Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />The Planning Commission has several alternative courses of action available. These include: <br /> <br />. I) Re~omrtlend thataPl.TD;isripfrie~~ssaryl <br /> <br />2) RecOlI1IDeng.~ppro'Val;ofie~QmJlg:~m~m~QP~~19;~P~~1g!YQ~~I'il'>~~iJ:l~ss 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) R.ecC>Il1Il1endthat.citY..staf:fl>~.git~~!~g.~lQ<~llJ,~i),,:p()~~ihl~,J;'~gp9tiC>JlS.;Qfparking. setback <br />s!8J:1d~gsinin4~tIjatZ()mJ:lg;gistti<?t~ 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 benning, screening, and <br />landscaping. <br /> <br />4) ,RegolI1IDeJldth~ttheC3ity~()HP:9U;~pl~)'tP,~,rol:\t!~r;!ID!iJ~the;.tr\VinLakes Parkway. and <br />regiorial'.'st()rr11watef,holdiiigpofid.!i~s\:i~s;ij~;i6@ly.!teS(jived> 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 $218,000 Met Council clean up grant. <br />d. The developer may not meet the construction commencement and completion <br />dates for the project as outlined in the development agreement between the <br />developer and the City. <br />e. The pay back for the Phase 2 clean up would be delayed. <br /> <br />5) Recommend denial,()fthe.PU[)ancii~P:9.Qm~ge,the(,4ey~10R.S~;:t2S9we1?ack with a multi- <br />st9rybuildin~.whig~m~~~'~~;(){4!~$~;.;~~q~5~mC;;!1~' 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,casehased ptithe\fabfthat,Ryan'C6mpanieshas revised . their site <br /> <br />5 <br />