Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 06-11-1980AM Ciky of Plymouth June 11, 19RO The regular meeting of the Plytouth PlanningCotmnission was called to order~ i f tine Council Chambers of the Plymouth CityCenter at 3400 Plymouth d at 7*-40 P31. ky airwo anas * SEPMEIR PR .NT.a,irwry.o a Stasi i sio r s Larson Wire, Barran and C.. eT chl IMEMIKERS ABSENT. Cor=,issioners Steigerwald and Pauba STAFF PF0ENTZ Conmiunity Developmeat Director Blain Treirtere andiunt Developintent Coordinator ZNary Ray asaa-vv+vrm;+a+i.n wrk..'>raaH 'x+.Hnwve ax_ .. yudartro-wz.+r+w+w...tinea..r.+vvssu,waa..m++..>mse^aww.asww.. . 'k sw»„m+nyxtw +ewrw.asza: IMFIONbyAmssio r Barron, seconded ommmi ssi er Larson to move the ollowing a do items forward for action prior to, the pt-blit hearings.- Item - s tet:& 4 ( 79024) - and Iteia S- (79046). Miffl ON CARRIES ALL IN FAVOR vae,++a+x ma+mnuznr+uY.r.e.hpvM,.e,: ConditionalUse Permit Renewal The reading the eons 5, 19380 staff p rpt was wal M01 10 ,y Comumalssionerarra siolode y wimwi sssi r L -at s n t r cVTRAF *IV V 2[G! F P-'FBF i FZFi F $r;,'4 F F"$, 3K '4.a Fie 'E4& approval V the conditional use permit reneaA1 for Mary, Jo Brown for a ceramic sopsoply shop located at 10740 Highway subject to the following d i ns.- The permit is subject all applicable codes.. regulations and ordinances and violation thereof shall be grounds for rev cation. i additional signage shall be added. 3. There shall be no outside display, sales or storage of merchandise or related materials. MOTIOX CARRIED ALL IN FAVOR 4xe't ,... %'h-r . i+Faa kY M' Wia+k+u+t 'M 7endecZ r 902Conditional Use Permit Renewal The reading of the June 1980 staff report teas wkii- d* M*TION by, ComissionerBarron,, seconded by Commissioner Larson to. recom° d approval, of the conditional uso.pennit renewal for W. B. Levendecker for a trans,irtission service and repair operation located at 113-DOHighwaya 55 subject to the following conditions: I. The conditional use r m is subject al zicablegei r igna{,( e$ qycodes, and regulations and violation thereofshall: be grounds for revocation. The Qonditional use Pemit is issued tl-,, thc-petitioner cape-rattor a,r+ is w , Parking and/or st ra rr i s r a r i 4. torage and aisplayof or merchandise OULSide the b,Uilding or approved nc os rs is expressl,ppohibited. There shall be no painting, welding, bode wow :nhc i repairs t ierro than transmissions) or retail sales, t"WiON CARRIED AIL IN FAVOR X11 Wn, . TIC. " t * # " The reading of the erne 5. 1980 staff revort was waived., 40101F; kv ComnIssioner Barron, sei:onded bey nit;sion r Larson to r eco;irm prov for thi, project rmnt=°k sign for "Amhurs "KID. 9- for Sari On,, Inc. located othe northeast or, i r of 46th Avenue N e th and ViCksburg Lane subject to the following nd4ti s ins shat TTf 2. There shall be property- covenant for monuratent sign mainterance over the entire subdivision as approved y the CikyAttorney; such c3venant to be filed prior to issuancesiqn 'Dermit. Ther, - shall be an easementprovided for the approved wonuirent sign on the property at the northeast corner dF 46th Avenue North and Vicksburg Lane and such easement shallbe filed prier to issuance of sign p.r . M*TION CARRIED 5-0-0 ALL IN FAVOR rrrn The itera, was introduced by staff who reviewed the June 4 19,0 staff repqrt, regarding rezoning from to -.8 of approximately 13.45 acres of the southerly portion of the development known, as "Wind Ridge on Bass Lake" at. the nattheast quadranti nevi w Lane and the Soo Line Railroad tracks. Chairworaary r .r ' g who represented the n r and who stated that the n . w prefer defer c n until after the public: hearing. He stated the petitioner felt the desired two-family #_l lir s which would be owner -occupied were more desirable in consideration cf theaddi- tionaleffectiveyard area acting as a buffer to the railroad. Chairwaitimn Vasiliounoted that apublic hearing had been scheduled and that property, owners within 500 feet had been notified and that notice of the hearing had bven published` in the ab newspaper. PTAI"MNG CU%NVNIIIII ZSIO-411N 411- il t4ilu E tine Ruth! Rosendahl 52OUPineview Lane, g-enet%al concer s rrnq children PlOing ill the Vicinity of the railroad tracks as well as the aesthetics of the 4A, AU I. C Ch Uni I;$ not apprear to fbe, inFrVIUVIIU;Zl 11W STWXNA CIM lie PrOPOSQU. U I ctlarac Ier wi th the singla, farIly d etached, hoLlsi-9. Dale ?Nor'.4quist, 50-90 Larch Lane., inquired as to the proposed neea for tile - g; h, flated that there are presently new singlefa-mily detached holmes tracks to the ea:+. along the 