Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />The Planning Commission has several alternative courses of action available. These include: <br /> <br />1) Recommend that a PUD is not necessary. <br /> <br />2) Recommend approval of rezoning the property to PUD, or other business zoning to <br />reduce the parking setback requirements to provide additional parking on the site to <br />eliminate the need for overflow parking on Iona Lane, subject to a PUD agreement with <br />development standards. As a condition of approval, the developer would be required to <br />sign a pending assessment agreement to pay for additional right of way along the east <br />side of Mount Ridge, adjacent to the Ryan property if it is needed in the future. <br /> <br />3) Recommend that city staff be directed to study possible reductions of parking setback <br />standards in industrial zoning districts and prepare a draft ordinance amendment for <br />Planning Commission and City Council consideration in August. Any reduction in <br />setback should be conditioned on the provision of additional berming, screening, and <br />landscaping. <br /> <br />4) Recommend that the City Council table the matter until the Twin Lakes Parkway and <br />regional storm water holding pond issues are totally resolved. This would have the <br />following impacts: <br /> <br />a. Three quality tenants may be lost. <br />b. There would be additional holding costs for the developer which would make <br />future development more difficult. <br />c. The City could lose a potential $218,000 Met Council clean up grant. <br />d. The developer may not meet the construction commencement and completion <br />dates for the project as outlined in the development agreement between the <br />developer and the City. <br />e. The pay back for the Phase 2 clean up would be delayed. <br /> <br />5) Recommend denial of the PUD and encourage the developer to come back with a multi- <br />story building which meets all ordinance requirements. The developer has indicated that <br />there is currently no market for such a building on that site because of the type and <br />condition of development currently existing in the area. (No tenant wants to be on the <br />second or third floor overlooking a truck parking lot). <br /> <br />Staff Recommendations: <br /> <br />1) Staff recommends that the Planning Commission advise the City Council that a PUD is <br />not necessary in this case based on the fact that Ryan Companies has revised their site <br /> <br />5 <br />