09/28/2009 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION September 8, 2009 DRAFT 119 time" to "the area should be a park ". On the question of whether or not the store would be a 24- 120 hour operation, he indicated they could not commit on that either way. 121 Community Development Director Grochala added that the comprehensive plan calls for the area 122 to be mixed use; while there isn't anything in the plan that would prohibit the proposed 123 development, there are items such as traffic, water and sewer that would have to be discussed. 124 Ms. Anderson added that this project involves a large site with the possibility of mixed use, 125 however, it needs an anchor to be feasible. There is a grocery store interested. 126 A resident in the area of the proposed development asked for an explanation of what the 127 developer is asking the council to approve. Ms. Divine explained that Kraus Anderson 128 understands that this would not be an approval of the development but they would like a sense of 129 where the council is at now on the project. 130 Resident of Woodridge Lane said she supports the development and asked the council to 131 consider the revenue and jobs this will bring to the city. Also, it would be a nice replacement for 132 what exists on the site now. 133 When a council member asked why the grocer is currently the only secured tenant, Mr. 134 Alexander explained that Kraus Anderson would build knowing that they have the responsibility 135 (and obviously an interest) in getting the site filled and they normally have a 50% lease situation 136 before building. As far as city control, the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process will allows 137 the city certain use restrictions. 138 Dave Roser, EDAC Member, added that he attended the neighborhood meetings on the proposal. 139 He believes it is good to begin that communication process early, as they have. He's seen issues 140 arise and has seen the developer respond. He thinks this is a good developer and tenant. 141 Rosemary Storberg, 6978 Lake Drive, noted concern that there has traditionally been a negative 142 impact on area wells when these projects occur. 143 A resident from the area said he was speaking on behalf of a few neighbors along the property 144 line and remarked that the city's Master Plan doesn't call for this development. This is an area 145 without a traffic signal and access and traffic are a concern. The area residents are not speaking 146 for no development but are asking for what was planned for the site and that is not a big box 147 retailer. This would not be a good gateway to the city. 148 Ms. Anderson noted that the situation called for by the master plan was developed in some other 149 areas (in other cities) and those developments have generally not done. 150 A resident of Woodridge Lane noted concern about a 24 hour operation at this site and that it 151 doesn't match the area. 152 Mr. Roser added that there is an opportunity now to continue to gather more information on the 153 project and have input on what will make it work for the neighborhood. 4 • • •