Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2017

Home

• The EDA did have a robust discussion. Many topics were covered. In most situations, the EDA acknowledged there was no single clear/ correct/ easy way to move forward with this project, and address all individual concerns. This was a very challenging discussion for the EDA. • Some EDA members felt that this use was a good fit for this site —considering it's proximity to apartments, and the Northstar Rail. Some EDA members felt this use was a good transition user, from the apartments to traditional retail. Some EDA members believe that having a master developer/ large 1- time project for this site is ideal —however, were concerned that alternative has never occurred in reality, and will likely take a long time before it ever does (if at all). Some EDA members were concerned that, to make the project work on other sites, the level of subsidy needed could not be justified. Some EDA members indicated that getting this project moving forward will result in land proceeds, jobs, tax base, will provide a good service to the community, and will generate traffic in The COR. Some EDA members believe that the several development issues with Site #1 (remnant lots, Yolite, the well, etc.) are the result of previous decisions, and at some level are now a moot point —those issues are not Stone Brook issues. • Some EDA members were concerned with allowing Stone Brook on this site. This action will confirm/ solidify many development issues: remnant lots, Yolite, the well, etc. These issues limit the City's ability to market sell remaining lots (specifically, the remnant half acre lot), and will eliminate the option for a master developer to take the entire site (and deploy creative solutions to address the issues of this site). One EDA member formally opposed Site #1 for this reason. • Generally, the EDA was unclear what the City's vision was for this property. Below is their concern. What is the vision for this parcel? 1. Is the vision traditional retail, as the adopted zoning district indicates? 2. Is the vision apartments/ COR-1 density, to be consistent with the block? 3. Is the vision a large, mixed -use, master planned, significant project(s), as the Planning Commission suggests? 4. Is the vision large, multi -tenant retail/ commercial buildings, master planned, as the EDA has contemplated? 5. Is the vision the current COR Master Plan, which shows three individual buildings/projects, one being a daycare center. 6. Is the vision the old COR Master Plan, which shows 3-4 commercial (potentially mixed use) buildings? Page 12 of 14