PL PACKET 08202024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes June 18, 2024 Page 4 2.1 Opportunities for housing, and particularly affordable housing, are a key component of 2 the City’s compliance with Metropolitan Council housing goals, and for the City’s 3 compliance with those goals. 3.4 The proposed use retains the existing building and site conditions, the improvement 5 and/or replacement of which was an aspect of the City’s approval of the original PUD. 4.6 An aspect of the development plan for the approved PUD included consideration of 7 site improvements that facilitate the City’s “gateway” objectives for the Kenzie 8 Terrace entrance to the community. 5.9 The redevelopment plan approved as part of the PUD anticipated a reduction in 10 impervious surface on the site, which is an aspect of the City’s goals for managing 11 stormwater in this area of the community, and which the proposed amendment does 12 not achieve. 6.13 Market conditions that disrupted the original PUD completion are constantly changing 14 and may reasonably be expected to change again in ways that help make the 15 residential use more feasible. 16 17 Mr. Gritman summarized, staff believes that there are compelling reasons to recommend 18 either approval or denial of the proposed amendment. The Commission should consider the 19 components of the application – both land use and development plans – and recommend the 20 policy that is most consistent with the City’s land use goals. The Planning Commission may 21 recommend approval or denial of the proposed amendment and should consider findings 22 supporting its recommendation. The suggested findings above may serve as the basis for the 23 Commission’s decision and may be supplemented or amended based on the discussion during 24 and after the public hearing. Staff will prepare a draft resolution for the City Council based on 25 the Commission’s action. 26 27 Mr. Dan Ross, architect and Khaleef Warsame, applicant appeared before the Commission. 28 Mr. Ross stated this would be a good use for this business. The architect is working mostly on 29 the interior. 30 31 Commissioner Rude asked if the environmental issues with the property have been addressed. 32 Mr. Pat Aylward the realtor stated when they were looking at tearing the building down there 33 were some possible issues. No soil will be disturbed and no modifications will be made to the 34 building itself, there are no issues. 35 36 Chair Socha stated when this was discussed before traffic was looked at. There will be 80-100 37 children in the center at any time. Most will be after-school programming. Pick-ups and drop- 38 offs will be staggered. No recent traffic impact has been researched. 39 40 Commissioner Rude asked when the building was built and the response was 1979. 41 Commissioner Rude asked what the lifespan of the building is and Mr. Ross stated it will last 42 a long time with maintenance. 43 44 Commissioner Hark stated the application seemed rather light for a PUD. She requested more 45 information on what the intended use is for the property. Mr. Ross stated this use is working 46 within the current PUD while not being multi-family. Commissioner Hark stated the