08-18-98 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Hartman stated, contrary to the representative from the City of Minneapolis, the residents’ statements this evening were not argumentative but straightforward. Hartman said he did not think the City of Minneapolis would be judged to be argumentative by simply answering our questions. PH. Motion by Baker, seconded by Schmitz, 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion TO CLOSE THE UBLIC EARING Carried. Baker stated he was concerned about the extent of the excavation of this project is more than should be allowed in a residential neighborhood. Baker said the neighbors had legitimate issues. Making an already massive project even more so is not fair to the residents. Dust control can be worked out, but allowing the barrow pit is beyond the intent of the original approval. If the barrow pit had been part of the original application, the Commission would have recommended denial. The request would put an even larger burden on the neighbors. Schiferl said he would like the schedule changed to Monday through Friday, not Saturday. The contractor responded Saturday is a makeup day, and is an important issue in this project. Motion by Baker, seconded by Schiferl, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING SUPMR. 4 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion PECIAL SE ERMIT TO STORE FILL ON THE INNEAPOLIS ESERVOIR SITE Carried. (Livingston abstained.) General Business Concept Plan Review Boarman Kroos Pfister Vogel & Associates Teague referred to Mattila’s memo and the plans concerning a mixed use concept plan for development on 5th Avenue, south of Old Highway 8 and north of County Road E2. The concept plan, once formal application is made, would require site plan review, a planned unit development and a plat, should lots need to be separated. Teague reviewed the concept plan. Teague stated County Road E2 would be extended as part of the proposed project. The project would be developed in two phases. The second phase would be a residential development south of Old Highway 8 and north of the 6th Street extension. The developer shows multi-family, but will be doing a housing study to determine need. The residential phase could be townhouses or apartments. The first phase would include mixed uses. Teague pointed out the location of two proposed restaurants on the plan. There would be a combination of retail and office. The post office is proposed to be located on the site. The area along 5th Avenue would be a meeting place. A convenience store and gas station combination would be located on the corner of E2 and 5th. Baker stated the gas island looks to be positioned inappropriately. It looks like the pumps are in the middle of the development. Teague responded that has been an issue through the preliminary discussions. Teague said the convenience store was a focal point from E2. Baker said the development would do well to work with the Donatelle corner as the focal point. Livingston asked about the back side of the buildings facing 5th Avenue. Would the area be landscaped? Teague responded that elevations would be store fronts. Schiferl said the parking did not seem continuous. Can the parking on the west side of the building be moved? Schiferl commented that a convenience store/gas station may not be needed 800 feet from another one. Teague commented the initial intent was to go away from the suburban center and go to a “New Urbanism” plan, similar to the downtown area. Schopf asked if the convenience store would be a relocation of the Tom Thumb. Teague responded negatively. Schopf asked if the Post Office has been approached. Teague answered there has been discussion I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1998\08-18-98.WPD 9