Planning Commission - 10/22/2018 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2018 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew
Pieper, Ed Farr, Mark Freiberg, Michael DeSanctis,
Christopher Villarreal, Carole Mette
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner
Matthew Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural
Resources; Rod Rue, City Engineer;
Ric Rosow, City Attorney
Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary
A. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Absent was commission members Mette, Villarreal and Weber.
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Higgins to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
D. MINUTES
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by DeSanctis to approve the minutes of October 8,
2018 with the following changes: on page 12, the motion to approve the Eden Bluff
Fourth Addition project should be changed from "landscape and all parking lots" to
"landscape in all parking lots", and in the statement regarding temporary screening be
corrected to flow correctly instead of being accidentally switched. MOTION CARRIED
6-0.
E. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
F. PUBLIC MEETINGS
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 2
A. NOTERMANN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Location: Northwest quadrant of Flying Cloud Drive and Spring Road
Request for:
• Guide Plan change from Rural to Low Density Residential on 8.34 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 9.54 acres
• MUSA Boundary extension on 8.34 acres
John Shardlow, a planner with Stantec Consulting, presented a PowerPoint and
presented the application. He introduced the property owners Bert and Bonnie
Notermann and legal counsel Jack Perry of Briggs and Morgan. The applicant
requested a 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning and a MUSA
extension for 9.54 acres of property located north of Flying Cloud Drive and west
of Spring Road. The parcel is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of
Flying Cloud Drive and Spring Road. Shardlow stated the applicant accepted the
recommendations of the staff report and would bring a more detailed development
plan during the future application for zoning approval. There would also be a
future application for a Planned Unit Development(PUD). The building envelope
he displayed in a graphic indicated the current setback requirements. The
Notermanns, owners since 1970, had always intended to develop the property
when public utilities became available, services that were assured by the City
would be available. They petitioned for water and sewer and worked with the City
on numerous design alternatives. The site was consistent with the statement in the
Rural District section of the City Code and with the plans recently approved for
the Lions Tap site.
Klima presented the staff report. The request was to amend the Comprehensive
Guide Plan from Rural to Low-Density Residential on approximately 8 acres,
extend the MUSA line to serve that additional 8 acres, and to rezone the entire
property, approximately 9.5 acres, from Rural to R1-13.5. Staff recommended
approval of the re-guiding and the MUSA line extension. However, staff
recommended the zoning request wait for a development plan to be submitted as
it was typical of the City's practices to simultaneously review a development plan
when considering a rezoning request. This process allowed for a comprehensive
review by both public officials and private property owners.
Staff recommended retaining the rural zoning of the property until such time as a
complete development plan and associated information is provided for review.
Without these details, establishing an ultimate zoning of the property would be
premature as it is unclear what level of development was appropriate and could be
sustained by site conditions. Staff also recommended text amendments to the
2030 Comprehensive Plan to formalize the City's practice.
Farr asked what the initial trigger was for the utility extensions. Rue replied this
area had a long history. A feasibility study was done in 2013 for the north side of
Eden Prairie Road, which was the first stage; this site was contracted for
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 3
improvement in 2016 and was planned to be completed at some future time. The
Notermanns' petition for sewer and water to serve the Lions Tap and the
surrounding residential areas precipitated this second stage of the development.
Each improvement situation was unique; this goal was to serve the Lion's Tap
with sewer and water lines, which included potential benefits to areas outside the
MUSA line to serve those properties when and if the MUSA line was extended.
This was an effort to prevent precluding it from happening in the future.
Farr asked when the MUSA line had to be extended. Rue replied as part of the
whole process, the Lions Tap site was outside the MUSA line, so there was an
approval to grant this property outside the MUSA line with water and sewer.
