Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, December 05, 2007 <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />used; application of consistent standards; purposes for deviations (i.e., preservation of wetlands); and <br />required flexibility. <br />Public Comment <br />Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing to speak. <br />MOTION <br />Member Wozniak moved, seconded by Member Doherty to SUPPORT AND RECOMMEND <br />APPROVAL OF THE PROPSOED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, based <br />on comments and findings of Section 5 and 6, and the recommendations of Section 7 of the report <br />dated December 5, 2007. <br />Ayes: 7 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />Chair Bakeman noted that this item was scheduled for City Council review on December 17, 2007. <br />Chair Bakeman recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m.; and reconvened at 8:47 p.m. <br />c. PLANNING FILE 07-062 <br />Request by Emmes Realty Services LLC (Gateway Washington Inc., property owner) for an <br />AMENDED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT at HarMar Mall, 2100 Snelling Avenue; this application <br />pertains to the redevelopment of Outlot 82, the Snelling Avenue restaurant site and surrounding <br />area. <br />Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 07-062. <br />Mr. Paschke reviewed the request of Emmes Realty Services LLC (Emmes) seeking to AMEND the <br />PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) established in January of 2000 to redevelop the former <br />Backyard Grill into another sit-down restaurant. Mr. Paschke noted that the proposal by Emmes Realty <br />was unique in that there was no specific building/site plan. Mr. Paschke advised that, originally Texas <br />Roadhouse Grill was the proposed tenant for the site redevelopment for which the Planning Division <br />received a Site Plan and elevations; however, noted that the applicant desires a flexible AMENDMENT <br />not tied to a specific design. Mr. Paschke advised that staff concurred with the applicant’s concept, <br />establishing specific parameters under which the site and building could be improved, similar to that of <br />the recently-approved Northwestern College PUD or the initial Twin Lakes proposal. <br />Staff recommended APPROVAL of the requested PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) <br />AMENDMENT for HarMar Mall to redevelop the former Backyard Grill site with a new sit-down restaurant <br />on a differently-configured outlot adjacent to Snelling Avenue and the Mall access drive, based on the <br />comments in Section 6 and conditions of Section 7 of the project report dated December 5, 2007; <br />modified to indicate that the setback adjacent to Snelling Avenue and adjacent to the south <br />property line be modified to be consistent with the plan document supported in staff’s review and <br />through staff’s continued work with the applicant. <br />City Engineer Deb Bloom spoke to potential relocating of Skillman Avenue with respect to this proposal, <br />and as addressed by Commissioner Wozniak. Ms. Bloom advised that there remained a number of <br />improvements needing to be addressed through various redevelopments, and in consideration of the <br />pending MnDOT improvements to be bid in January 2008, indicating a win-win situation for both HarMar <br />Mall, the City of Roseville, and users of the roads and parking facilities in the area. Ms. Bloom advised <br />that the outcome of staff’s meeting with residents of the Skillman neighborhood had been less than <br />supportive (estimating that 3 of those 25 property owners at the meeting thought it was a good idea); and <br />that a lack of available funding for the proposed realignment further impacted staff’s recommendations. <br />Ms. Bloom advised that, due to lack of HarMar Mall owners in working with the City to improve the safety <br />of this area, due to apparent lease provisions and/or restrictions, staff was not pursuing improvements at <br />this time. <br />Ms. Bloom noted, however, that, given ongoing safety issues at this intersection, staff was recommending <br />that approval of this PUD Amendment include a condition that any future improvements and cost-sharing <br /> <br />