PL PACKET 01182005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 21, 2004 Page 11 1 2 Mr. Pratt noted that this is a big deal and they have summarized their concerns regarding the 3 potential approval of this request. He stated that they are not afraid of competition but do need to 4 think about the good of the order adding that it is their hope that the Planning Commission would 5 see it from their perspective. 6 7 Mr. Beck stated that it is their belief that most of what has been discussed is incorrect and 8 reviewed with the Commission. He stated that their application has been accepted and suggested 9 that before making any decisions they should get advice from the City Attorney. He explained 10 that they have sought not to be in a position where they are stuck without being able to develop 11 and are now trying to upgrade their property. He asked for further direction from the Planning 12 Commission. He explained that their proposal is take the property and create a mixed use 13 without seeking public assistance. He agreed that there are issues that should require further 14 review and legal advice before moving forward. 15 16 Mr. Malkerson clarified that they are requesting that they comply with the ordinance on the PUD; 17 comply with the plan; perform the EAW and listen to Staff recommendations on the plan. 18 19 Mr. Jones stated that they are very concerned about the density on this site and asked the 20 Commission to take this into consideration before making a decision. He stated that they believe 21 it is totally inappropriate for this area noting that the parking proposal would be a definite 22 problem. 23 24 Chair Stromgren closed the public hearing at 9:23 p.m. 25 26 Todd Hubmer stated that they are looking at a land use change that would have an impact on the 27 City infrastructure. He stated that the first item reviewed was the traffic impact noting that they 28 have not received a current traffic analysis from the developer on proposed changes. He stated 29 that the City has requested the information on current access rights and would like to review, as it 30 would affect the current application process and access to the site. He stated that the traffic 31 model developed for the initial redevelopment plan has not been modified to incorporate 32 changes. He referenced the sanitary sewer stating that the City of St. Anthony had to create a 33 new trunk line and reviewed with the Commission. He stated that Staff would like to review the 34 anticipated affects that the proposed development would have on the sanitary sewer line and 35 would also review the change in land use and changes in peaks. He stated that Staff wants to be 36 sure that the current system can accommodate the changes. He stated that the City has an 37 adequate volume in water to support the land use changes noting that there is a need to be sure 38 that the water plan is up to date and reflects the changes in land use. He stated that the project 39 would have to be in compliance with the Watershed rules noting that there are significant 40 stormwater regulations that would be required for this site. He stated that the EAW does not 41 include this particular parcel noting that it does represent a 14 percent increase for residential. 42 He reviewed four options stating that the City could determine that the proposed development is 43 not significant enough to require a new EAW or that that the proposed development includes 44 enough changes that it could require a discretionary EAW. He suggested that they consider a 45 revision to the EAW and commercial mixture on the site.