Dean Edstrom of 10133 Eden Prairie Road stated he was a 45-year resident who
was dedicated to protecting the bluffs, which were the inspiration for the City's
name. While he thought the City had done a good job thus far, this development
would cause a great change to the bluff, which has few residential buildings. He
recommended an outright denial of the application, as the guide plan change and
extension of the MUSA line represented a domino effect. He objected to the 19-
page legal brief submitted by Mr. Perry that compelled the commission to
approve the application in any case. If the commission was compelled by the legal
brief to approve this application the commission then had no discretion, and
neither did the City Council or the Metropolitan Council. He stated this was
essentially a threat of litigation against the City. Edstrom disagreed with the brief
entirely and recommended this issue be referred to the City Attorney for further
discussion so the commission could make a decision without being so compelled.
MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Higgins to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
Higgins asked for Rosow's thoughts on the legal brief. Rosow replied he
consulted with staff on the recommendations and found them to be fully
supported in law. He found it neither appropriate nor necessary to comment on
Mr. Perry's letter other than to say there are some things Rosow disagreed with.
Kirk added the ordinances had several aspects that allowed the City to protect the
bluffs. He asked Rosow to expand on these. Rosow mentioned the steep slope and
cultural heritage aspects as examples, and stated the ordinance did give the City
authority to regulate development as staff recommended. The PUD process would
involve collaboration with the City. Staff was not attempting in its
recommendations to avoid arguments or litigation but was recommending the best
process for moving forward with development on this property. According to
Rosow, Mr. Perry may have thought, given the history and the possibility of a
negative reaction, he had to argue strongly when he in fact did not, and the City
was not reacting to this,but taking a proactive approach. Rosow stated he was
confident staff found a supportable approach under the law.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 4
Farr asked for assurance the improvements would be given due process despite
the legal tensions. Klima replied she and the applicant expected any development
would come through a PUD process to ensure flexibility in this unique situation,
and there would need to be special consideration given to the protection of the
bluff areas, trees, and other natural areas. This would be a public process should
those applications be received by the City. Farr recalled a document that
mentioned using the ridgeline of the bluff as a line of distinction between
developable and "undevelopable" land. Klima replied it was a fair assumption this
language was found in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Prior to its adoption, a
MUSA expansion took place in the 1990s. In order to expand the MUSA line, the
ridgeline was a best estimate as to where development could be accommodated.
In the Aspire 2040 process, 20 to25 properties were found to be bisected by the
MUSA line, which followed the ridgeline, and each property was unique.
Farr asked in the commission's discretionary judgment, if a development proposal
application were to be denied, would there be a lawsuit against the City. Rosow
replied the Comprehensive Plan, which was the founding document, proposed to
low-density residential. The zoning is recommended to be unchanged until the
owner was prepared to develop the property. If the Comprehensive Plan and
zoning were contrary, this would present the City with a choice: amend the
Comprehensive Plan or rezone the property. To amend the Comprehensive Plan
there must be a reasonable basis for denial. The court would give deference to a
City Council's judgment based on one reasonable basis only, not requiring
multiple reasons. If there is an unreasonable basis without a factual basis for
denial, it was fine for residents to have an opinion against the development but the
commission must find a basis for acting on it.
Shardlow replied Mike Franzen was the City Planner in 2013, and he and
Shardlow agreed they would deal with the commercial part first, then the
residential portion. There was approximately 1.5 acres of land in the extreme
northeast corner of the property within in the MUSA line. Franzen's
recommendation was three lots within the 1.5 acres and one outside for four lots
total. This was the steepest area. Taking access directly from Spring Road to
service these lots would have been an incredibly steep cut. A PUD would save the
trees and have less of an environmental impact. The Notermanns did commission
a study and concluded the site had a naturally occurring landform and not an
indigenous mound or sacred area; however, it could have a protective covenant
anyway. The Notermanns and Petersons had not received a response to their letter
requesting an opportunity to discuss the future use of their properties as part of the
2040 Aspire Comprehensive Plan draft. They were concerned the current
language could prohibit development beyond the MUSA line, which drove the
language of the current application.
