the grading issues.

There was some discussion about the initial site plan compared to the current site plan.

Dr. Ron Hunt, the petitioner, explained the urgency of the project and his desire for professional tenants.

Rolf Lokensgard, the architect for the project, indicated that the plans could be modified to meet Mr. Van Wormer's criteria. He asked for the Planning Commission's approval contingent on that condition.

Bodmer stated that the slopes within the parking lot was the only outstanding issue, and that she is comfortable with recommending approval with the condition that the parking lot design has to meet Van Wormer's four criteria. Bodmer also noted that by conducting a telephone survey she found only one community in the area that has design standards for slopes in parking lots.

Burke said he liked the two-story design with the single story facing east.

MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Burke, to recommend approval of the request to amend PD-144, Zone 5 to allow a veterinarian clinic as a permitted use in the zoning district with the condition that outdoor kennels or pens are strictly prohibited. Motion carried 6-0.

MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Burke, to recommend approval of the site plan and give building permit authorization to construct a 12,000 square foot office building with the following conditions:

Motion carried 6-0.

Assistant Planner Margaret Milton described the request. She noted that the previous grading plan showed an 84-86% loss of trees, while the revised plan results in a 70-74% loss of trees. Milton reviewed public hearing comments and staff's response. Staff's main concern is loss of trees.

Melander stated that if something is going to be done, it seems we are going to suffer tree loss.

Edgeton said that it is difficult to compare this plan to the multi-family plans the Commission saw because a detailed grading plan is only available for the current proposal.

Ed Hasek of Westwood Professional Services, representing the petitioner, spoke of the number of trees on particular lots: about 20 trees on Lot 1, 1-3 on Lot 2, and 5 or 6 trees on Lot 6.

Melander queried whether it would be possible to save the trees on Lot 6 if a variance were granted to allow the house to be positioned closer to the street. Hasek thought so if the garage were on the left side.

Kurt Manley of Manley Development stated that the highest land use value would be apartments, but that all the neighbors he has talked to want single family. He acknowledged there will be significant grading and tree loss, and the more trees saved the better. Manley went on to say that the Evermoor project has more significant retaining walls than are proposed here. He concluded by pointing out there was significant tree loss within one of their projects in Eagan, but there were more tree inches when the project was completed.

Melander said that if Lots 1 and 2 were combined, a restriction on Lot 6 relative to pad size to save as many trees as possible were imposed, and a heroic effort made for erosion control and runoff, then he would vote for the project.

Churchill indicated she was going that direction, too, and that such a project has the best long-range potential to fit into the community.

Burke and Bergman concurred.

Kurt Manley stated that he was willing to lose one lot by combining Lots 1 and 2.

Schindler acknowledged neighbors' concerns about runoff during grading, and said he would want to see a comprehensive plan for erosion control.

Milton stated preserving more trees would address most of staff's issues. She did point out that sidewalks are needed, as well as a trail along County Road #38.

Hasek suggested a front setback of 20-25 feet on Lots 5 and 6 may result in saving additional trees.

MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Churchill, to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan redesignation from "MD" to "LD". Motion carried 6-0.

MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Churchill, to recommend approval of a rezoning of the subject parcel from "M-6A" to "R-3". Motion carried 6-0.

MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Churchill, to recommend approval of a preliminary plat subdividing the subject 12.1 acre property into 24 (by combining Lots 1 and 2) single family lots of at least 11,000 square feet, with the following conditions: (a) installation of sidewalks; (b) installation of a bituminous trail along County Road #38; (c) an enhanced erosion control plan be submitted for approval in conjunction with the application for Natural Resources Management Permit; (d) remove the outlot designation of the stormwater ponds and dedicate them as drainage and utility easements. Motion carried 6-0.

MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Churchill, to recommend approval of a variance reducing the street right-of-way width from the required 60 feet to 50 feet and street pavement width from 34 feet to 30 feet, upon the condition parking be signed for one side of the street. Motion carried 6-0.

MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Churchill, to recommend approval of front setback variances up to 10 feet on Lots 5 and 6, to be granted only if trees are saved as a result. Motion carried 6-0.

City Planner Tom Lovelace described the sketch plan and identified areas of gravel mining and processing currently on the site. He noted that the public hearing for this project would be on August 15^th.

Rob Wachholz with Tradition Development elaborated on the proposal. He stated that legal agreements allow mining on the site until 2008, although at the current pace it will end much sooner. The lake and surrounding parkland will belong to the City. Because of the uniqueness of the proposed parkland, an association would help maintain the park, and the cost to improve the park would be subsidized by the City with an amount the City would normally spend to serve the same number of households. Wachholz pointed out that they are asking for flexibility in setbacks.

Edgeton asked how the developer would address the gravel mining issues with potential homebuyers. Wachholz answered that the gravel mining and asphalt plant will be visible in the area, although screening will be done adjacent to the proposed single family phase. Association documents will include a summary disclosure, so prospects will also know of plans for high-density residential, etc.

Bergman wondered about the time frame for gravel mining south of 160^th Street. Wachholz said that mining there is completed, and only processing is taking place.

Melander asked about the depth of the pond, which will be more than 25 feet. Wachholz indicated the lake is part of the storm water system, and will be partly controlled by storm water management and ground water.

Edgeton stated she would like to see the developer work with architects to incorporate front porches. She said she didn't have a problem with small commercial buildings with zero setbacks.

Burke commented that lakefront use for the public is great.

Melander thought it a neat plan and well thought out.

Churchill said something missing in our community are townhomes for seniors looking for single level living.

Schindler stated his only concern is the cost of the park maintenance. Because the park is in one corner of the city, everyone won't use it but everyone will pay, based on the Association/Park Department arrangement. Wachholz pointed out that the City would pay the same basis as for other parks. The people in the Association would potentially use the parkland the most, and they would also be paying the most.

Assistant Planner Milton introduced the item, noting the maximum size menu board currently allowed is 32 square feet.

The consensus of the Commission was that 32 square feet is adequate. Restaurants in violation of that should be notified and directed to comply with the current regulations. It was recommended that menu boards be included with any future sign permit review.

MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Churchill, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.