My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012-09-05_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
2012-09-05_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/18/2012 2:32:46 PM
Creation date
12/18/2012 2:32:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/5/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2012 <br />Page 2 <br />Mr. Lloyd referred Commissioners to Sections 5.0 of the staff report, noting that the <br />44 <br />Planning Commission was responsible for holding the Public Hearing for such <br />45 <br />applications as this; however, the Public Works/Engineering Department had reviewed <br />46 <br />the proposed VACATION and concluded all explicit or implied roadway interests in the <br />47 <br />identified area would not compromise the transportation interests of the public. A history <br />48 <br />and record of the property was detailed in the staff report dated September 5, 2012; with <br />49 <br />no recommended conditions for the approval. <br />50 <br />At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd clarified the area of this approval, <br />51 <br />adjacent to previously vacated ten foot (10’) strips of land; and this action would be <br />52 <br />necessary to allow any development of the site. <br />53 <br />At the request of Member Strohmeier, City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the <br />54 <br />history of the parcel, why and how the City originally acquired the property, and for what <br />55 <br />purpose; as detailed in the Request for Planning Commission Action dated September 5, <br />56 <br />2012. Mr. Paschke noted that, other than for a written document outlining original City <br />57 <br />interest for purpose of a public roadway for that strip, some dating back to the 1940’s to <br />58 <br />provide residual portions of rights-of-way for extension of Mount Ridge Road, determined <br />59 <br />in the early 2000’s as no longer needed, the City had no actual ownership of the property. <br />60 <br />Mr. Paschke further noted that this action was intended to formally clear up any title <br />61 <br />discrepancies in the paperwork with the Ramsey County Recorder and/or Assessor’s <br />62 <br />Offices. <br />63 <br />At the request of Member Strohmeier, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the City no longer <br />64 <br />required any interest in retaining this property for public roadway or rights-of-way <br />65 <br />purposes, since the road was now designed and completed in accordance with current <br />66 <br />design for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. <br />67 <br />Mr. Lloyd concurred, noting that the forty foot (40’) section adjacent to this strip had <br />68 <br />already been vacated, and the City was in the process of selling the larger piece, there <br />69 <br />was no longer any necessity in retaining this piece for public roadway purposes. <br />70 <br />At the request of Member Lester, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the northern line of the <br />71 <br />parcel would become part of the parking for the proposed Wal Mart development, at least <br />72 <br />as indicated in their conceptual design; and consistent with the revised goals since the <br />73 <br />early 2000’s that Mount Ridge Road would never connect to County Road C, but provide <br />74 <br />a terminus into a parking lot. <br />75 <br />At the request of Member Lester, Mr. Paschke reviewed the rationale for designing the <br />76 <br />two (2) roundabouts in the Twin Lakes area as the most effective design to accommodate <br />77 <br />traffic volumes, congestion and other amenities as the area redevelops. <br />78 <br />At the request of Member Cunningham regarding Section 4.9 of the staff report, Mr. Lloyd <br />79 <br />advised that the timing of this request had already far-exceeded the sixty (60) day review <br />80 <br />period, since the application to vacate this portion came in during January or February of <br />81 <br />2012 with the entire plat application. Mr. Lloyd noted that this particular portion had been <br />82 <br />held back until it was determined whether or not this area actually needed to be vacated; <br />83 <br />and subsequent final action on the Plat by the City Council. <br />84 <br />At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the process for vacation <br />85 <br />approval by the Planning Commission and City Council respectively. <br />86 <br />At the request of Member Lester, staff clarified the rationale in why this approval was <br />87 <br />being done independent of previous vacation discussions and actions, based on the <br />88 <br />City’s original ownership of the parcel and not having been originally incorporated into the <br />89 <br />plat. <br />90 <br />At the request of Member Strohmeier, Mr. Lloyd displayed various maps and reviewed <br />91 <br />property areas to clarify ownership of the parcels adjacent to Twin Lakes Parkway and <br />92 <br />the Mount Ridge Road roundabout, as incorporated into the final plat; with all property <br />93 <br />transactions negotiated and addressed in the property closings and execution of a <br />94 <br />Development Agreement. Mr. Lloyd clarified that the City would not vacate rights-of-way <br />95 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.