11raHroad lie stated that lie lives to tile soljttt of the property and is concerned with settlnq a precedent through spot zoning which might be applied, to the vacant area on the south side of the rallro,,Nd tracks east of Pineview Lane. He stated that he ha'purchased a houte in the arca because of, the Single ftnmdly detached homes, and therefore was opposed to the proposed rt. - zoning. Mr. Dick Har,=.ond, 651110 arch Lane,, stated that lie had essentially the same concerns relative tO the spot zoning and the inn -pact upon the established character or the area. Mr. RGn Gjerstad,, 14 6 - 54th Avenue North, stated that he represented the Bass take, HorneownersAssociatio.n as well as a group of nig ars, who were considerifig starting a-liother association for the Larch Height:s Lagoon area. Ple noted the lame lots in the area and stated that it does not appear to be an adequate lot sire transition to the proposed two falmil- dwellings. He Stated concenrns withY spot zoning and possible precedent for the area south of the railroad tracks. Mir. Frank Pin!:, 5345 Larch Lane reiterated concerns about spot zoning and stated lie was concerned with the impact of the two family dwellings upon the'single, farMlydetachedhomestothenorth., He std ped that estabtiseed planning for the area was 10i detachedhornes and this' he opposec" the proposed rez-O'hing. Mr,. Ken Ester., 12635 - 54th Avenue North,, stated similar concerns,, He stated he, could appreciate the prevailing market conditions but felt the City should care- fully consider shott-term proposals with long term effects such as, the precedent this action night take. Mir. Dan Beedle, 5335 Larch Lane,, Stated sialtlar concerns pirticularly regarding possible precedent. Roy Jones,., 5340 Larch Lane-., stated that he w*as opposed to the rezoning proposal because the its constituted multiple dwellings and could result in a rental dwelling situation. He -stated the its would be out of character with the area. Boyer Palmer, 5780 Oakview, Lane, stated that he did not have basic objections to the design and that he appreciated trends were'changing as to lot sizes and the character of housing. He did inquire as to whether the particular units wereFappropriate, TOT this particular ire a considering the established aracter of the petitioner's development as well as the development to the north and east., He stated that COMPatIbility of the type -of housing was essential to stabilization in an area and rioted that the City had had earlier concerns in other areas about higher density. housing, in single family deta," ched dwelling areas. Mr. Hawmiond was recognized, again and stated concerns idth traffic flows in and, oat of the area especially as they might impact upon Larch Lane. qc e. r: r,_€> N' Clana r''GN MTNm'9" 4 The C rmzis-sion toren r ev r eed slides taken of the site andh rwo -.ian Vasiliou recognized Vlr. Ron Sastyr r pres nti MUom s Knutson Associates and the a bone . fie r * e' *h purpoz h N s In d n^+,: a L, PPet. &" ^` '°` vE .• .3rd; _1* 'A,- q f4.. vs 7' 'A 4RZ%e_NX %pVav ifi f tile e a i road tracks upon the leve rod.., e. He also mmien the proposed preservation of trees near the center of the site whicli iv.,ould likely be re if the original roposa with n far. , detached wel n"- Vgere pursued. re i I is of l us r housing and; rioted n ;a rz ;'' er"' units would rez,,ain unchanged. ha i w,tn Vas I I I ou also recognized 1,1r. Peter f a Tnj, President of Lundgren eros. Construction Co, who recited the history of the area develo,,--iient and thespecial circumstances regarding especially relative to wetlands and concerns about access to Bass .a a He stated that the developmient had been proposed tifire when U`,he Cite was in she early stages f developing Umor arl , and u the develepment was not a planned ur'd Ut davelopiment,, but rather was what was classified under a previous ordinance as a subdivision unit project. He stated she proposal cc--ulde viewed as an aretendment to a planned development with the technicality that'the rezoning had 1W occur first. Mtr. Pflaum stated that the developer was making an effort to mxit',lize the use of the land as well as to providefor the best design in.an area where singlefamily dvi l r in s were never prieferred. 14P, stated t. -,Na -t a precedent had been sat to the east in a developMent, where viniho st s were proposed in the raidst of -a single family detachede e m . n response d a question by Mr. Jones, arsmt' stated teatundgren Rx.".4# probably w n d not build the rens ulit ra t.