Edstrom asked to comment further. Pieper replied the public hearing was closed
and the commissioners would question the applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 5
Farr asked the reason staff was recommending amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan rather than to the zoning ordinance itself. Klima replied staff recommended
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to ensure consistency between it and the
zoning ordinance. While the current Comprehensive Plan said the rural district, as
well as the other districts, were corresponding to the low-density residential
districts, the additional details proposed tightened the consistency.
Kirk replied he was very familiar with the unspoken"red line" at the top of the
bluff and did fear a slippery slope, as the bluffs were a very unique part of Eden
Prairie. It hinged on the definition of"protect," which for Kirk meant a very
carefully controlled development, not a prohibition of development outright. The
legal discussions were well addressed by the City Attorney. In his opinion the
City did have the ability, through ordinances and the PUD process, to have some
reasonable control over the bluff. The applicant also indicated a willingness to
show this. Finding a reasonable solution could be uncomfortable but he was
confident a compromise could be found.
Farr echoed Kirk's trepidation, saying he had spent three days imagining the site
plan which the commission did not have. However, this was private property held
by people who served the community well, and the City needed residential
housing. Freiberg asked if the PUD approach would give the City more control
over development in this area and lead to a compromise. Kirk replied the PUD
process was an absolute necessity to give a reasonable position based in law. The
applicant was showing cooperation with the City and respect for its needs relative
to the bluffs. DeSanctis replied in an era where climate change has become
salient,removing trees from a steep slope would have a negative impact on a
sacred area to Eden Prairie, especially with increase of heavy rains seen recently
in Minnesota.
Higgins stated she was on the Eden Prairie Historical Society Board of Directors,
and these two areas along Flying Cloud Drive and Spring Road were owned by
people whose history in Eden Prairie was integral. This presented an opportunity
to develop reasonably although there were many unknowns. Staff and legal
counsel were advising a PUD process to ensure the best possible outcome. Pieper
asked if the public hearing should be reopened.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by DeSanctis to reopen the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
Dean Edstrom of 1133 Eden Prairie Road stated he understood the applicant's
understanding of the staff report and the legal opinion. He asked Rosow to give
advice on whether or not the prior staff conversations were actually legally
binding; his understanding was they were not.
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Higgins to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 6
Farr asked the value of the natural resources in a development. Bourne replied the
applicant was aware of the necessity of protecting the natural resources in these
areas. Kirk noted the commission was being asked to vote on a policy change that
had been evolving over the last 10 to 15 years: whether or not to allow
development in this area of Eden Prairie. Hypothetically, if the commission
recommended approval and the applicant came back with an unreasonable
development, he wished to retain the City's ability to prohibit such a
development. Pieper asked Rosow's opinion. Rosow replied the PUD process
gave the City considerable control and the real fear was an unreasonable
development, which made it difficult to reach consensus, not a development that
was reasonable but not entirely within the commission's vision.
Farr asked for and received clarification the motions first would amend the
Comprehensive Plan and secondly deny the rezoning request, and asked if content
was missing to vote directly on the application. Klima explained the motion
incorporated all three of the bullets points on the staff report: to change the
guiding in the Comprehensive Plan, to extend the MUSA boundary, and to
address the zoning change proposal (with a denial).
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Freiberg to recommend approval of the
Notermann residential development 2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendment based
on the information contained in the October 18, 2018 staff report. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by DeSanctis to recommend denial of the
request to rezone property from Rural to R1-13.5 based on the information
contained in the October 18, 2018 staff report. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
B. PETERSON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Location: Northeast quadrant of Flying Cloud Drive and Spring Road
Request for:
• Guide Plan change from Parks/Open Space to Low Density Residential on
7.57 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 12.3 acres
• MUSA Boundary extension on 12.3 acres
John Shardlow, a planner with Stantec Consulting, presented a PowerPoint and
explained the application. He introduced Siever Peterson, owner of the property,
and explained the Petersons had no near future plan for development. The
intention was to anticipate such a development with access to municipal utilities
that would support better options with less adverse environmental impacts, such
as grading and this was driven by the update of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Klima presented the staff report. The applicant was requesting a 2030
Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning and a MUSA extension for 12.3 acres
of property located north of Flying Cloud Drive and east of Spring Road. No
development plan or timeline for development of the property was submitted. It
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 7
has been the City's practice to review rezoning requests simultaneously with a
development plan. The City's goal for this corridor was to preserve and protect
natural resources and maintain the natural character along the Minnesota River.
