CC PACKET 07242001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 17, 2001 Page 7 1 and asked him what resulted from that tour. Mr. Shardlow stated that members of the Task 2 Force should respond to the question of their perception. He added that they looked at other 3 cities on the tour,and the people seemed to be more comfortable with the project, having seen 4 actual examples. s Chair Melsha added that the project can be done, if done right. Mr. Shardlow added that 6 building quality, everyone wins. 7 Commissioner Tillmann asked about Corporate Campus versus Residential, and stated that one 8 of the cons of Corporate Campus stated that it might bring demand on the city. Mr. Shardlow 9 stated that real challenge would be a matter of weighing the pros and cons. He added that 10 there are traffic implications of people coming and leaving a corporate entity at the same time of 11 day that would effect traffic. 12 Chair Melsha thanked both gentlemen for their information, and invited members of the 13 community to come forward and keep their comments brief and concise. 14 C. Public Input. 15 Jim McNulte, member of the Steering Committee, stated he was now in favor of high-density.. 16 Mr. Thorby stated that the tour showed them that what the city is trying to do is not 17 progressive, but other cities are doing it. He added that he was a little put off by the multiple 18 family proposal, and that the Corporate Campus Plan has obtainable objectives. He stated that 19 difficult tasks are often broken up in order to digest them, and that the Corporate Campus Plan 20 had the opportunity to speed up the process, by using several different developers. He 21 concluded that funding is a huge task for them. 22 Resident Stan Nelson read the following statement: 23 "My comments are based on the information presented tonight along with two editions of the 24 SAV Redevelopment Update brochure, the latest edition of the SAV Village Notes and 25 watching closed circuit TV coverage of the June Planning Commission and City Council 26 meetings where the consultants gave updates. 27 28 Three Recommendations: 29 1. The Planning Commission should vote to put this project on hold until the Salvation 30 Army site purchase by the Hennepin County Regional Parks has either been completed 31 or scrapped. 32 a. Geoff Batzel told me that the inclusion of the Salvation Army site in the planning 33 mix with the Apache site could change the nature of the entire project and make 34 it possible to propose a lower density option for the Apache site. 35 b. The contractors that are to be contacted surely know about the Salvation Army 36 site and they will not be bashful about asking and even demanding that the 37 future for the Salvation Army site be established before they spend