My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_0714_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2014
>
2014_0714_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2014 3:59:32 PM
Creation date
7/10/2014 12:46:37 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
168
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment A <br />However, Mr. Paschke reiterated that the intent was for the taller components to be adjacent to the street as <br />they were typically busier than the rear or sides adjacent to LDR or single-family uses. <br />Discussion ensued between Member Murphy and Mr. Paschke as to how a new structure on this site may <br />be located or stepped if surrounded by roads and various uses. From his perspective under current code <br />and his interpretation if the structure was rebuilt on this site, Mr. Paschke opined that the building would be <br />placed on the corner and stepped to the west and north, with parking centered around the interior or along <br />Lincoln Drive. Mr. Paschke noted that this would push the taller component toward the busier intersection <br />of Snelling Avenue and County Road C-2, and other component toward Lincoln Drive and/or single-family <br />residential areas on the west and north sides closer to the Eagle Crest building. <br />Member Boguszewski pursued expressed his two concerns on Table 1005-1, but not pursuant to this <br />particular issue at hand. Member Boguszewski advised that those concerns were related to the "Civic and <br />Institutional Uses" portion of the table, (last line of Page 4 involving CMU designation) moving "college or <br />post-secondary school, campus" use from "permitted" to "not permitted." Also, Member Boguszewski <br />noted his other concern was with a similar proposed change (page 5 of 6 on the Table under the same <br />CMU designation) for "school, elementary or secondary" moving from "permitted" to "not permitted." <br />Member Boguszewski questioned staff's rationale for that recommended change, even though he was <br />aware that such uses were permitted in CMU designated neighborhoods in St. Louis Park and other <br />metropolitan communities. Member Boguszewski also questioned if the "not permitted" designation would <br />exclude daycares, dancing or art studios, or training academies or schools as "not permitted" in CMU <br />neighborhoods as well; and if so, why those were being singled out from "permitted" uses. <br />Under Roseville City Code, Mr. Paschke advised that these were intentional as they related to school <br />and/or campuses, with those differences addressed in business-related designations. Mr. Paschke <br />suggested that, from his perspective, a business school (e.g. Rasmussen College) would fall under a <br />business designation; and a performing arts studio would fall under the performing arts designation, <br />whether educational in nature or not, it would have some of those specifics for use. Mr. Paschke noted that <br />City Code speaks to those, and unfortunately was unable to recall staff rationale overall in intentionally <br />addressed those specific items, as the suggested modification was made at the staff level during <br />discussions several months ago. <br />Member Boguszewski sought comment from Mr. Lloyd as to his recollection of those discussions; to which <br />Mr. Lloyd responded that he couldn't be specific in addressing those proposed changes for elementary <br />and/or secondary schools in CMU districts, other than as suggested by Chair Gisselquist, that it may be <br />based on whether or not those uses would remove the property from the tax rolls if permitted institutional <br />uses. <br />Mr. Paschke opined that the intent in changing campus uses to "not permitted" was based on not allowing <br />that much land to be used for such a use in the City's only current CMU District, the Twin Lakes <br />Redevelopment Area specifically. Since that area was intended for a redevelopment area, Mr. Paschke <br />opined that the discussion held by Planning Staff and City Manager and former Community Development <br />Director Patrick Trudgeon involved eliminating such a potential large use in that area, to reserve it for <br />business redevelopment versus institutional use. Mr. Paschke noted that this was part of a broader <br />language revision as further review of the code was being performed over a number of months since its <br />adoption in 2010, and after those months of practical and realistic application. <br />Member Boguszewski asked that Mr. Paschke carry the question back to City Manager Trudgeon and <br />report on that rationale for the Planning Commission at the next meeting. Member Boguszewski sought to <br />understand the broader discussion and staff rationale in making the recommendation to he could better <br />make his own determination. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.