- ogler builders, would be involved* In response question by fir. Nordquist., Mr. Pflaun, stated that tine area may s m s''_ v . allilsSsrva* v u sr istc ck Sar cc r r. r k t} a gte planning 'process nclerr a s thatpersons purchasing homes in the area especially ; CoA. the north in the Wind Ridge development would e awareof the proposedtype of dwellings. 4r . Gjerstad was recognized again and corwrieated that the basic issue was rezoning and not site plan approval and that the Cormmission should concentrate on the precedent which could be set with the rezoning. M,OTION ssion rx Wire,, seconded by Commissioner Larson to close the public hearing and act upon the petition at this meeting. MOTION CARRIED 5-0-0 ALL IN FAVOR Discussion ensued regarding the petitioner's development bookland shes a - tions by terr owners, Staff noted that tete area tt she south of the railroad tracks had been approved s a planned unit developmer reekwood Hills)and contained singly family detached wel in lots. Staff noted.,* however, that as a planned' unit developplentl, and especially as one which had not yet been final;. platted it would bsubject to possible revisions which could include housing types other than,single farm ", detached. 1 In 'further i ass n, staff commented that the Commission should consider the ordinance criteria for the existing and proposed, zoning districts to establish whether . are grounds for the rezoning which are rp.latively uniqueo the1 specific piece of land-. thereby being responsive to the concerns as to spot zoning l uA y. 'k 'A.Na U$,K"t p PIUNUTES June 11! 19SO AWOL and undesirable prec-edent. M*TION by Conmmiss toner Wire to recommend denial of the request pyx Lundgren Bros,, Construction Co. or rezeni oin -1 R -IS on the basis lk t proposal represents spot zoning and.,., despite the design merits of additional ape vlace would establish arf undesiirable precedent. The motion faileded for lack of a second. AWDTIONI by opim ss d er Barron, seconded by Chairwornzan Vas o ,, to r zcownmeod approval the request * Lundgren Pros. Constructlon Co. for rezoning fropy -1 to R -IG for the 13.45 acres he northeast quadrantineview Uane -,,nd the Soo Lies Railroad tracks subject to the following 1. :13 1 n rte ° h the City Engineer's Nlc;-;no andu " 2 Rezoning shall only apply to the project area, 113.45 acres per the approved General Development Plan. 31. beta r 1 ed landscape plans for t1it entire ro j pct area accompanied by detailed apical l'andst., pe,plar s for each lot (double) shall be submit -ted concurrently` with the prel ',li ar plat,' 'arid con: itije ral use permit request. Rezoning shall be finalized with, final plate and develepment contract approval. S. Hotitteowners Association Agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Citi Attorney. 6. Park dedication reQuireinents shall to City Dolicv in effect with Wirral plat ap rovai. Loi-. ss over Barron stated his reasons ft te motion included the request appears to be consistent with the City ordinance x,,,,'iteria for single family attached dwell- ings in the R -M District; attached 4 el l n s require a -condit onal use permit and thus will be subject to specific site plan approvall, the proposal represents a better utilization of the land especially with regard to the additional open space buffering to the railroad tracks. He alsoormna ted that h, could appreciate the concerns of the area homeowqiers as to type of ,zousing but that it should be recognized that no all housing in this area the i sin le amily detached. Chairwoman a l o stated that in her experience C'n proposed housing properly designed could be compatible with the area and that implied concerns as to the type of occupant or the type of 'ownership were no ; appropriate for CowAssioa consideration. ortruiss oner Retchler stated that the proposed additional open space was a ked criteria in consideration o safety since' the railroad tracks net only represented a contrasting land use but also a possible hazard. Chairwoman Vase l io4 called for a vote on the Motion.. IOTION CARRIED 4-1-0 Commissioner Wire Opposed Coy -un ssioner Barron commented. that the petitioner should consider creation of another outlot in the platting phones which would, e north of the dwelling units PLII N INIGI ,NIV!I S ! ty tNI fig+.} t$ June 11, 1980 n addition to the oneon the other side of the street ad ac nt to the railroad tracks. oth c rtnersh . RPU t; t andVariances The '° t inz was introduced ty staff with a review of the dune 4, 11080 staff report. Staff explait d the proposal involved an'aDoroximate 18.45 acre -site in the south- west quadrant of County Road 9 and Zachary Lane, ene parcel ra vedfro.