My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-04-06_VB_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Variance Board
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2016 Agendas
>
2016-04-06_VB_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/8/2016 4:39:39 PM
Creation date
4/8/2016 4:39:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Variance Board
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
Variance Board Meeting <br />Minutes –Wednesday, March 2, 2016 <br />Page 2 <br />Member Daire sought clarification on normal operating hours beyond after-hours access <br />47 <br />and/or emergency situations; as well as what average number of emergencies they <br />48 <br />handled in a day, week or month. <br />49 <br />Manager Rachel Mensink,1335 Mackubin Street, St. Paul (justsouth of the site) <br />50 <br />Mr. Wetherill advised that their facility was staffed for emergencies 24/7 and 365 <br />51 <br />days/year.Regarding the average number of emergencies, Mr. Wetherill deferred to his <br />52 <br />business manager, Ms. Mensink. <br />53 <br />As a six-year manager of the business, Ms. Mensinkresponded that on a normal <br />54 <br />business day, their facility would see on average between 2 to 8 cases within the span of <br />55 <br />4:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m., with the majority coming in during evening hours.During those <br />56 <br />hours, Ms. Mensink clarified that those were strictly emergency situations, with 1 to 2 per <br />57 <br />week typical where there is a life threatening situation for a pet with their owner perhaps <br />58 <br />in panic mode.Ms. Mensink advised that most cases were considered “urgent care” and <br />59 <br />didn’t require emergency assistance at the owner’s vehicle or outside the facility itself. <br />60 <br />At the requestof Member Daire, Mr. Wetherill reviewed the emergency entrances, noting <br />61 <br />that the new hospital would be designed for primary entrance into the emergency clinic <br />62 <br />and triage rooms and emergency treatment room.Mr. Wetherill advised that the building <br />63 <br />design would include a loading bay in the back to receive supplies; and also serve to <br />64 <br />receive any animals deemed as aggressive to protect the animals, staff and surrounding <br />65 <br />area and keep from those animals from getting out-of-hand.Mr. Wetherill advised that the <br />66 <br />design of the clinic and emergency treatment room had been intentionally designed for <br />67 <br />that purpose. <br />68 <br />At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Wetherill confirmed that the garage door/receiving <br />69 <br />area would be located on the north side of the building adjacent to theemployee parking <br />70 <br />area; and not near the abutting apartment building.Mr. Wetherill further clarified that the <br />71 <br />portion of the building facing the existing apartment building was intentionally planned to <br />72 <br />be non-intrusive and consisted of luxury suites for animals housed at the facility. <br />73 <br />Daire -Separation of apartment and back west wall of hospital <br />74 <br />Philip Walz, Project Architect <br />75 <br />At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Walz estimated that this facility on the back west <br />76 <br />wall would be separated from the apartment building by approximately 40’,consisting of a <br />77 <br />16’ drive land and 10’ setback from actual property lines.Mr. Walz noted that the actual <br />78 <br />apartment building was set back another 15’ from the CPAC property line. <br />79 <br />Public Comment <br />80 <br />Mr. Paschke referenced several emails received to-date, including one from Pete & <br />81 <br />Mel Zeller, 1773 Alameda Street, speaking in supportof the project; and Arne <br />82 <br />Jessen, 1716 St. Albans Streetwith questions for staff related to the project. <br />83 <br />Georgiana Gjertson, 1703 Alta VistaDrive(next doorto the north) <br />84 <br />Ms. Gjertson stated that she was thrilled with the new clinic location, and that she would <br />85 <br />no longer have to drive to access it, and stated that “next door will be wonderful!”As a <br />86 <br />resident at her location since 2009, Ms. Gjertson statedthat she found the previous <br />87 <br />building located on this site horrible; and therefore, was so gladfor this redevelopment <br />88 <br />and the well-lit lot proposed.Ms. Gjertson stated that she was very pleased with this <br />89 <br />proposal; and expressed no worry with traffic hoping CPAH would receive approval for <br />90 <br />access off Larpenteur Avenue.Ms. Gjertson expressed her confidence that the property <br />91 <br />will be better maintained than in the past; and expressed hope that a privacy fence would <br />92 <br />be provided, since her experience had been that so much trash blew around from the <br />93 <br />apartment building and blew throughout the neighborhood. <br />94 <br />Eugene “Gene”Anderson, 1707 Alta VistaDrive(house north of Georgiana) <br />95 <br />Mr. Anderson expressed his hope that this would go through. As a residence since 1977, <br />96 <br />Mr. Anderson noted previous access off this site off Larpenteur, and expressed hope that <br />97 <br />those accesses would be re-approved to keep traffic off Alta Vista Drive. <br />98 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.