Loading...
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.