CC_Minutes_2008_0825 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 25, 2008 Page 16 the underlying designation considered designation of Business Park assuming multi-family housing; and that underlying assumptions were made in the AUAR study and that the proposed development project was consistent with those as- sumptions. Mr. Anderson further noted that when the City Council determined Code 1005.01 for multi-family housing designation, it could be up to 70 feet tall or five stories high (whichever is less), with a 100 foot setback of those buildings from residential properties, and representing a development assumption that solar access has been taken into account, and based on existing code provisions. Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City Council needed to take this citizen pe- tition seriously, review potentially adverse environmental impacts; and to not brush aside those concerns. Ihlan moved, that the City Council open the Twin Lakes AUAR Update for fur- ther review to address items, based on Minnesota Rule 4410.3610, Subpart 7, Items g and h representing new conditions and/or information not previously identified or analyzed in the AUAR, and identified in the citizen petition; Coun- cilmember Pust seconded the motion, only for the purposes of discussion. Councilmember Roe opined that, ultimately the motion's argument was based on Items g and h of Minnesota Rules 4410.3610, and whether there were any changes in the proposed project that were substantially different than the AUAR or new conditions. Councilmember Roe opined that the key word was "substan- tial," noting that the citizens were concerned about the same issues that they were last year; and while he was not diminishing those concerns, and recognizing that the project would represent changes to the neighborhood, he would define sugges- tions of environmental visual impacts or visual pollution as flashing signs or dis- plays, or large smokestacks. Councilmember Roe opined that it was a large build- ing, with some proximity to residential properties; but that it was not located the property lines of Brenner Avenue residences, but was in fact 200-250 feet from their properties. Councilmember Roe opined that he could not come to the con- clusion that the project created substantial visual impacts. Councilmember Roe further opined that the building's shadow did not obliterate the sun, and that solar access was impacted, but not denied substantially; and that this didn't represent substantial impacts either. Councilmember Pust opined that she didn't hear anything different from the neighbors from their initial visit in 2007. Councilmember Pust noted, for the re- cord, that she voted against this project in 2007 during its preliminary plat ap- proval, based on neighborhood concerns. Councilmember Pust observed that, while she still was not supportive of the project and understood neighborhood concerns, she could not prove their opposition under Minnesota Rules. Roll Call [Motion to Require reopening of the AUAR Update] Ayes: Ihlan.