Agenda Packets - 1988/11/07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6 all MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council FROM: City Planner Herman DATE: November 3, 1988 SUBJECT: SYSCO/CONTINENTAL MINNESOTA At their November 2, 1988, meeting the Planning Commission took formal action on the PUD Concept for the SYSCO development. A copy of the resolution is attached for your review. Additionally, the Planning Commission discussed the wetland issues asociated with the project and made the following conclusions: 1) Per the verbal presentation by Barr Engineering, the Commission recommended the granting of a wetland alteration permit. To clarify, at the present time, Barr Engineering has not received all required information to make their analysis, particularly information on storm water run-off from parking areas. However, they feel the criteria for granting an alteration permit for filling and dredging can be met. Barr Engineering feels the missing information is about issues that can be easily worked out. Barr Engineering did point out that they cannot determine if the effects of the filling or dredging has a "substantial or significant" adverse effect upon the wetland. This conclusion, per Chapter 48.06 must be determined by the City Council. 2) The Planning Commission felt that a variance from the 100 foot setback for the roadway could be granted. The Planning Commission felt that the issue of safety, because of the traffic generated by the development, creates an extraordinary and exceptional circumstance which applies Lo this property which does not apply to other properties in the samF: area. The two counties involved, Anoka and Ramsey, have requested that the roadway be aligned with Xylite due to the tiafety issue; therefore these special conditions are not a result of the applicant but ratter from the actions of the governing bodies. The future changes in County Road J which will create a steep g:ade on the western portion of the property, not allcwing for site access, also creates extraordinary or exceptional circumstances not created by the applicant. 3) The Planning Commission felt that a variance from the 100 foot buffer could be granted because of the extraordinary circumstances of the pipeline being on -site. The pipeline location constricts the buildable area of the site and forces the developer to move the building farther east.