2015-12-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission MeetingPage of 12 ? hair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PLANNING FILE 15024 at 7:36 p.m. ?? Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd provided a brief history of this request as detailed in the staff report dated December 2, 2015. As outlined in the staff report, Mr. Lloyd noted the intent of the applicant to develop a corporate headquarters, including indoor research and development facilities, greenhouses, and up to five acres of outdoor research plots, as the remaining uses were permitted. Mr. Lloyd noted the requested Conditional Use was specific to that outdoor research and development use. Mr. Lloyd noted that the firm was currently located in New Brighton, but was now growing sufficiently to seek this expansion of their businesses. As detailed in the staff report, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the Conditional Use criteria and staffs analysis ? of each component; and addressed the remainder outside city purview and regulated by other regulatory agencies, as staff consulted with those agencies and indicating no concerns todate ? with the request. Mr. Lloyd reported that staff had received no public comment todate, and confirmed that staff ? recommended approval of the Conditional Use as conditioned for the outdoor research plots. Discussion Chair Boguszewski referenced Section 6 of Attachment C (applicants written narrative) related to ? screening, and asked if there should be any reference to that screening as a condition to the Conditional Use. Mr. Lloyd responded that the Commission could choose to add a condition; however, advised that buffering regulations in the citys regulating plan would take effect along Langton Lake Park ? boundaries and influence that screening. Also due to the proprietary nature of the companys ? research, Mr. Lloyd advised that the applicant had an interest in obscuring those research plots from the publics view, which staff had found to be adequate. ? Member Murphy noted Ramsey Countys property identification numbers (PINs) compared to ?? actual property boundaries being recommended for approval for the applicant, and asked specifically what properties were under consideration for the Conditional Use request and whether it applied only to those two properties defined by those two PINs. ? Mr. Lloyd clarified that this request was specific to the two parcels and several underlying lots. At Member Murphys question as to the applicants intent to purchase additional lots, Mr. Lloyd ?? advised that while the applicant intended to purchase additional lots, the big question for them is if they would be approved for the outdoor test plots. If that answer from the Planning commission was yes, Mr. Lloyd advised that then they could proceed with purchasing additional parcels. Mr. Lloyd further clarified that the plat may come forward at a later point it was not now part of this request for the outdoor research plots. Member Bull questioned staffs conversation with the Department Agriculture on potential ? problems with windblown dust to nearby residential areas when the applicant may spray. Member Bull noted another concern may be odors from manure spreading across the test field and if and how they would remediate that. While admitting he was illequipped to know, Mr. Lloyd advised based on his conversation with ? other regulating agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, that any such application was regulated by them. As the City operates, Mr. Lloyd clarified that this would not be under their active oversight, but that it would respond to any concerns or complaints should something arise. However, how those chemicals were handled, Mr. Lloyd advised he could not answer definitively. Mr. Lloyd noted that in an urban environment, environmental regulations would prevent an application of significant intensity that would mostly likely cause a nuisance without mitigation in place or determined by those regulatory agencies. Member Bull asked staff for a clarification as to whether indoor greenhouses would be involved as well as the outdoor research and development plots. Mr. Lloyd advised that there would be enclosed greenhouses regulated under normal zoning requirements, a current existing use, and clarified that this Conditional Use was specific only to the outdoor research plot, with other uses already permitted under current city code. As a previous owner of commercial greenhouses, Member Bull noted their significant light emission requiring blackout curtains in some areas; and questioned if that light would be ? monitored and regulated at a minimum at the property line as with outdoor lighting on a property. file:///R:/CommDev/PLANNING_AND_ZONING/PLANNING_COMMISSION/Minutes/...4/11/2016