Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 <br />54 <br />55 <br />56 <br />� � <br />Ayes: 6 <br />Nays: 1 (Boerigter) <br />Motion carried. <br />Commissioners discussed other potential amendments, based on tonighYs <br />discussion, and amended plans as presented at the meeting, and superseding those <br />provided in the staff report dated November 7, 2007. Those amendments were <br />related to traffc conditions in Section 6.7 of the staff report (page 5 of 12). <br />Mr. Paschke suggested that the Commission apply conditions in 6.7 as modified, and <br />in a general sense, to allow staff further review and additional modifications specific to <br />those conditions. <br />MOTION TO AMEND <br />Member Wozniak moved, seconded by Member Bakeman to AMEND THE <br />ORGINAL MOTION to add a condition that the applicant conduct soil testing of <br />the former Firestone site to determine whether any contamination exists in the <br />soil and to remediate to applicable standards. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that the State monitored environmental conditions, and that the <br />information would be provided to the City as part of the Building Permit process. <br />Commissioner Boerigter spoke against the motion; opining that it was an MPCA issue, <br />not a City of Roseville requirement. <br />Commissioner poherty concurred, opining that it would be in the best interests of the <br />applicant to ensure that the site was clean prior to reconstruction. <br />Commissioner Gottfried concurred, opining such a condition may be redundant. <br />Mr. Paschke reiterated that, as part of the demolition and building permit processes, <br />certain state requirements needed to be met; and further noted that no one at City <br />Hall had the expertise to analyze soil borings for hazardous materials, and would refer <br />any potential issues to a higher level than the City (i.e., MPCA) for remediation, with <br />substantial checks and balances already in place at that level, as well as in the City's <br />PUD process. <br />Commissioner Wozniak withdrew the motion. <br />By consensus, Commissioners requested that the applicant work with sfaff for <br />augmenUng existing landscaping and fencing as applicable. <br />ORIGINAL MOTION. AS AMENDED and RESTATED BELOW <br />Member poherty moved, seconded by Member Bakeman to RECOMMEND <br />APPROVAL of the requested PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT for <br />Har Mar Mall to redevelop the Firestone site with a new outloUstructure adjacent <br />to County Road B; based on comments in Section 6 and conditions of Section 7 <br />of the project report dated November 7, 2007; with traffic conditions/mitigations <br />as addressed in fhe Staff Report, Section 6, amended to add a condifion that fhe <br />existing right-in/right-out access located along County Road 8, approximately <br />thiee hundred feet (300 ) east of Snelling Avenue, be — at a minimum - changed <br />to a right-in only (NO RIGHT-OUT/EXIT), as discussed and agreed to by the <br />applicant at a meeting held earlier today, November 7, 2007, with staff. <br />Ayes: 7 <br />