2015_0608_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Exhibit A Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — Wednesday, May 6, 2015 Page 6 ?_4 E� 24r 24 f; Member Gitzen agreed with staff's portrayal and ongoing involvement of the City Engineer, and the Engineer's rationale for having the new easement in place prior to vacating the existing easement. 24� MOTION 25C Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Bull to recommend to the City 25 � Council approval of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT of the property at 311 25�� County Road B, based on the comments and findings of the staff report dated May 25:> 6, 2015, and subject to the conditions as detailed in that report, lines 124 — 137; 25� amended as follows: 255 25C 25? 25�t 25S 26C: b 26" 26�' 263 • Additional Condition: The Applicant shall satisfy the conditions outlined in the MnDOT letter to the City as indicated. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Motion carried. PLANNING FILE 15-005 Request by Cities Edge Architects for approval of a Preliminary Plat at 2175 Long Lake Road Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for Planning File 15-005 at 7:18 p.m. 26�� City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized this request as detailed in the staff report for 26�� Cities Edge Architects, in cooperation with the owners of the Holiday Inn Express, to 26� correct/modify Rosedale Corporate Plaza Condominium (condominium no. 266), a 26-e- Common Interest Community (CIC) Plat, requiring replatting. 26f; Commission/Staff Discussion 26�> Member Murphy questioned if other members of the CIC had to agree to this or had a 27G vote in it, representing the view of the remaining participants beyond that of the applicant. 27 272 Z�J 27�= 27`� 276 277 Mr. Paschke advised that the applicant could speak to that, but he agreed with Member Murphy's supposition that majority support would be required to change any boundaries or reduce common space area. However, at the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke advised that it, along with other issues, would be part of the process in advance of but required for Final Plat approval. Chair Boguszewski questioned if there was anything else that triggered this required action other than a change to the description in the original plat. 27& Mr. Paschke responded that this was the only trigger for the change based on the lot 27s boundary and description change requiring replattiing since this common area could be 280 considered a lot and therefore the description would need to be revised for recording 28� purpose with Ramsey County. 28? 28:� 28a 28E; 28E> 287 28� 28J 290 29" 292 Page 22 of 22 Member Stellmach questioned if this would prompt any change in the number of units in the building; with Mr. Paschke clarifying that the proposed addition was specific to a pool and associated mechanicals and was not for any additional motel units. Member Bull noted that the area proposed for the addition was in the parking lot area with handicapped parking, and questioned if that would result in fewer handicapped spots based on his review of the displayed sketch plans. Mr. Paschke advised that handicapped spaces were addressed as part of the Building Permit application process; and those inspectors would determine how many spots would be required and their location, but that it was not part of this planning process. Applicant Representative Jesse Messner, Cities Edge Architects Mr. Messner concurred with the presentation by Mr. Paschke.