The Low Density Residential guiding allowed up to 2.5 dwelling units per acre.
One of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan was to maintain a balance between
conservation/management of natural resources and the need for residential
housing. Due to the location of utility services and the existing regulations to
protect natural resources, staff recommended approval of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan amendment to Low Density Residential and the extension of
the MUSA boundary.
Without a development plan for the property, there was insufficient information to
determine the appropriate zoning for the property. A development plan that
included information such as topography, soils reports, archeological studies, tree
inventory, and bluff/steep slope analysis would help inform the level of
development that the site can support, and again, review of a development plan
would be simultaneous with considering a rezoning request. This process allowed
for a comprehensive review by both public officials and private property owners.
Staff recommended retaining the rural zoning of the property until such time as a
complete development plan and associated information was provided for review.
Without these details, establishing an ultimate zoning of the property was
premature as it is unclear what level of development is appropriate and can be
sustained by site conditions. Staff also recommended text amendments to the
2030 Comprehensive Plan to formalize the City's practice.
Joel Wiegert of 10131 Eden Prairie Road spoke against a possible "snowball
effect" of making decisions based on hypothetical developments. While he did not
doubt the reasonableness of the applicant in this case,he was concerned about
subsequent developers. He might not in fact object to the future development on
this or any other parcels,but he suggested holding off all Comprehensive Plan and
zoning change until the actual development plan is brought forward.
Shardlow replied the MUSA line was a regional growth management tool of the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act, and ten-year municipal planning schedules
served to determine which areas would be urbanized within each planning period.
Cities have routinely extended their MUSA lines without specific development
plans in preparation for at least forty years. The applicant was not anticipating
immediate development but was expecting it in the near future.
Farr asked the applicant and commission to ponder an alternative use to a low-
density single-family residential development on the northeast corner. He also
asked if the graphic in the staff report was accurate. Rue replied the exhibit shown
in the staff report was not up to date and displayed the old Spring Road
alignment; the new Spring Road alignment went straighter south and would
remove a portion of the northeast corner. Page three of the report did show the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 8
current alignment. The gray area on that graphic appeared wider than a normal
right-of-way width because there was a storm water facility and a retaining wall.
Kirk noted the Lion's Tap site was very unique and would not attract additional
commercial development to that corner. If there would be additional development
there he would rather see residential than commercial. DeSanctis asked if the
proposed intersection would be signaled or signed. Rue replied there would be a
stop sign on Spring Road, as existed today. Farr asked if the access to this
property was solely from Spring Road and if the distance between the intersection
and northern property line was sufficient for safety. Rue replied he would expect
any development on that site would line up with the recently approved driveway
for the recently approved Lion's Tap project. There was also Riley Creek dividing
that property, so there would be restrictions for development, along with some
steep slopes on the eastern portion. There was much less developable land than
would be suggested by the graphic in the staff report. Farr noted with the setbacks
there was probably not much developable land left.
MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Kirk to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Freiberg to recommend approval of the
Peterson residential development 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendments based
on the information contained in the October 18, 2018 staff report. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by DeSanctis to recommend denial of the
request to rezone the property from Rural to R1-13.5 based on the information
contained in the October 18, 2018 staff report. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
C. SOUTHWEST TRANSIT GARAGE
Location: 14405 W 62nd St
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 10.05 acres
• Site Plan Review on 10.05 acres
Rosow departed the meeting.