— ° Zachary, ane and north of the Mission s Park 4th Addition. Staff cc-mtcant d that lteimt 3 of the Engineers em rand x should be deleted, at this tiri4i and staff read a letter from kir. Thous Forester, owner of the parCel adjacent to the west stating concerns with the proposal and asking to be kept; informed of the rztier. Chairwoman ail divested that the letter be placed in the flle4 Chairtiorian Vasiliou noted that a public hearing had been scheduled and that property owners w-ithin SOD feet had been notified. Chairwoman Vali iou recognized r. peter pfla it of Lundgren Bros. Construction Co. who commented as to, the ownership of this particular land. He stated that the ownershipwas comprised of Minnesota Homes, Inc. and the Mission Partners which included himself,, but that Lundgren Bros. Construction . was not specifically owner of this project fir.. Gene Holderness, representing Minnesota Homes, distributed a memorandum dated June IL 1930 which he explained was a file memorandum in response to the staff repor{ He stated concerns that the impression eight be created from the staff report that the petitioner had not considered all the various issues and that he wished to go on record that the, petitioner had met with staff prior to the sub ssidn of the application and discussed most of the issues. He stated that staff raised certain issues which had not been discussed and that the petitioner therefore felt the memorandum, should be cons i by the Commissilon. Chairwoman ' i i inquired whether the represented new material of P substance relating to the petition and Mr. Holderness responded in the affirmative. I Chairwoiimn Vasiliou then stated tho cmiission's policy of not accepting new Imaterial at the meeting until it had been reviewed staff. i Mr. Run Bastyr responded to questions from Commissioner Wire as to why the petitioner was seeking a planned unit development approval. Yr. Bastyr stated that conventional platting would a1inj approximately two fewer lots and that a planned unit development design wcdd allow the least number of lots abutting against. County Read 9. lommiissi%er ire stated that he believed the project was too small for a planned unit development, Mr. Bastyr responded that the ordinance offered criteria as to consideration of such variances as to size and that the petitioner felt the project could be viewed as an "addendum" to the Mission,RPUD to the south,,o ptissioner Wire responded that in that context the land to the east adjacent to Zachary Lane should also be included in the proposal. Mr. Holderness commented thit the parcel adjacent, to ZacharyLano a a difficult piecepiece of '`hand, to develop and consisted costly o; peat and had drainage problems. s. PUAANNINiGC0*01M]l SS ION UES He stated the developer estfio t d appre iv;iate y one buildable let perhaps contain- ing a duplex could be built on the north Portion Discussion ensuedas to the substance of the comrz nts in the memorandum distribut- eded t the nee .iiiand Mr. Helde ness and 14r. Pflaaum commented tkrat several issues were raised such as access onto County Read 9 to whicli the petitioner had net had an eppurtuaity to develop a proper response. ha rvin ,an Vasiliou observed that since now material had been submitted at the meeting it should he referred to staff for review and hreu ht hack at a subsequent meeting. Mr Pflaun, statjd that tinder the circum.stances the petitioner agreed that the hear should he deferred so that N additional concerns wind he discussed with sta. VIOTION by Corimiissionpr llire,, seconded ay ComMissioner Larson to close the public hearing.: MOTION CARRIED 15-0-0 ALL IN FAVOR MOTION by Commissioner llire,, seconded by Comissioner Larson to defer considera- tion of the proposal by Mission Hills park 8th paetnersh l p for RPUD concept panandvariancestoallowreviewofthenewmaterialbystaffandtoallowfurther discussion between staff and petitioner regarding stated c)hcer s; further, that the pel--itioner be directed to integrate the parcel to the east with the concept plan as well as the adjacent parcel to the west. Commissioner faire stat -ad that he was not as concerned as to the ' issue of access to County Road 9 as he was with the size,of the project and its design ?erns as a planned unit development. MOTION CARRIES ALL IN FAVOR The meeting recessed at 9435 P.M. and resumedat9:46 P.M. auenhcrst ror, , o 80028 Preliminary Pat Staff introduced the iter and reviewed the report of dune 3, 1980 regarding the property at the southwest quadrant of the int rseztinn of 28th place