Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes <br /> July 17, 2001 <br /> Page 7 <br /> 1 actual examples. <br /> 2 Chair Melsha added that the project can be done, if done right. Mr. Shardlow added that <br /> 3 building quality, everyone wins. <br /> 4 Commissioner Tillmann asked about Corporate Campus versus Residential, and stated that one <br /> 5 of the cons of Corporate Campus stated that it might bring demand on the city. Mr. Shardlow <br /> 6 stated that real challenge would be a matter of weighing the pros and cons. He added that <br /> 7 there are traffic implications of people coming and leaving a corporate entity at the same time of <br /> 8 day that would effect traffic. <br /> 9 Chair Melsha thanked both gentlemen for their information, and invited members of the <br /> 10 community to come forward and keep their comments brief and concise. <br /> 11 C. Public Input. <br /> 12 Jim McNulte, member of the Steering Committee, stated he was now in favor of high-density. <br /> 13 Mr. Thorby stated that the tour showed them that what the city is trying to do is not <br /> 14 progressive, but other cities are doing it. He added that he was a little put off by the multiple <br /> family proposal, and that the Corporate Campus Plan has obtainable objectives. He stated that <br /> 6 difficult tasks are often broken up in order to digest them, and that the Corporate Campus Plan <br /> 17 had the opportunity to speed up the process, by using several different developers. He <br /> 18 concluded that funding is a huge task for them. <br /> 19 Resident Stan Nelson read the following statement: <br /> 20 "My comments are based on the information presented tonight along with two editions of the <br /> 21 SAV Redevelopment Update brochure, the latest edition of the SAV Village Notes and <br /> 22 watching cable TV coverage of the June Planning Commission and City Council meetings <br /> 23 where the consultants gave updates. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Three Recommendations: <br /> 26 1. The Planning Commission should vote to put this project on hold until the Salvation <br /> 27 Army site purchase by the Hennepin County Regional Parks has either been completed <br /> 28 or scrapped. <br /> 29 a. Geoff Batzel told me that the inclusion of the Salvation Army site in the planning <br /> 30 mix with the Apache site could change the nature of the entire project and make <br /> 31 it possible to propose a lower density option for the Apache site. <br /> 32 b. The contractors that are to be contacted surely know about the Salvation Army <br /> 33 site and they will not be bashful about asking and even demanding that the <br /> X34 future for the Salvation Army site be established before they spend <br /> development/proposal dollars on a Apache only site plan. <br /> 36 C. Our mayor states in the latest edition of Village Notes: <br /> 37 `We should know soon if the Salvation Army Camp has been officially purchased by <br /> 38 Hennepin Regional Parks.' <br />