pf_02471 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Roseville Community Development Department ~~ ~ MEMO April 26, 1994 TO: Planning Commissioo FROM: Demùs Welsch, Community Development Director COUNCIL DIRECTION ON KEHR-PARKRIDGE RE: At the April 25th Council Meeting the City Council tabled any decision on the comprehensive plan land use issue in and around the Kehr prQject until they received a more clear and specific recommendation fiom the Commission on May 9th. The Council will then deal with the COMPo PLAN land use designation as well as the Kehr PUD (read PUD as ZONING) on May 23rd. The confusion arose when the Council had two COMP PlAN recommendations in hand; one recommended awrovaI of a change to medium density housing for the Kehr site alone, and to hold additional hearings on the sunuunding prqJerty; the second recommendation stated no change should be made fiom Kehr to Dale Street. In addition to being a contradiction of the fust recommendation, it did not clearly recommend what to do with the land west of Kehr (the Legion area). The neighbors to the west and north were at the meeting on April 25th. The Council did not recognize them for comment, but rather simply continued the hearing until more information was available fiom the Planning Commission. Some Council Members, Staff, and Commission Member Katie Harms, spoke with the neighbors in the hall outside the Council Chambers dming a break. Obviously, they were confused! They asked when the Commission will meet on the Comprehensive Plan (April 27) and the next Commission regular meeting (May 9). They will attend both. On April 27th the Commission will take up the issue of land use map designation changes in each of the 15 planning dimiœ. S1aff recommendatiom are in the report. It will be to your advantage to have read these sectiom in the agenda packet. The Kehr area is inchllied in these land use cha11fes. On May 9th the Commission has one public hearing scheduled regarding Kehr. This is the long scheduled and continued PUD (rezoning request). It malœs sense to clarify the COMP PLAN issue (as ~ by the City Council) prior to ~Jing with this PUD. Therefore, I will take the hberty of rearnmging the schedule so that the Commission may dispense with the COMP PLAN issues first, then, based on the COMP PLAN determination, q81 the hearing f<r the KERR PUD (rezoning). If the Commissioo recommends approval of the KERR COMPo PlAN designation of medium density residential housing (MR), then a recommendation of awrovaI for the KERR PUD (rezoning), would be consistent. Presumably, this KERR PUD (rezoning) would have many site improvement conditiom to make it compatible with the existing, a<ljoining prqJerties. Alternately, if the Commission decided to recommend denial of the COMPo PLAN change to medium density (MR), then it would not be consistent to awrove the PUD (rezoning) and a recommendation of denial of the PUD is appmpriate.