2015-12-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission MeetingPage of 12 ? Mr. Paschke responded that actually the lot had originally been an outlot, but the City requested it be changed to a lot as there was no need for it to remain an outlot. Mr. Paschke advised that this lot was zoned and designated as park property; and if ever sold would need to be reguided and rezoned accordingly from Park/Open Space to accommodate any other type of development. At the request of Member Gitzen, Mr. Paschke clarified that Woodhill Drive was a city jurisdiction street and Victoria Street was under Ramsey County jurisdiction as a county road. Mr. Paschke advised that Ramsey Countys Transportation Department was currently reviewing the proposal, ? and their questions were working through their staff and city staff for the development itself, and were outside the purview of tonights requested action to approve the proposed lots on the ? preliminary plat. Mr. Paschke clarified that any revisions to those details would not change the location of the lots, only access points and/or amenities but not lot configurations. At the further request of Member Gitzen, Mr. Paschke advised that to his knowledge, Ramsey County was not requesting any rightofway for Victoria Street beyond that already dedicated; and ?? clarified that the City was not seeking any additional rightofway for a right turn lane. Mr. Paschke ?? further clarified for Member Gitzen that parking for the ball field would be addressed through a shared agreement for a certain guaranteed number of spaces, and become part of the site design and final documents rather than recorded against the plat. From a technical perspective, Chair Boguszewski suggested revised lessspecific language under ? recommended Condition C to identify the Citys authorized tree service” rather than its current ?? consulting firm. Mr. Paschke concurred. The applicants representatives were present but had no additional comment beyond staffs ?? written report and verbal presentation. Public Comment Marianne Hedin, 2690 Oxford Street, Unit #210 Ms. Hedin stated all the neighbors remained upinarms about something they apparently couldnt ??? do anything about, and that being the proposed fourstory building. Ms. Hedin stated she lived in a ? threestory condominium, and homes surrounding them were all onestory; and opined that this ?? proposed building didnt blend in with surrounding buildings. Ms. Hedin noted the previous ? buildings housing the school and Comcast were one story; and noted the ball fields were already the highest point of land in that area. hair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.; no one else spoke. ? MOTION Member Bull moved, seconded by Member Gitzen to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT of Applewood Pointe of Roseville at Central Park, generally comprising the property at 934 Woodhill Drive and 2659 Victoria Street; as detailed and based on the information and analysis, and as conditioned and outlined in the project report dated December 2, 2015; amended as follows: Condition D revised to read: S & S Tree Service\] \[The Citys authorized tree service\] shall ??? approve the final tree preservation plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. ? Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstentions: 2 (Boguszewski and Murphy) Motion carried. c.PLANNING FILE 15024 ? Request by Calyxt, Inc., in conjunction with property owner PIK Terminal CO./Pikovsky Management, LLC, for approval of outdoor agricultural research plots as a CONDITIONAL USE on certain unaddressed parcels south and east of County Road C2 and Mount Ridge ?? Road As an employee of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and given known soil contamination on this site and his potential future involvement in working on the sites remediation ? or related matters, to avoid any potential conflict of interest, Commissioner Stellmach advised that on cautions side he would abstain from any action on this request. ? file:///R:/CommDev/PLANNING_AND_ZONING/PLANNING_COMMISSION/Minutes/...4/11/2016