2016-03-02_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 7 considerable time and funding to-date in preparing this concept and use for this type of 305 facility or one of similar purpose. Therefore, Member Bull stated he didn’t want to simply 306 ignore this concept as a possible use of the property over other possible uses if 307 designated HDR. However, since the concept plan isn’t locked in, Member Bull 308 suggested other potential permitted land uses warranted some consideration as well. 309 Chair Boguszewski clarified that the ball was rolling on this concept use, and it was 310 clearly the intent of the developer to proceed along the lines being presented here. Since 311 the subject property is currently open land, Chair Boguszewski noted that a future 312 imagined use will be perceived as worse than the current use, but realistically opined that 313 something is likely to happen there. Therefore, while any development may be perceived 314 as awful compared to no use as it currently exists;Chair Boguszewski suggested that 315 provided development occurred within the city’s established guidelines it may be 316 preferable to what could potentially occur. 317 Member Bull noted that with the capacity for MDR development on aparcel this size for 318 30 units, it could exceed the proposed concept plan with only thirteen staff and cars per 319 shift and create a higher traffic impact than this proposal. 320 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Lloyd clarified that road ownership of Midland 321 Grove Roadand where it was private and public between County RoadB and public 322 right-of-way for this parcel, not necessarily where signage indicates the private road 323 starts. At the further request of Member Murphy, Mr. Lloyd also addressed jurisdictional 324 ownership of roadways adjacent to the subject property whether state, county or city 325 depending on their location. 326 Member Daire reported on his consultation with the City’s Public Works Department 327 earlier today confirming Mr. Lloyd’s interpretation of the public street going all the way up 328 to approximately the Midland Grove parking lot entrance. Member Dairefurther reported 329 that, according to Public Works staff, even though Midland Grove may plow a portion of 330 the public roadway based on them arriving on the scene before city staff does, the city 331 repaired potholes and resurfaced the street on that portion signed as private road by the 332 first bend, but actually the public segment. Member Daire suggested signage should be 333 relocated accordingly for a more accurate delineation of public and private roadways. 334 At the request ofMember Murphy on state or county standards for the proximity of 335 access for the proposed development and any issues with the existing Midland Grove 336 Road, Mr. Lloyd responded that they had been asked in general to address the property 337 developing as HDR. Mr. Lloyd advised that their response had been that Midland Grove 338 Road was considered non-standard by today’s standards and would not be approved as 339 it had been within standards in the 1960’s when first installed. However, Mr. Lloyd 340 advised that neither theMinnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) or Ramsey 341 County indicated any problems, even though they were always reluctant to support 342 anything of greater density without a detailed traffic study of current patterns and how 343 current and proposed movements would impact traffic in an area. 344 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that a traffic study would factor in 345 proposed future uses, but noted a study may not be limited to only that impact. 346 Member Murphy asked if the county would consider the impact specific to HDR-1 347 designation or a specific project within that category. 348 Mr. Lloyd opined that they could most likely consider the requested zoning district and its 349 density; but another option with density would be HDR-2 designation. However, Mr. 350 Lloyd noted that it was hard to consider such a study since it was not being requested, 351 and HDR-1 as requested would be used to inform any such traffic study. 352 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Lloyd advised that the height limitation for the 353 concept development would be 65’ height, but vary on the topography, grading required 354 and type of roof elevation. 355