Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/24/2022

Home

before the Commission tonight, the first would be related to the requested rezoning from R- 1/MUSA-80 to Public/Quasi-Public. He stated that a school would be a permitted use within that zoning district. He stated that the second action would be related to the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment. He noted that the site is currently zoned for low density residential, and the request would be to reguided the property to public/institutional, which would allow a school to j operate on the property. He stated that a Comprehensive Plan amendment would need to go before I the City Council for formal action and then to the Metropolitan Council for consideration and approval. He recognized that the process may seem odd but noted that this is the typical process that is followed for development. He noted that these actions tonight would need to occur before the developer undergoes the expense of developing more detailed plans. Councilmember Woestehoff asked if the City is under a 60-day review period. He asked if the Commission could take no action tonight. Senior Planner Anderson stated that no formal action is needed on the sketch plan. He stated that there is a 60-day review period for the formal applications related to rezoning request and the Comprehensive Plan amendment. He stated that if there are additional questions and information � desired, the Commission could choose to table consideration with direction for what would need to be brought back. He noted that the City would have the ability to extend the review period once by an addition 60 days but then action would need to be taken after that time or approval would automatically be gained. Commissioner Gengler asked if the rezoning were not allowed, would the project be unable to move forward. Senior Planner Anderson replied that the action by the Commission tonight does not determine whether the project can move forward. He noted that the recommendations from the Commission would move forward to the City Council for decision. He stated that if the City Council does not adopt the rezoning and/or Comprehensive Plan amendment, the project would be unable to move forward. Commissioner Walker commented that the Commission received all the letters and emails sent to the City related to this topic. He stated that the letters in support are from parents with children at PACT while the letters of those opposed are not related to PACT. He stated that those that spoke tonight were split in favor or opposed. He noted that there were no residents that spoke in favor of the project that do not have ties to PACT. He stated that he has concerns related to traffic, a buffer for residents, and a desire for more detailed plans. He stated that he also has a concern with water capacity and whether the site could support a high school per the guidance mentioned by a resident. He stated that he is not opposed to PACT expanding and putting in a building but was not convinced that this is the right location for it. He stated that he sides with residents on almost every issue that comes before the Commission and therefore cannot vote to support a Comprehensive Plan amendment or zoning change for this project. Commissioner Gengler stated that Commissioner Walker did a great job summarizing the internal debate that she has had as she heard the input from residents tonight. She stated that on paper it does make sense to have the school in this location as there are positives for this use on this site. Planning Commission/February 24,2022 I Page 13 of 26 t i