Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-P&DB-1995-10-19 Approved 12/19/95 Planning and Development Board MINUTES Special Meeting October 19, 1995 Present: David Kay, Chair;Sarah Adams;Susan Blumenthal;Carolyn Peterson;Denise Rusoff;John Schroeder. Staff`:- H. Sieverding, C. Guttman,K.Ross;other interested parties. 1. Review of second draft of Findings Statement-Wal*Mart -possible resolution to adopt Findings Statement Kay stated he thought there had been some confusion about the two alternative certifications in the Findings Statement so he requested Sieverding to explain them. Sieverding stated that there are two certifications--one being a Certification of Findings to Approve and one being a Certification of Findings to Deny. He stated that to adopt the Findings Statement with a Certification of Findings to Approve would not mean that the Board had approved the project, only that the impacts could be mitigated. He stated that the Certification of Findings to Deny would indicate that the Board did not believe incorporation of the mitigation measures would mitigate the environmental impacts. Guttman stated that the test is whether the adverse effects can be mitigated. Blumenthal asked why Alternative#5 was not before the Board,and it was stated that it was not complete. Sieverding said it was made clear to the applicant that the Board was meeting on the 19th and they needed to know if there were going to be any other plans submitted. He said that Alternative SE-1 is the proposal to vote on, since it is the only one for which the Board has a full submission. Schroeder said that the Board did not have agreement from the applicant to mitigate one thing. Blumenthal said that the Board never talked to the applicant about the site plan.* Schroeder replied that Board members had talked to the applicant about the site plan numerous times. Adams stated she thought it would be a bit ambiguous to approve the Findings Statement with a Certification of Findings to Approve and then deny the site plan. There was some concern about approving the site plan without input from the applicant as to the mitigating measures. Guttman stated if the applicant did not respond the Board could not negotiate. The Board's options would be to grant preliminary approval to Alternative SE-1 with conditions;deny SE-1 if they submitted a revised proposal; or just deny it. Refer to clarification in the December 27, 1995 Minutes. Minutes of October 19, 1995 Meeting 2 Peterson asked if the Board was limited to the mitigation measures listed in the Findings Statement, and Guttman stated that the Board cannot just add measures; it should follow what is in the FEIS. There were some further questions regarding granting preliminary site plan approval. Schroeder handed out a hard copy with revisions to the Findings Statement. He then went through the items that would not change,no matter which of the two certifications was included in the Findings Statement. Several changes to the draft statement were made. Blumenthal asked that the Board put in additional facts regarding traffic on page 2. She stated the Findings Statement is missing information about the level of service. She said the level would not decline to an unacceptable level;it will be at level`B" and possibly go to"C"which is an acceptable level of service. Sieverding stated that Sections 1.2 and 1.3 should show what the level is. Blumenthal suggested the Findings Statement state that the change in level of service will be a matter of seconds. Blumenthal also said she had a problem with using the percentages. Kay suggested adding in actual seconds and delay time. Schroeder moved and Adams seconded a motion to adopt the Findings Statement with Certification of Findings to Deny and with a number of changes to its text. Kay stated he thought a motion to approve the Findings Statement with a Certification of Findings to Deny would be unwise. The Findings Statement points out ways to mitigate environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. He stated the Board should approve a Findings Statement with a Certification of Findings to Approve. The vote on the motion to approve the Findings Statement with a Certification of Findings to Deny was 3-3 with Kay,Blumenthal and Rusoff opposed. Kay moved and Rusoff seconded a motion to approve the Findings Statement with a Certification of Findings to Approve,which would indicate Alternative SE-1 could be approved if all the mitigation measures were incorporated to minimize adverse environmental impacts to the greatest extent practicable. Blumenthal stated she did not agree with the conclusions drawn in the Findings Statement. She said there were overstatements as to the visual impact; she thinks the Board has left out information so that the impacts look worse than they are; and she does not believe the document is a good presentation of the facts and would vote against it. Peterson had some questions about the Certification of Findings to Approve. Kay stated that adopting the Findings Statement would allow approving Alternative SE-1 with all mitigating conditions discussed. Guttman stated that prior to the Minutes of October 19, 1995 Meeting 3 action to approve or disapprove the site plan, you must make findings. He stated that the requirements of law must be met. There were some discussion regarding zoning--that Alternative SE-1 does not conform to the terms of the BZA use variance. Kay suggested amending#2 of the Certification of Findings to Approve to include language indicating that consistent with social,economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives thereto,the proposal submitted(SE-1)is one which,if all the stipulated mitigating measures discussed in the Findings Statement were incorporated,would minimize or avoid adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. There were some questions regarding the meaning of#3 of the Certification of Findings to Approve and what measures were practicable. Kay stated that the mitigative measures identified are the ones that the Board considers practicable. Kay requested that the Board proceed with the vote with the above changes added. The motion to adopt the Findings Statement with a Certification of Findings to Approve failed 2-4,with Schroeder, Adams,Peterson and Blumenthal opposed. After further discussion as to when a decision on the Findings Statement would be made,it was decided to put it on the regular Planning Board Agenda for Oct. 24 at which time the public hearing for the site plan would also be continued. The meeting to vote on the site plan was scheduled for Thursday,Oct. 26,at 1:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.