2016-01-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Page 8 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Lloyd advised that lighting restrictions would be 356 addressed as part of future design standards restricting minimal bleed (e.g. parking lot 357 and exterior building lighting) from the property line, at the standard 0.50’ candle. 358 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Lloyd addressed stormwater runoff for an HDR 359 structure occupying the majority of this parcel’s footprint, based on preliminary review at 360 this point. Mr. Lloyd noted that stormwater was currently robust in this area and as with 361 any development, would be held to current high standards for stormwater mitigation 362 before flowing into the public system. As noted by Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd 363 confirmed that the city had not received any detailed plans at this concept point and 364 reiterated that they would not be part of this request anyway. Mr. Lloyd noted that he 365 would be surprised if the development team hadn’t done some preliminary studies up to 366 this point, but none had been submitted to the city at this concept stage. After 367 submission, Mr. Lloyd noted that the plans would need approval of the city as well as 368 applicable watershed district before proceeding further. 369 As previously noted, Chair Boguszewski reminded the commission that that information 370 was not part of this application request and any decision was not related to any project 371 specifics or effects anyway. 372 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Lloyd addressed the application process and 60- 373 day review period, with the city able to extend that review period if the commission 374 determined it needed further information before rendering their judgment (e.g. traffic 375 study), ideally completed in time for the February 2016 commission meeting. 376 In recognizing the existing Midland Grove access point, Member Stellmach questioned if 377 that was the only viable access point for a new development, noting the existing driveway 378 shown on the displayed map directly off County Road B and whether a new development 379 could utilize that access. 380 Mr. Lloyd responded that access onto a county roadway would be under the control of 381 Ramsey County, and based on past experience, he anticipated the county would be 382 reluctant to allow more driveways coming onto County Road B, especially with the 383 proximity to a major intersection, and particularly for anything more than a single-family 384 use. 385 Mr. Paschke responded that even if a single-family development that had been 386 considered by the city at one point in the past, Ramsey County would not be inclined to 387 allow another separate access point or public road accessing County Road B, requiring a 388 shared access for any future development. 389 Mr. Bull opined that grading for a road the drop in that area may be prohibitive for an 390 access at that suggested point anyway. 391 Chair Boguszewski opined that he suspected Ramsey County would give that potential 392 access point no consideration at all. 393 In his visit with the City’s Public Works staff earlier today, Member Daire reported that 394 they had confirmed that Ramsey County had been adamant regarding any additional 395 access onto County Road B and their intent to channel access to avoid vehicles turning 396 right and/or left and potentially crossing over traffic lanes and creating traffic issues in 397 that area. 398 Mr. Lloyd confirmed that staff had hear similar comments back from MnDOT that 399 specified no access to their rights-of-way as well. 400 Applicant Representatives 401 th Dan Paulson UCC Weekly Update, Developer Partner with JAH, LLC, 4941 129 402 Street N, Hugo, MN 55038 403 Chair Boguszewski welcomed the development team and asked that they talk about 404 where they were at currently in the development and planning process beyond their 405