Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning CommissionMeeting <br />Minutes –Wednesday, May 6, 2015 <br />Page 6 <br />Member Gitzen agreed with staff’s portrayal and ongoing involvement of the City <br />246 <br />Engineer, and the Engineer’s rationale for having the new easement in place prior to <br />247 <br />vacating the existing easement. <br />248 <br />MOTION <br />249 <br />Member Murphymoved, seconded by Member Bullto recommend to the City <br />250 <br />Council approval of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT of the property at 311 <br />251 <br />County Road B, based on the comments and findings of the staff report dated May <br />252 <br />6, 2015, and subject to the conditions as detailed in that report, lines 124 –137; <br />253 <br />amended as follows: <br />254 <br />Additional Condition: The Applicantshall satisfy the conditions outlined in the <br />255 <br />MnDOT letter to the City as indicated. <br />256 <br />Ayes:7 <br />257 <br />Nays: 0 <br />258 <br />Motion carried. <br />259 <br />b.PLANNING FILE 15-005 <br />260 <br />Request by Cities Edge Architects for approval of a Preliminary Plat at 2175 Long <br />261 <br />Lake Road <br />262 <br />Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for Planning File 15-005at 7:18p.m. <br />263 <br />City Planner Thomas Paschkesummarized this request as detailed in the staff report for <br />264 <br />Cities Edge Architects, in cooperation with the owners of the Holiday Inn Express, to <br />265 <br />correct/modify Rosedale Corporate Plaza Condominium (condominium no. 266), a <br />266 <br />Common Interest Community (CIC) Plat, requiring replatting. <br />267 <br />Commission/Staff Discussion <br />268 <br />Member Murphy questioned if other members of the CIC had to agree to this or had a <br />269 <br />vote in it, representing the view of the remaining participants beyond that of the applicant. <br />270 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that the applicant could speak to that, but he agreed with Member <br />271 <br />Murphy’s supposition that majority support would be required to changeany boundaries <br />272 <br />or reduce common space area. <br />273 <br />However, at the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke advised that it, along with other <br />274 <br />issues, would be part of the process in advance of but required for Final Plat approval. <br />275 <br />Chair Boguszewski questioned if there was anything else that triggered this required <br />276 <br />action other than a change to the description in the original plat. <br />277 <br />Mr. Paschke responded that this was the only trigger for the change based on the lot <br />278 <br />boundary and description change requiring replattiing since this common area could be <br />279 <br />considered a lot and therefore the description would need to be revised for recording <br />280 <br />purpose with Ramsey County. <br />281 <br />Member Stellmach questioned if this would prompt any change in the number of units in <br />282 <br />the building; with Mr.Paschke clarifying that the proposed addition was specific to a pool <br />283 <br />and associated mechanicals and was not for any additional motel units. <br />284 <br />Member Bull noted that the area proposed for the addition was in the parking lot area <br />285 <br />with handicapped parking, andquestioned if that would result in fewer handicapped spots <br />286 <br />based on his review of the displayed sketch plans. <br />287 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that handicapped spaces were addressed as part of the Building <br />288 <br />Permit application process; and those inspectors would determine how many spots would <br />289 <br />be required and their location, but that it was not part of this planning process. <br />290 <br />Applicant Representative Jesse Messner, Cities Edge Architects <br />291 <br />Mr. Messner concurred with the presentation by Mr. Paschke. <br />292 <br /> <br />