Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 13, 2014 <br />the area, and noted that the single-family home to be developed by <br />Thomas Homes will be the only single-family home of any significance in <br />the area. <br />There was no one else from the general public wishing to comment on this <br />matter. <br />Upon motion by Boss, seconded by Keis, the public hearing was closed. <br />Keis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 2014-8-145 — DENYING THE PLANNED UNIT <br />DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PERMIT TO ALLOW MULTI -FAMILY <br />RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 56 LITTLE CANADA ROAD <br />EAST BASED ON THE FINDINGS AS OUTLINED IN THE CITY <br />PLANNER'S AUGUST 8, 2014 REPORT <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw. <br />Ayes (4). <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />QUIET Dave McKenzie, SEH, appeared before the Council to present a status <br />ZONE update on the Quiet Zone Study. McKenzie noted that the City has six <br />STUDY public grade crossings and that there are approximately eight trains <br />through Little Canada each day although this number appears to be <br />increasing. He then reviewed the steps necessary to obtain a Quiet Zone <br />designation, which once that designation is in place, train whistles will not <br />be routinely sounded within City limits. McKenzie noted that the first five <br />steps in the process have been completed, and the City is at the point <br />where it will submit a Notice of Intent to Create a Quiet Zone to the CP <br />Railroad and MN DOT. These two agencies will then have the <br />opportunity to comment on the supplemental safety measures (SSM) that <br />the City is proposing at the railroad crossings. He noted that the <br />remaining steps will be undertaken in a parallel manner and it is projected <br />that the process can be completed within a year with establishment of the <br />Quiet Zone in the Fall of 2015. <br />McKenzie noted that the Cities of Little Canada and Shoreview have <br />received State bonding dollars for railroad crossing improvements, but <br />noted that there are specific requirements that must be met relative to State <br />bonding dollars. McKenzie reported that work is being done to address <br />these various requirements and it is hoped that these issues will be worked <br />through. The issues to be resolved include the fact that County Road B is <br />a Ramsey County roadway, some of the signal equipment will be on CP <br />