2015-10-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Page 17 to market valuations. While that valuation may be fortunate or even unfortunate, Chair 806 Boguszewski stated that to him it didn’t drive what was preferred for future land use, even 807 though it is a consideration it was not the overriding issue. 808 Chair Boguszewski stated the issue was what is good for the community overall and 809 specifically for this existing neighborhood with townhomes and development south of 810 these properties. While it was unlikely development would include a multi-story high rise, 811 Chair Boguszewski opined that to him it seemed HDR would be out of place with the 812 existing neighborhood as well as what would hopefully become future land use as 813 referenced in the staff report. 814 As further stated in the staff report, Chair Boguszewski noted the comprehensive plan 815 discussed soil mitigation and drainage issues, and while some may feel the property may 816 support HDR, in reality it would most likely further negatively impact that drainage. 817 Chair Boguszewski reiterated his previous statement that the issues surrounding the 818 property and any encroachment(s) were not relevant to the land use issue at hand, and 819 had their own methods for redress. 820 Given his analysis, Chair Boguszewski stated that he was leaning toward approving 821 MDR. 822 Member Cunningham 823 ember Cunningham noted her personal observation of this property, and expressed her 824 surprise it was ever considered for HDR designation given the character of the 825 surrounding area, opining any additional HDR would be out of place given current and 826 huge traffic issues that already exist and would only be made much worse with additional 827 HDR. 828 Member Cunningham admitted she worried when the Commission was approached by 829 neighbors who sometimes oppose a request because they didn’t support development. 830 However, in this case, Member Cunningham stated that she didn’t feel that was the 831 issue, and referenced the amenable comments from neighbors supporting MDR. 832 Based on her personal survey of the area and public testimony heard tonight, Member 833 Cunningham stated both seemed to support that concept and further supported her 834 position in changing this designation to MDR at this point. 835 Member Stellmach 836 Member Stellmach stated that this hadn’t been as clear-cut of a decision for him and he 837 had struggled with it, since it seemed as if these two parcels were being singled out and 838 could create cost for the property owners. However, after hearing public testimony and 839 the observations expressed by his colleagues related to neighborhood concerns and 840 safety issues, Member Stellmach stated that it seemed that MDR would blend in with the 841 neighborhood better and for that reason he was leaning toward that designation. 842 Member Bull 843 In starting his review of this request and its motivation, Member Bull stated that he tried to 844 compare it with recent preliminary plat developments (e.g. Victoria Street and former 845 Owasso School site) and other HDR developments in the community, none of which were 846 high-rise facilities; and while it was easy to assume the worst it didn’t mean you’d reach 847 maximum height. 848 Since the community values quality of life and reviewed traffic issues before approving 849 plans, Member Bull expressed confidence in the city’s oversight no matter how the 850 parcels were designated, including any development plan needing approval by the city 851 and watershed district for review of wetlands and any remediation necessary, which 852 alleviated his concerns in that regard. 853 Member Bull noted that neither property owner had requested this change, nor did either 854 support it based on the testimony of Mr. Runquist, causing him to be troubled in singling 855 out these two parcels from the broader area. Member Bull stated his agreement with 856