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.