Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />Ayes: 6 <br />3 <br />Nays: I (Boerigter) <br />4 <br />0 it <br />Motlon car ned. <br />5 <br />6 <br />Gornmissioders discussed other potential amendments, based on tonight's <br />7 <br />discussion, and amended plans as presented at the meeting, and superseding those <br />18 <br />provided in the staff report dated November 7, 2007, Those amendments were <br />19 <br />related to traffic conditions in Section 67 of the staff report (page 5 of 12). <br />10 <br />11 <br />�Mr. Paschke suggested that the Commission apply conditions 'in 6.7 as modified, and <br />21 <br />'fi to <br />in a general sense, to allow staff further review and additional modifications sped c <br />1%5 <br />those conditions. <br />14 <br />MOTION TO AMEND <br />16 <br />Member Wozniak moved, seconded by Member Bakeman to AMEND THE <br />17 <br />ORDINAL MOTION to add a condition that the applicant conduct soil testing of <br />18 <br />the former, Firestone site to determine whether any contamInation exists in the <br />19 <br />soll and to, remediate to applicable standards. <br />20 <br />21 <br />1 1 ions, and that the <br />Mr. Pasichke advised that the State monitored environmental cond't' <br />212 <br />information would be provided to the City as part of the Building Permit process. <br />23 <br />24 <br />Commissioner Boerigter spoke against the motion; opining that 'it was an MPCA issue, <br />25 <br />not a City of Roseville requirement, <br />26 <br />27 <br />Commissioner Doherty concurred, opining that it would be 'in the best interests of the <br />28 <br />applicant to ensure that the site was clean prior to reconstruction. <br />29 <br />30 <br />Commissioner Gottfried concurred, opining such a condition may be redundant. <br />31 <br />1 <br />32 <br />Mr. Paschke reiterated that, as part of the demolition and building permit processes, <br />33 <br />certain state requirements needed to be met; and further noted that no one at City <br />34 <br />Hall had the expertise to analyze sdil borinigs for hazardous materials, and would refer <br />' <br />35 <br />any potential issues, to a higher level than the City, (i.e., MPCA) for remediation, with <br />36 <br />substantial checks and balances already in place at that level, as well as in the City's <br />317 <br />PUD process, <br />38 <br />39 <br />Commissioner Wozniak withdrew the motion. <br />40 <br />41 <br />By consensus, Commissioners requested that the applicant, work with staff for <br />42 <br />augmenting existing landscaping and fencing as applicable. <br />43 <br />44 <br />ORIGINAL MOTION, AS AMENDED and RESTATED BELOW <br />45 <br />Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Bakeman to RECOMMEND <br />46 <br />APPROVAL of the requested PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT for <br />47 <br />Hier Mar Mail to redevelop the Firestone site with a new outlot/structure adjacent <br />48 <br />to County Road S; based on comments 'in Section 6 and conditions of Section 7 <br />49 <br />of the project report dated November 7, 2007; with traffic conditionsImidgations <br />50 <br />in , Section 6, amended o, add a condition that the <br />as addressed * the Staff Report <br />51 <br />existing right-inlright-out access located along County Road B, approximately <br />52 <br />three hundred feet (300) east of Snelling Avenue, be — at a minimum - changed <br />53 <br />to a right -in only NO RIG HT-OUTIEXIT),, as discussed and agreed to by the <br />54 <br />applicant at a meeting held earlier today, November 7, 2007, with staff. <br />55 <br />56 <br />Ayes: 7 <br />