CC_Minutes_2013_1209 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, December 9, 2013 Page 29 Mr. Paschke reviewed some of the issues found by staff included a lack of cer- tainty in what the definitions actually mean based on their specific titles; and pointed out several examples on maps identifying areas in the Comprehensive Plan that in reality couldn't be further from the truth of what uses are actually oc- curring and the theoretic uses permitted (e.g. lines 63-72 in the Rosedale Center Area; lines 80-93 of the Community Business Area; and lines 94 — 129 in the Neighborhood Area). Mr. Paschke noted that these uses create ambiguity and confusion; and made it difficult for staff to enforce or reinforce from a zoning and land use perspective; or allow them to correct existing problems. Councilmember Willmus questioned staff's comment related to service areas drawn from Regional and Neighborhood Business Districts; with Mr. Paschke re- sponding that it was considered from a broader based customer draw. Discussion ensued regarding examples, including a specific auto parts dealership or a bank versus multiple brands of auto parts stores or banks and their larger ge- ographical draw and whether or not Roseville could support some of those on their own without that regional customer draw; how to define those parameters and from how far they need to draw; density and types of business and retail spe- cific to Roseville or drawn from a larger area; impacts of a specific zoning desig- nation to the immediate area and neighborhood. Examples included the impact of Rosedale on the neighborhood (e.g. traffic, parking lots, etc.) and need to define service area versus impact versus a Neighborhood designation having little impact to the area or traffic, and better fitting a specific location. While disagreeing with the premise that everything needed to be broad and open, Councilmember McGehee agreed with the comments; however, she opined that the broad and open premise had served to create those ambiguities (e.g. asphalt plant). Councilmember McGehee stated that she had been told by the League of Minnesota Cities and attorneys, that if there is something you don't want as a use, you had to be specific about wants and things not wanted, and not leave things open to interpretation. Councilmember McGehee opined that she did not see any benefit to being wonderfully broad; nor did she believe there was a single person in Roseville who could not provide a reasonable definition on their own, based on size, impact and scale. Councilmember McGehee further opined that this had been clearly laid out when first put forward as part of zoning, with the impact, size and scale included as part of that through square footage designations, even though that had somehow disappeared, and now the differences in RB, NB and CB could no longer be determined, creating a big issue within the community. Councilmember McGehee opined that the vagueness and lack of clarity in defini- tions had put the City in the predicament it now found itself in. Mayor Roe opined that there may be a disconnect between individual types of op- erations like a store and the idea of scale and impact; and contrary to the state- ment of Councilmember McGehee, further opined that the current definitions