2016-03-02_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 22 related todensity, flow and other issues; noting that on an ideal site, you’d come into the 1084 middle and bring traffic sufficiently address ingress/egress flow, but questioned how that 1085 flow would be accomplished when using access at the end of the property as proposed. 1086 Mr. Eisler stated there was no way someone could deliver food by semi onto this site. 1087 Mr. Eisler noted that there were many issues with the property, and while recognizing that 1088 Mr. Weyer owned the property and was understandably emotional about its use, but also 1089 noted the need to ensure it was developed with an appropriate use. While these 1090 conversations often become circular, Mr. Eisler noted the need to zone first and then 1091 receive any development plan; and opined that the proposed use as an assisted living 1092 facility was a business use, not residential use and that for a for-profit business by the 1093 developer, even though residential uses were surrounding the site. 1094 Mr. Eisler agreed that traffic was already problematic in this area and opined that the 1095 proposed use would only exacerbate the issue. 1096 Mr. Eisler disagreed with the project architect regarding referenced statistical visitor traffic 1097 dated 2009-2010, and questioned its relevancy to 2016 traffic patterns, opining that traffic 1098 will only become more ofa major issue. 1099 Mr. Eisler concluded by stating his preference to retain zoning as is, noting that the 1100 property owner had the right to sell the parcel as another option especially given 1101 developers haven’t been successful to-date in making a project work. As the 1102 Commission moves forward tonight, and with the good overview provided by the 1103 developer, but lacking sufficient detail based on his experience, especially related to 1104 traffic circulation, Mr. Eisler opined the developer needed to take that risk to determine 1105 that impact and provide a traffic study at a minimum. 1106 C hair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at approximately 9:40p.m. 1107 Commission Discussion and Deliberation 1108 Member Murphy stated his partiality for completion of a traffic study before continuing 1109 with this request; and therefore asked if anything was to be gained by having further 1110 discussion without that in play and having a more informed discussion from Ramsey 1111 County. 1112 Chair Boguszewski clarified the question was whether the Commission wanted a traffic 1113 study before further deliberation. Chair Boguszewski noted the same situation frequently 1114 occurred when a site was vacant and then proposed for envisioned alternative or 1115 development. Chair Boguszewski noted that the Commission already hadbackground 1116 information available from past development proposals for the site for a 77-unit 1117 development, and for eleven single-family home development; and asked if we accepted 1118 the subsequent estimates presented by the applicant for 60 additional vehicles trips per 1119 day and whether it was valid. 1120 Member Murphy reiterated his interest in a traffic study. 1121 Chair Boguszewski questioned if that study states 60 or less vehicle trips daily, did that 1122 speak on its own merits or if this proposal proved to be a great project for an area zoned 1123 HDR, did a traffic study further impact the Commission’s decision to change zoning to 1124 HDR. Also, Chair Boguszewski noted that hypothetically in a clean and sterile world, with 1125 this project at hand, he believed there was a very low risk that the City Council would 1126 ultimately approve HDR and then the developers abandon this development for Section 8 1127 housing; expressing his confidence that they intended to develop what they proposed to 1128 do. If the use at hand is cogent to a decision to changedesignation to HDR, Chair 1129 Boguszewski opined that a traffic study would then have valid impact on Commission 1130 deliberations on the process. Therefore, Chair Boguszewski expressed his willingness to 1131 support a traffic study before the Commission’s decisionifit was important to the body, 1132 unless there was a sterile separation in zoning and this proposed project. 1133 Member Bullechoed those comments, and stated that in his review of traffic data from 1134 other projects and as noted in staff’s initial analysis, opined that this development made 1135