My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-01-07_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
2015-01-07_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/2/2015 2:07:44 PM
Creation date
4/2/2015 2:07:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/7/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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, January 7, 2015 <br />Page 5 <br />grocery store facility connected to those buildings with north/south sidewalks, as well as <br />196 <br />connecting to the hotel developments, Mr. Dovolis noted that this created a complex with <br />197 <br />stay, food, dining and other amenities available for a complete entity. Mr. Dovolis advised <br />198 <br />that it had been intentional to connect with and provide a common access between their <br />199 <br />buildings and site with the hotel site to complement each other. <br />200 <br />Mr. Krogh stated that the hotel developers had been great to work with and were excited <br />201 <br />to be able to offer the potential restaurant tenants to their clientele to provide those <br />202 <br />amenities to their customers, especially with the walking path available to accommodate <br />203 <br />the broader pedestrian-friendly development. <br />204 <br />Member Boguszewski asked if the Letters of Intent received by the developer were <br />205 <br />serving to drive the retail depiction and appeared to be final, with the buildings built to <br />206 <br />spec. <br />207 <br />Mr. Krogh reiterated that the final plan was for one long, inline building, but recognized <br />208 <br />that such a facility was the most difficult to lease. However, based on feedback from <br />209 <br />potential users, Mr. Krogh noted the changed plan for separate, end cap buildings with <br />210 <br />outdoor patio space for restaurant user, even though they were more expensive to build, <br />211 <br />but appeared to be what the market was dictating. <br />212 <br />At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Dovolis identified the illustrations displayed, <br />213 <br />elevations, stair access, and similar glazing on the front and backs of the buildings to <br />214 <br />conform to City Code requirements. <br />215 <br />At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Dovolis advised that, no matter the tenant, the <br />216 <br />size of the grocery building would not change dramatically, and could even get smaller, <br />217 <br />but not larger, since it was identified as a specialty junior-sized grocery use. <br />218 <br />Member Boguszewski noted that the site plan listed in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Business <br />219 <br />Journal had identified the grocery development as an “Aldi’s.” <br />220 <br />Mr. Krogh admitted that this had been taken from other generic information and was an <br />221 <br />error on his part, and apologized for any confusion or misperceptions it had created. <br />222 <br />Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 7:09 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. <br />223 <br />Chair Gisselquist spoke in support of the Preliminary Plat as presented, opining that it <br />224 <br />appeared to be a sound plan with steps in place as detailed in the staff report. Chair <br />225 <br />Gisselquist asked staff to address potential changes in existing storm water management <br />226 <br />as a result of this development, and the exact location of the existing infrastructure. <br />227 <br />Using the displayed map, Mr. Paschke pointed out the area of an existing storm water <br />228 <br />best management practices (BMP) facility originally installed by the City as part of Twin <br />229 <br />Lakes Parkway improvements, and if the proposed access point is supported, would be <br />230 <br />modified at the developer’s expense. <br />231 <br />Member Daire sought further clarification from staff regarding shared access if note <br />232 <br />allowed by Ramsey County, for access of Twin Lakes Parkway north through the center <br />233 <br />island. <br />234 <br />Mr. Paschke reiterated that future determination depended on the results of the traffic <br />235 <br />study; but at this point, the presumption was that the two sites would have three access <br />236 <br />points: one off Iona from the hotel site, and two on this site. Mr. Paschke admitted that <br />237 <br />the presumption made more sense if the traffic study supported it, but would rely on <br />238 <br />different jurisdictions and authorities to make that decision and be based on the numbers <br />239 <br />identified with the traffic study model. Mr. Paschke noted that the traffic study would <br />240 <br />direct the development and determine the location of access points and where and how <br />241 <br />they would best work with projected vehicle volumes. <br />242 <br />Member Daire acknowledged that it remained an unknown until Ramsey County <br />243 <br />responded; however, he recognized the response provided by the developer and <br />244 <br />architect regarding the intent of the pass-through or route between sites as a positive <br />245 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.