08-28-1978 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Individuals speaking for the proposed zone change included: Joe Rivers, Randy LindQuist, Jerry Smith and the petitioners, Mr. & Mrs. Dahlheim. These indi,~duals addressed the following areas in their comments: 1. The addition of a parking lot would reduce the hazard on the road now caused by parked cars and constant traffic. 2. Property va.luations may not be decreased because of potential for reducing traffic and congestion in the area. 3. The parking problem might be alleviated on the street. 4. The expansion 'I'Jould allovl for the more orderly conduct of the Dairy Queen business. During the Public Hearing, Commisioner Zabee, questioned the o~~er of the Dai~J Queen, Mr. Scott Mitchell, why the property to the west of his establishment had not been considered for expansion for parking lot purposee. Mr. Mitchell indicated the property to the west was too small to support a parking lot, and as such, vIas not feasible. Commissioner Lucas asked r4r.. Mitchell if the Dairy Queen was of a comparable size to other Dairy Queens and if he anticipated expansion in the future. Mr. Mitchell indicated that his operation was small in comparison to many others. At this point, Co~uissioner Toth closed the hearing and confined the co.m.rnents to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Rootes stated that the City must be concerned with commereial grot~h in the City and should not limit, too severely, such grovlth expansion but should consider ~"lhere this expa."1sion might be able to occur in the future. Com~ssioner Lucas indicated he felt the parking was in the vJrong ..1ocation but that he ~.upported commercial gro1r.7th, in general, in the City of Elk River. The City Planner, was asked if conditions could be placed on the Zone Change, limiting the tJ'~e of use or the nature of the use of the property. The City Planner indicated that the Planning Commission could not place conditions on a Zone Change but the Co~mission had the option of granting a variance for the con- struction of the parking lot under the present .zoning, which could allow the Commission to apply the necessary controls over vlhat goes into the area. COr.fi1ISSIONER LUCAS MOv~D THAT Tf1:E ZO!\TE CH..A..NGE FROM R-3 TO C-3 BE DENIED. COiv1MISSIO~~R ZABEE SECONDED THE r-10TION. MOTION"- PASSED UNP..Nll1.fOUSLY. 6. Ridge'~lood East 4th Addition PreliminaI:1 Plat. COmIT~ssioner Toth indicated that, inlight of the staff report on the preliminary plat and the problems posed in the staff review, that the p~at should be rejected and redone, taking into consid- eration, the points raised by the staff report. Neil Larson, representing the Ridgewood East 4th Addition Developer, addressed the Pla~ning Commssion on the possibility of a series of land exchanges to create park l~~d in the area and to cre~~e additional residential area. in another location of the city,