Gary Hay of Hay Dobbs, P.A. introduced SouthWest Transit CEO Dave Jacobson
and Mike Dartt, SouthWest Transit Facilities Manager. He displayed a
PowerPoint and explained the application. SouthWest Transit had two offices
located in Eden Prairie: the corporate office on Technology Drive, and the Eden
Prairie Garage. The development proposed to build expanded parking which
would be developed on its current ten-acre garage site. The development would
include 80 percent bus storage, 15 percent maintenance facility, and 5 percent
office space. The current 78 parking stalls would need to be expanded.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 9
DeSanctis noted in the Comprehensive Plan the City was concerned about the
silhouette and profile along Highway 62 and asked what would be altered. Hay
replied very little along Highway 62 would be altered. Only the driveway would
be seen and the parking would be out of sight behind the entrance. DeSanctis
asked if large-caliper trees would be added to the location. Hay replied there were
no specific plans for this,but trees would be planted. A rock island at the entry
was being converted to trees. DeSanctis asked how many staff would be relocated
with the corporate office. Hay replied 10 staff. DeSanctis asked for and received
confirmation this would have a negligible effect on the traffic flow on the
frontage road.
Farr stated he would not want the storage water to overflow too quickly and
breach the retaining wall. Hay replied the engineers worked with Nine Mile to
prevent this. He explained the parking locations. Farr asked if any consideration
had been made to share the parking resources to prevent empty parking surfaces
at night. Hay replied this was considered;however, storage was full when the
drivers arrived in the morning, and in the evening the vehicles would have to be
moved to park the buses for the night.
Klima presented the staff report. The applicant proposed to expand the existing
parking on the property located at 14405 62nd Street West, located south of 62nd
Street Wes and just east of Indian Chief Road. The site included an existing
maintenance garage with warehouse and office space. The existing site included
72 parking spaces; City Code requires 73 parking stalls. Due to the future
demolition of the SouthWest Transit corporate offices on Technology Drive, the
relocation of SouthWest Transit staff from the corporate offices to this site and
expanded transit services, SouthWest Transit identified a need for expanded
parking on this site.
The applicant proposed to add 72 parking stalls to bring the total to 144. The site
plan proposed additional parking on the north, east and south sides of the
property. Because the property was a shoreland district, the applicant requested a
waiver to the maximum impervious surface allowed in the shoreland district. Staff
recommended approval of the application.
Farr had a question regarding the fuel gas tank for diesel fuel, and saw no
jurisdiction or regulatory review of adding the aboveground grade fuel station,
and asked if there compliance issues to consider regarding groundwater concerns.
Klima there may be additional reviews aside from the aboveground review from
the Fire Department or county hazardous materials department.
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to close the public hearing. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 10
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Higgins to recommend approval of the
SouthWest Transit Garage project based on information contained in the October
18, 2018 staff report and plans stamp dated October 10, 2018. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
D. CODE AMENDMENT FOR SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES AND
PAWN SHOPS
Request for:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to Sexually Oriented Businesses
and Pawn Shops
Klima presented the staff report. At the City Council's annual goal-setting and
visioning session held in late winter there was discussion on such sensitive uses
such as pawn shop and sexually-orientated businesses and what ordinances did or
did not exist. Pawn shops were regulated under Chapter 5 of the City Code. There
were at present no pawn shops or precious metal business in Eden Prairie, but
Chapter 5 includes restrictions as to which zoning districts in which they would
be allowed. Eden Prairie was one of few communities that had nothing on the
books regarding sexually oriented businesses. The City Council adopted a
moratorium on both uses in June of 2018 to allow staff to research and study the
issues, and come back with recommendations.