with Fernbrook Lane Chairwoman Vasillou noted that a public hearing had been scheduled and that neighboring property er ners had been notified and a notice had been published, ` n the legal newspaoe . Chairwoman Vasil ro r recognized Mr. dares Benson, representing the petitioner who stated he had ,no onments as to the staff' report and that a.' site plan application had been made for erre of the proposed lots. Stephen Ober representing Amer an Medical Systems Inc. inquired as to the impact the proposed plat would have in access to the platted parcels to the west stated his 11rnr had a penditig interest in one of those parcels and that establish- ment of aces ' by this plat could have a bearing on their building design. He stated no objections to the proposed plat. PLAN.",4ING WMTUSSION N "TES- _ 0 tt ONby Commissioner Larson,, seconded by Coriiissioner Wire to close r:e public hearing and tae action Oil this petition at this mee n 140T 1041 CARRIED 5-0-01ALL IN FAVOR MOTION by oaar ss oner Larson, seconded Jky Comr*issioner 'Wire o recowoiend approval request by Rauenhorst Corporation for preliminaryiminar plat for property at the southwest quadrant of 28th Place and Fernbrook Lane subject to the fol owin c and i tions a Compliance with the City Engineer's °lesio undo n. The dedication of Outlots A and for the purpose of public right-ofvita 3. Elimination of the re chant Oudot 8 and Oudot D by combining them with Lot 1, Block It and Lot 11 Bloch 2 respectively. 4. De e opir: nt Contract provisions lim-iting private drivewayewa, access to only 28th place and the proposed public road extending.north/south inter cot h 28th place. 5. General Development Plan shall he =difldd to eliminate access onto Fernbrook Lane. 6. Perk dedication requirements shall be satisfied with approved individual site plan approvals and prior to issuance of building permits for the respective sites. I dead and dfseased trees zaall he removed from the site at the sole expense of the developer. 8. City'Attorney approval of all property tyle documents prior to final platting. MOTION CARRIED -0-0 ALL IN FAVOR Eli Jn'r Gres_ -6047 Amended Site Plan and Variance Staff introduced the item and rel. ed the report of doge 5t 1980 regarding the industrial building and site at 10,15 Nathan Lane and the proposed acquisition of add-Btional lard to expand parking space needed to support more intense office use n the wa ( house building, Chairwoman Vasiliou recognized Mr. David Fink reprent n the h ild hownership, Mr. Fink introduced Mr. dames Cooperman, architect. and r. Sigel and r . Cohen who were present on behalf of the petition* 1r. Fink commented as to the petitioners efforts to secure a major °tenant for the building whid had a substantial amount of vacant space and that such a tenant had . been secured. He stated that the owner felt the petitioner and the additional officee sp oe could he adconrddated -dth the existing parking and he noted iff ul- ties in dealing w1 h the owner of the adjacent land who expected a relatively high price for tW land apparently in consideration of the petitioners needs doe to thepp City ordinance. T ESr Mr,ink6sm en ed that if additional land were acquired and combIned with the site he did not e pee it wrou d' have to be improved with the additional parking at 4th i s ''Mte. Mr. Fink expressed Concerns with the Engineer's r> emn i ms and P6 as w*ell as item 3 of the staff report and felt that undue burden was be- ing placed upon the petitioner relative to the other property owner's land. n response to questions I% tile Commission, Mr. Fink explained the nature of tile proposed tenant's operationL n eap is Industrial Tool) hick generally` rotas distribution aNd warehousing. n ur ger discussion as to the design of the present parking and the capacity to support the uses, staff noted that a variance dor 17 spaces was required without any additional land being acquired and added to, the site. Mr. Fineori€me ed that fie had discussed the parking needs with the adjacent use, the 1141inneapolis Aceto Action, and the owner of that property indicated the PoSsibility of joint parking should it be needed. Con,miissioner r~r onri4m ed as to existing site conditions and noted that there was unauthorized joint access and parking at this time, but that it indicated that more formal joint parking agreement was possible as suggesteded by fir, Fink. Chairwoman Vasiliou stated that it appeared that the basic issue berore the Cep#Mission rather than acquisition of additional land arid, amendmenIt of the site plan was granting of a variance based upon the