2006.10.26 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Minutes —October 26, 2006 Page 3 Grundhofer added that pick-up orders would be taken through the front of the store but would not conflict with the retail business. He said that if the temperature was below 40 degrees, there would be no odors and if the temperature was higher than 40, trash would be removed as needed. In the summer, it is stored in the freezer. Kleissler asked if a new CUP would be required if it all became retail. The CDD said a change in use would require a new site plan and parking requirements would be addressed then. McRoberts made motion, Rosenquist seconded, to approve the CUP, variance, and site plan for Grundhofer's Old -Fashion Meats with a provision for closing time and lighting added to the CUP. All Ayes. Motion carried. Miscellaneous RURAL PRESERVATION PROGRAM ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DISCUSSION McRoberts suggested taking the motion off the table which was made at the previous meeting. The motion was to table discussion on the Rural Preservation Ordinance Amendment until obtaining clarification from the Met Council regarding Rural Preservation. Schumann disagreed saying it was not published on the agenda and it did not make sense to discuss it without Met Council shedding some light on the issue. The CDD stated the Met Council had a rural task force committee that would be meeting to discuss the issue of rural preservation and it would be beneficial to wait until the Committee had completed its work. Hoffbeck said going against the system statement could cause problems by allowing only one home per ten acres on average, and with the existing homes, the limit could be reached which would prevent some landowners from subdividing. With no moratorium on it or discussions in the near future, it could be too late. The ordinance was created prior to getting all the facts, and the City could be up for litigation. McRoberts suggested getting accurate details on how much land is in the rural area and how many homes were located there. Based on discussions with the Met Council, it is not clear or forthcoming where we stand in regard to the system statement. Rosenquist suggested having the City Attorney research the legal end of it. Schumann said that if there was something eminent about the ordinance, it would have been addressed by now. They needed to know the Met Council's general plan. Weidt pointed out there were other properties in the rural areas of the city that were developed with more than one home per ten acres and there had been no lawsuits. He said there were guidelines that had been violated, not rules; there was no penalty clearly written. He thought the Commission should be able to come to an agreement to proceed with the ordinance amendment so everyone could move forward. He wanted it taken off the table and a decision should be made to move forward.