Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3.2 On April 11, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed the concept ofa <br />mixed use PUD Amendment. The Commission reviewed the concept and had <br />the following comments: <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked for details of Highcrest Road (now private and used as <br />access to parking). Will there be trucks on Highcrest (no, on east side using <br />Walnut Street). Would Highcrest be posted to reduce traffic? He encouraged <br />thinking of ways to reduce/dissuade drivers from entering the site. <br /> <br />Steve Dorff noted one possibility is to take out Highcrest Road and create better <br />parking. <br /> <br />Member Wilke asked if the building is sprinkled (yes); if asbestos has been <br />removed (yes) - except in mechanical rooms where students would not have <br />access. <br /> <br />Member Olson asked what other tenants have said (none) (vacant to north, <br />State above, Honeywell to the east). <br /> <br />Member Cunningham asked how many State employees are on second floor <br />(200; the state employees parking is on the south side of the building). He also <br />asked if the west side entry to the second floor of the State offices would remain <br />(yes). Does this conflict with school? <br /> <br />Member Olson asked if the softball fields east of Walnut would be used by the <br />school? <br /> <br />Member Duncan found this mix of uses to be worthwhile. Was there steel <br />manufacturing/fabrication on the site? Steve Dorffsaid Phase I and II <br />environmental analyses have been done and an MnPCA "no action" letter was <br />received in the fall of 2000. <br /> <br />Chairman Rhody asked who would sponsor the school. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham asked if the second phase would be in year two? <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked for details of changes in the future uses through a formal <br />PUD amendment process. The definition of the site is difficult. He encouraged <br />the developer to work with staff to be inclusive. Look at school requirements for <br />setbacks and prohibited uses; and eligible uses should be defined in the PUD. <br /> <br />Member Duncan noted that the Code (and PUD) should be as restrictive as for <br />a non-charter public school. <br /> <br />Member Wilke asked if the PUD went with the property (yes) and on a <br />described parcel (yes). Member Mulder stated the entire 695,000 sf of <br />buildings and the underlying parcels are to be part of the PUD. <br /> <br />Steve Dorff noted Multech circuit board manufacturing would continue and be <br />adjacent to the site. <br /> <br />PF3301 RPCA (050901) - Page 5 of9 <br />