Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Roseville Planning Commission Minutes <br />November 6, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />Mr. Drown pointed out two engineering concerns--that hopefully the <br />pond can, indeed, be relocated. If not that would create a future <br />issue. He also pointed out that the parking layout could be improved <br />in the southwest area to enhance the trucking access. Wiski asked <br />if there were any alternatives to the ponding. Nelson replied no, <br />he is basically waiting for a City response. <br /> <br />Demos asked whether there had been any discussions with the Rice Creek <br />Watershed. Nelson replied no. <br /> <br />Berry asked whether or not the City can negotiate with MN/DOT on the <br />removal of the pond. Drown replied that we can, but it was best to <br />wait until the definitive plan was submitted by the developer. MN/DOT <br />has difficulty dealing in our conceptual framework. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br />Matson moved approval of the Special Use Permits, seconded by <br />DeBenedet per revised plans with the following conditions: <br /> <br />1. That MN/DOT approves the pond relocation. <br />2. That the developer work with staff to modify access to the site. <br />3. That the landscape plan be approved by the staff. <br />4. That any parking adjustments be approved by staff. <br />5. That the drainage plan be approved by staff. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: Berry, Johnson, Dressler, Matson, Mueller, <br />DeBenedet, and Wiski. <br />Nays: None. <br /> <br />Final Items <br />Parking study. <br /> <br />Presentation <br />Mr. Dahlgren discussed the most recent research that has been <br />completed with respect to parking, but it wasn't particularly useful <br />for the Roseville area. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren pointed out that Roseville's parking seems to work well, <br />and that the ordinance should remain in tact except for the <br />recommended restaurant modifications. Mr. Dahlgren stated that, in <br />addition, the City may want to allow a developer to submit a parking <br />study as part of the project, which would allow for modifications in <br />parking outside of the usual variance modification. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked what the difference would be in allowing a planning <br />study as opposed to a variance. Dahlgren replied that it wouldn't <br />require the same process the variance requires in terms of a public <br />hearing, notice, etc. <br /> <br />Johnson stated it appears the Commission will always grant parking <br />variances, and pointed out that Loehman's is an example of that. <br /> <br />General discussion ensued regarding specific parking considerations <br />relating to TGIF, Children's Palace, Rosedale, etc. <br />