merits of the proposed use and_ he ability of the site to support it. t MOT ION by Coi=ssioner Larson, seconded by C=rnssioner erre to recommend approval of a variance for 17 parking spaces for enter Bros, on the basis that the build- n ld- isismostly owner-occupied and that there are sufficient existing spaces to support the existing and proposed arses. MOTIONby Conaissioner erre, seconded by Commissioner Hetchler to amend the main motion b directing that the site be restored to the condition caned for in the, original site plan approval under Resolution No. 75--3. MOTION CARRIED -0.0 ALL IN FAVOR MOTION by Commissioner Barron, seconded by Commissioner Wire to amend the main motion to further specify the needed site improvement and to emphasize tyre conditions of the original approval as follows: No signs, allowed until approved . by the Planning Commission and City Council. minimum foot sodded area be provided on the north and west propert, lines, and a 60 foot stretch that fronts the loading dock on the west should be provided for seri track turnaround. MOTION CARRIED 5-0-0 ALL IN FAVOR ba ry*man Vasillou called for avote on the gain motion as amended. MOTION CARRIED -0-0 ALL IN FAVOR PLANNING # IR S `; 1TNUTE -10- 111 191"0 en the` ;ii was introduced by staff who reviewed the June 5, 1,98E staff report as well as the jeerer 21, 1979 Planning Commission public hearing minutes" Staff reported that no developilnent plan had been received from the fee owner, Peabody Investments, Inc., and thus it was recommendedthe i eril be referred to the City Council with a recoomiendation for approval. Chairwoman 'basil i u recognized Mr. Richard .prier of Westwood Planning and Engineering who stated he represented Peabody Investments, Inc. and that his firat, had been retained to prepare the equivalent a planned unit development conceptual plan. He explained that the owner had contracted with a consultantfor a stuc.', of potential ' land uses for the property,, and he submitted a copy of that report dated March 7. 1930. He also explained that the owner had approached Wur Planning and Engineering earlier this year to conductpre"iminary site analysis regarding the several constraints an any kind of development. omm ssioner Barron inquired as o planned development would be proposed and whether it wouldld e entirely residential. Mr_ Krier responded that was uncertain at this time but that it appeared some residential would be f'easiblex ammissidner Barron sated his concern that the owner had been given six Months to prepare such conceptual plans and had been given specific direction. scdssi n ensued as Lq development possibilities in the area and Chairwoman Vasil iau recognized Mr. David Morton, one of the owners,, 1,iho stated that the nership structure had changed since last fall and that the Cowaission direc- tion had been taken seriously but that problems had, developed as to tioling of the plan preparation. He noted: that the feasibility report received in '13rc,r Indic_ r=. no industrial developmentent w s possible but that further analysis su,j osta non- residential on- resi ent l would be passible, Chairwoman Vasiliou also recognized Mr. Mike Dudley, Renard Lake, who explained that he was an investor -partner in Peabody Investments and was irterested in the onmssn's direction. Co mr ssloner Barron inquired whether the ownership of the parcel was now unified and not splintered as it was last fall. Mr. Mortan, responded in the affirmative. Mr. Krier suggested that the matter be deferred again until the August Meeting ti allow the prepay tion of a conceptual development plan for theCommission's review . MOTION by Commissioner Barron, seconded by Commissioner= 141ire to ds'Fer action on. the rezoning utter until the August meeting subject to the items f` direction reflected in the November 21, 1979 mutes. oRmi ssioner Larson commented that it appeared, the Commission ea ' d act on the Proposal as submitted since what the developer was actually proposing constituted a. re uid ng of a portion of the area from LA -2 to some scan -residential guiding. He stated' that since the owner of land could propose a reguiding' at any, time, the matter of correcting the zoning, from I -l. to -0 could be resolved. Staff concurred that the basic issue as proposed by the owner was orte of re ,uiding, and suggested that at the August meeting the Commission take action on the rezoning proposal notwithstanding the submittal of any conceptual development plan. staff noted that perhaps at that time the Commission could establish a hearing date for a regulding;