My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015_1216_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2015
>
2015_1216_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2015 3:01:54 PM
Creation date
12/11/2015 3:27:09 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
RCA Exhibit A <br />c. PLANNING FILE 15-024 <br />Request by Calyxt, Inc., in conjunction with property owner PIK Terminal <br />CO./Pikovsky Management, LLC, for approval of outdoor agricultural research <br />plots as a CONDITIONAL USE on certain un-addressed parcels south and east of <br />County Road C-2 and Mount Ridge Road <br />As an employee of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and given known <br />soil contamination on this site and his potential future involvement in working on the site's <br />remediation or related matters, to avoid any potential conflict of interest, advised that on <br />caution's side he would abstain from any action on this request. <br />��� Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PLANNING FILE 15-024 at 7:36 p.m. <br />f i Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd provided a brief history of this request as detailed in the staff <br />�; report dated December 2, 2015. As outlined in the staff report, Mr. Lloyd noted the intent <br />� 3 of the applicant to develop a corporate headquarters, including indoor research and <br />development facilities, greenhouses, and up to five acres of outdoor research plots, as <br />. the remaining uses were permitted. Mr. Lloyd noted the requested Conditional Use was <br />^ � specific to that outdoor research and development use. Mr. Lloyd noted that the firm was <br />� 7 currently located in New Brighton, but was now growing sufficiently to seek this <br />� 8 expansion of their businesses. <br />�:; As detailed in the staff report, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the Conditional Use criteria and staff's <br />; � analysis of each component; and addressed the remainder outside city purview and <br />2' regulated by other regulatory agencies, as staff consulted with those agencies and <br />2, indicating no concerns to-date with the request. <br />�� Mr. Lloyd reported that staff had received no public comment to-date, and confirmed that <br /><''<; staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use as conditioned for the outdoor <br />2� research plots. <br />2.e Discussion <br />2.7 Chair Boguszewski referenced Section 6 of Attachment C(applicanYs written narrative) <br />; 8 related to screening, and asked if there should be any reference to that screening as a <br />2.� condition to the Conditional Use. <br />3o Mr. Lloyd responded that the Commission could choose to add a condition; however, <br />;� advised that buffering regulations in the city's regulating plan would take effect along <br />3% Langton Lake Park boundaries and influence that screening. Also due to the proprietary <br />3� nature of the company's research, Mr. Lloyd advised that the applicant had an interest in <br />3=y obscuring those research plots from the public's view, which staff had found to be <br />35 adequate. <br />3o Member Murphy noted Ramsey County's property identification numbers (PIN's) <br />3;�' compared to actual property boundaries being recommended for approval for the <br />3�; applicant, and asked specifically what properties were under consideration for the <br />39 Conditional Use request and whether it applied only to those two properties defined by <br />':; those two PIN's. <br />� � Mr. Lloyd clarified that this request was specific to the two parcels and several underlying <br />�`? lots. At Member Murphy's question as to the applicant's intent to purchase additional lots, <br />�3 Mr. Lloyd advised that while the applicant intended to purchase additional lots, the big <br />�� question for them is if they would be approved for the outdoor test plots. If that answer <br />�� from the Planning commission was yes, Mr. Lloyd advised that then they could proceed <br />� � with purchasing additional parcels. Mr. Lloyd further darified that the plat may come <br />�t� forward at a later point it was not now part of this request for the outdoor research plots. <br /><<8 Member Bull questioned staff's conversation with the Department Agriculture on potential <br />�� � problems with windblown dust to nearby residential areas when the applicant may spray. <br />�;;; Member Bull noted another concern may be odors from manure spreading across the <br />�� i test field and if and how they would remediate that. <br />52 While admitting he was ill-equipped to know, Mr. Lloyd advised based on his <br />53 conversation with other regulating agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, that <br />Page 10 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.