Laserfiche WebLink
October 27, 2022 PC Minutes <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />Bear states that the frontage roads proposed on the sketch plan are hypothetical and can be moved in <br />any number of configurations. Bear adds that the underlying zoning in areas guided Mixed-Use is <br />commercial, that any project involving a residential use would require a zoning amendment, and a <br />discussion would need to be had about the specifics of uses. <br /> <br />Gort states that staff encouraged the applicant to factor in how any horizontal mixed -use buildings <br />would relate to each other when designing a mixed -use plan, and Bear adds that the applicant may <br />appreciate more feedback on the mix of uses. Commissioner Petty stated that she better understands <br />the scope of the uses knowing that commercial buildings are incorporated and related to the <br />apartments, recommending more detailed renderings. <br /> <br />Commissioner Andress relates the concern about the apartments encroaching on the Hardwood Creek <br />Trail to an example in White Bear Lake, and wants top make sure that the trail and highway aren’t <br />dominated by the building. <br /> <br />Commissioner Derr agrees that a rendering of the view from adjacent roadways would be useful, and <br />that the land is set lower than t he road in some areas along CSAH 8. Commissioner Petty responds that <br />the land isn’t as low on this property than on other stretches of the highway. <br /> <br />Chair Kleissler stated that she would like to see commercial uses closer to the roads with the <br />apartments further back, but is still concerned with the apartment wall aligning with Highway 61, <br />suggesting there may be a way of moving the “L” shape line away from the highway. Gort responds <br />highlighting the Multifamily Design Guidelines requiring articulated facad es, stating that a wall along <br />the highway would not be flat. <br /> <br />Commissioner Arcand asks about Stalland’s plans for the commercial uses considering his professional <br />focus on apartment development. Stalland points to architectural consistency across the prop osed <br />buildings, which would enable his real estate broker Bill Lentsch, who was also in attendance, to more <br />easily sell the commercial uses. <br /> <br />Commissioner Arcand asks Lentsch about his interest in the commercial uses. Lentsch stated that he <br />receives several inquiries about commercial development, but there is some difficulty in creating solid <br />plans without existing infrastructure. Commissioner Arcand asks why the reluctance is still there today, <br />and Lentsch stated that City staff has been encouraging development of the entire 92-acre property at <br />once. Lentsch recalled the AUAR and grant money he received, but ultimately declined since the funds <br />were too large for him to properly use. Furthermore, Lentsch stated that remodeling the floodway per <br />terms outlined by FEMA was difficult, and that stormwater management for the entire property would <br />be difficult, which ultimately led to interest falling off from potential developers. <br /> <br />Commissioner Petty said that the applicant’s architectural rendering looked nice. <br /> <br />Commissioner Arcand stated that the existing land use fits well on the corner parcel, and asks staff <br />when the percentage of commercial to residential uses is to be decided. Bear responds that a lot of <br />discretion can be given to the Planning Commission during the process, reiterating the challenge of