2015-04-01_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 7, 2015 Page 5 grocery store facility connected to those buildings with north/south sidewalks, as well as 196 connecting to the hotel developments, Mr. Dovolis noted that this created a complex with 197 stay, food, dining and other amenities available for a complete entity.Mr. Dovolis advised 198 that it had been intentional to connect with and provide a common access between their 199 buildings and site with the hotel site to complement each other. 200 Mr. Krogh stated that the hotel developers had been great to work with and were excited 201 to be able to offer the potential restaurant tenants to their clientele to provide those 202 amenities to their customers, especially with the walking path available to accommodate 203 the broader pedestrian-friendly development. 204 Member Boguszewski asked if the Letters of Intent received by the developer were 205 serving to drive the retail depiction and appeared to be final, with the buildings built to 206 spec. 207 Mr. Krogh reiterated that the final plan was for one long, inline building, but recognized 208 that such a facility was the most difficult to lease. However, based on feedback from 209 potential users, Mr. Krogh noted the changed plan for separate, end cap buildings with 210 outdoor patio space for restaurant user, even though they were more expensive to build, 211 but appeared to be what the market was dictating. 212 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Dovolis identified the illustrations displayed, 213 elevations, stair access, and similar glazing on the front and backs of the buildings to 214 conform toCity Code requirements. 215 At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Dovolis advised that, no matter the tenant, the 216 size of the grocery building would not change dramatically, and could even get smaller, 217 but not larger, since it was identified as a specialty junior-sized grocery use. 218 Member Boguszewski noted that the site plan listed in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Business 219 Journal had identified the grocery development as an “Aldi’s.” 220 Mr. Krogh admitted that this had been taken from other generic information and was an 221 error on his part, and apologized for any confusion or misperceptions it had created. 222 Chair Gisselquist closedthePublic Hearing at 7:09 p.m.; no one spokefor or against. 223 Chair Gisselquist spoke in support of the Preliminary Plat as presented, opining that it 224 appeared to be a sound plan with steps in place as detailed in the staff report.Chair 225 Gisselquistasked staff to address potential changes in existing storm water management 226 as a result of this development, and the exact location of the existing infrastructure. 227 Using the displayed map, Mr. Paschke pointed out the area of an existing storm water 228 best management practices (BMP) facility originally installed by the City as part of Twin 229 Lakes Parkway improvements, and if the proposed access point is supported, would be 230 modified at the developer’s expense. 231 Member Daire sought further clarification from staff regarding shared access if note 232 allowed by Ramsey County, for access of Twin Lakes Parkway north through the center 233 island. 234 Mr. Paschke reiterated that future determination depended on the results of the traffic 235 study; but at this point, the presumption was that the two sites would have three access 236 points: one off Iona from the hotel site, and two on this site.Mr. Paschke admitted that 237 the presumption made more sense if the traffic study supported it, but would rely on 238 different jurisdictions and authorities to make that decision and be based on the numbers 239 identified with the traffic study model.Mr. Paschke noted that the traffic study would 240 direct the development and determine the location of access points and where and how 241 they would best work with projected vehicle volumes. 242 Member Daire acknowledged that it remained an unknown until Ramsey County 243 responded; however, he recognized the response provided by the developer and 244 architect regarding the intent of the pass-through or route between sites as a positive 245