HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-P&DB-1995-10-11 Approved 12/19/95
Planning and Development Board
MINUTES
Special Meeting
October 11, 1995
Present:David Kay, Chair;Sarah Adams;Susan Blumenthal;Carolyn Peterson;Denise
Rusoff;John Schroeder. Staff. H. Sieverding;other interested parties.
1. Review and Discussion of Findings Statement-Wal*Mart
Kay requested that Sieverding go over where the Board was in the status of the
application. Sieverding stated that Guttman had had some conversations with the
applicant's attorney and there was some confusion on their side as to which of the
two alternatives they want this decision to be based on. He stated that the
applicant has been saying he wants the decision based on Alternative#5, and that
is the whole focus of the Findings Statement. Sieverding said he has corresponded
with the applicant telling him that the only plan we have on Alternative#5 is a
single sheet that shows the footprint of the building and a general layout of the
parking lot. He told the applicant that was not suitable for site plan review and if
he didn't get a revised set of plans out by the end of the week,the Board would
not be in a position to make a decision on it because there wouldn't be enough
time to properly review any submitted plans. He stated that a plan submitted by
the end of this week will barely allow enough time to get copies down to
Engineering to do all the reviews relative to drainage and other technical site
issues,nor enough time to get a copy to the County and get responses back within
the 30-day period.
Guttman stated that he told Neal Madden, attorney for Wal-Mart, we needed to
know by the end of the week if there were going to be other site plans submitted,
and if the Board did not know by the end of the week it would not be able to make
its decision based on any such plans in a 30-day period.
Adams suggested proceeding with the Findings Statement, since there was no
indication that the applicant was going to submit a different site plan. Schroeder
asked if the Board could turn Alternative#5 down on two bases: (1) that it is not
complete; and(2) that it does not follow the guidelines. Guttman stated that an
appropriate way to state it would be to say that Alternative SE-1 does not comply
with the guidelines,and Alternative#5,which is partially submitted, does not
comply with the guidelines and is not complete. Schroeder stated that the Findings
Statement does not address Alternative SE-1 at all.
Sieverding recommended that the Board go through the Findings Statement,make
whatever corrections were needed and set the dates when the Board will adopt the
Minutes of October 11, 1995 Meeting 2
Findings Statement, schedule a public hearing and make a site plan review
decision.
Guttman stated that the Findings Statement must be adopted before making a
decision on the action. A decision on the action must be made within 30 days. He
said the Findings Statement is a simple statement of facts clearly summarizing
specific findings regarding the environmental impacts of the project.
Peterson asked whether adopting the Findings Statement and the site plan decision
were separate votes or the same. Sieverding stated that they are separate
decisions. The Findings Statement would be one basis for a decision on the site
plan. Kay stated that from his conversations with Arthur Giacalone,attorney for
the Board,his understanding is that the Board should not make those decisions on
the same day. Sieverding stated that the Findings Statement does make a
conclusion relative to environmental impact,and that there is a statement in the
end that says that the environmental impact can be mitigated by the inclusion of all
of the mitigation measures that are identified in the FEIS. Guttman stated the
Board would only approve a plan which incorporates the guidelines and all the
other mitigations set forth. Rusoff said that the Board would be approving the
idea that these things are mitigatable.
Sieverding stated that the structure of the current Findings Statement draft comes
from having conversations with Giacalone and Jim Kent,Clough Harbour
consultant to City, and taking a look at a sample Findings Statement that Clough
Harbour sent and that was passed out to the Board. It is organized into impact
areas beginning with traffic and moving on down to all the other areas that were
analyzed in the FEIS. It states under each of those topics what the applicant is
proposing,the related environmental impacts, and ways each particular impact may
be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.
Schroeder stated that there was nothing said about land use, zoning and
comprehensive plans. He said these issues don't generate the mitigation
guidelines,but at least the essential points about what the zoning of the site is and
the two different zones and the use variance,etc.,should be stated as facts. He
thought there should be a section on comprehensive plans. He also said it is
confusing that the substitute parkland discussion occurs after the four guidelines
are presented. He stated he thought it would make sense to have the substitute
parkland discussion first.
Kay suggested going through the Findings Statement page by page. Schroeder
suggested that all grammatical changes be given to Herman on hard copies. The
Board reviewed and suggested revisions to the Findings Statement. It was agreed
that it should be revised to address both Alternative SE-1 and Alternative#5.
Minutes of October 11, 1995 Meeting 3
Sieverding recommended that the Board establish a date when they would adopt
the Findings Statement and then establish a date when they could continue the
public hearing.on site plan review so that staff could get the legal notice in the
paper. He said that the legal notice needs to be in the paper five days in advance
of the date set for the continuation of the site plan public hearing. Sieverding said
he would get the revised findings statement document to Board members so they
would have a chance to review it,and within two or three days adopt the Findings
Statement,hold the public hearing and make a decision on the action. Sieverding
stated the public hearing continuation should be a night meeting and we would
need to book a big room. Adams recommended scheduling it for October 24, the
night of the regular Planning Board meeting,which was agreed upon. A meeting
was scheduled for October 19 at 8:00 a.m. to adopt the Findings Statement.
Adams suggested the Board stick with the deadline of Friday,October 13, for the
applicant to submit alternative site plans.
Guttman stated that Neal Madden asked that he be faxed a copy of the proposed
Findings of Fact as soon as possible.