2015-01-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 7, 2015 Page 2 Member Boguszewski suggesting deferring a final decision on appointments until further 44 clarification was provided. 45 Mr. Paschke advised that staff would follow-up with and disseminate information to the 46 Commission by e-mail as the commitment could be better-defined. 47 5. Public Hearings 48 a. PLANNING FILE 15-002 49 Request by JAVA Development for approval of a PRELIMINARY PLAT at 2700 50 Cleveland Avenue 51 Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 15-002 at 6:36 p.m. 52 City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the request and staff’s analysis as detailed in 53 the staff report dated January 7, 2015. Mr. Paschke advised that Lot 1 was intended for a 54 proposed grocery store, and Lot 2 for two smaller retail buildings within this Community 55 Mixed Use Zoning District. Mr. Paschke clarified that the property abutting this parcel on 56 the north slated for hotel development would be moving forward to the City Council in the 57 near future for approval in its final form, with this parcel following that process about one 58 month later. Mr. Paschke reminded commissioners that both developments had 59 intentionally been coordinated to facilitate shared amenities (e.g. parking) and other 60 infrastructure needs and impacts in the broader area. 61 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke advised that a response from Ramsey 62 County to the City’s Engineer remained pending to his knowledge regarding access 63 points depending on results of the final traffic study recently completed. Mr. Paschke 64 noted that historically Ramsey County was very particular about access points onto their 65 system (e.g. Cleveland Avenue) and any decisions rendered specific to this development 66 would take that into consideration. Depending on the results of traffic counts, Mr. 67 Paschke noted that it may be a non-issue, but the results would determine the City’s and 68 County’s response when they become available (page 2, line 30) 69 Member Daire opined that heavy emphasis may be placed on two of the three access 70 points, especially the one major access point straddling lot lines between Lots 1 and 2 of 71 this development, depending on Ramsey County’s response. Depending on Ramsey 72 County’s response, Member Daire asked if sufficient right-of-way and pathway was in 73 place or if there was any wording that would allow expansion of the roadway width and 74 curb cut in the center island to facilitate access from Cleveland Avenue to the hotels 75 across those commercial parcels (page 3, line 47). 76 Mr. Paschke clarified that the proposal in this Preliminary Plat, as presented, 77 contemplated access on the hotel site, and if supported by all jurisdictions and agencies, 78 easements and/or sidewalks may need to be modified to facilitate conditions based on 79 final designs. Mr. Paschke further clarified that similar conditions had been placed on the 80 hotel development site, contemplating similar sidewalk requirements along Cleveland 81 Avenue. However, without the traffic study results being available, Mr. Paschke potential 82 information supporting that proposed design or Ramsey County’s determination on 83 whether or not they supported an access point at the proposed site, it was difficult to say 84 at this point if revisions were needed for additional rights-of-way or sidewalks. 85 In referencing the extension of Twin Lakes Parkway extending the entrance ramp on I- 86 35W, Member Daire questioned if that was a City or County facility. 87 Mr. Paschke responded that, at the juncture of Twin Lakes Parkway and Cleveland 88 Avenue, three jurisdictions were involved: the Minnesota Department of Transportation 89 (MnDOT), Ramsey County and the City of Roseville. Mr. Paschke reiterated that the 90 traffic study would indicate at what point and to what extent access points were 91 determined. 92