Staff proposed that Chapter 11 (Zoning) be amended to include the definitions for
pawnshop and precious metal dealer as defined in Chapter 5. Staff further
recommended that Chapter 11 be amended to add pawn shops and precious metal
dealers as permitted uses within the Regional Commercial and Commercial
Regional Services zoning districts subject to the licensing requirements in Chapter
5. The Police Department and legal staff were drafting licensing requirements for
sexually oriented businesses. These code amendments would be placed in Chapter
5 and reviewed by the City Council. Staff proposed that the definition of sexually
oriented businesses be added to Chapter 11 and that sexually oriented businesses
be allowed as a permitted use in the 12 and I5 zoning districts subject to the retail
space regulations of these zoning districts. The 12 and I5 zoning districts allowed
15% of the gross floor area of buildings to be utilized for retail purposes. In the
case of a multi-tenant building, the 15 percent retail area would be cumulative for
the entire building rather than 15 percent per individual tenant. Staff also
proposed that distance requirements of 1,000 feet be provided for sexually
oriented businesses from any place of worship, day care facility, school,
residential use or other sexually oriented business. Staff recommended approval.
DeSanctis asked on what criteria the 1,000-foot buffer, which he thought was
arbitrary and insufficient, was based upon. Klima replied staff looked at other
regional communities, and some had no distance requirements, others ranged
from 250 feet to 1,000 feet. None exceeded 1,000 square feet. Freiberg asked if
there are currently or proposed to be any of these businesses in Eden Prairie.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 11
Klima replied there were a variety of factors as to why Eden Prairie did not
emerge as a possible audience for these businesses; it could be Eden Prairie's
property values did not align with such businesses, or there was not a market for
such services.
Pieper asked for and received confirmation there were no current applications for
either type of business. Klima reiterated this was a purely proactive change. Kirk
asked for comparisons to other communities for the distance requirement for
pawn shops. Klima replied only one community, Maple Grove, was found to have
a distance requirement; theirs was 750 feet.
DeSanctis reiterated the need for the greatest possible distance for sexually
oriented businesses and schools, day cares, and places of worship. Klima replied
the 1,000 foot was the maximum utilized in other communities researched.
Freiberg replied he would be in favor of whatever the maximum would be. Farr
stated he also preferred the most distance possible, and at 1,000 feet, signage was
illegible unless it violated City code in using a very large font. He added he found
the route,rather than the distance of separation, to be of upmost importance—if
the children had to pass such a business on their way to school, distance was a
poor metric. However, this was very difficult to regulate. DeSanctis added
legislating a greatest possible distance could become in effect a legislation of
what kind of businesses existed in Eden Prairie.
Kirk agreed Eden Prairie should be on the upper end of the regional norms for the
sexually oriented businesses,but was surprised at the metric for the pawn shops.
Pieper asked if there was a law regarding selling illegal drugs near schools. Klima
replied this was not included in the research. Pieper also agreed with Eden Prairie
being at the upper limits for a distance buffer.
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Freiberg to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Kirk to recommend approval of the
Code amendment of sexually oriented businesses and pawn shops based on
information contained in the October 18, 2018 staff report. MOTION CARRIED
6-0.
H. PLANNERS' REPORT
Klima announced earlier this spring when the City Council adopted the moratoriums on
sexually oriented businesses and pawn shops, it also adopted a moratorium on the retail
sale of firearms.;however, staff was directed to research any studies on the effects or
impacts of firearms retail sales and also provide the opportunity to get input from the
community. Both were completed. There is no real research locally or nationally on
firearm sales impacts. The City used City Connect to gain community feedback on 1)
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 12
concerns about firearms sales, 2) specific areas where such sales should take place and 3)
support for distance requirements, with mixed responses without a single directive. Staff
did not have a recommendation Staff sought feedback or reaction from the commission to
carry forward to the City Council on a future work session to which the Planning
Commission members would be invited.
DeSanctis asked for and received clarification this discussion pertained to new firearms
dealers, and not existing retail outlets such as Gander Mountain or Walmart.
I. MEMBERS' REPORTS
J. CONTINUING BUSINESS
K. NEW BUSINESS
L. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Higgins to adjourn the meeting. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0. Chair Pieper adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m.