2014_0714_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment A However, Mr. Paschke reiterated that the intent was for the taller components to be adjacent to the street as they were typically busier than the rear or sides adjacent to LDR or single-family uses. Discussion ensued between Member Murphy and Mr. Paschke as to how a new structure on this site may be located or stepped if surrounded by roads and various uses. From his perspective under current code and his interpretation if the structure was rebuilt on this site, Mr. Paschke opined that the building would be placed on the corner and stepped to the west and north, with parking centered around the interior or along Lincoln Drive. Mr. Paschke noted that this would push the taller component toward the busier intersection of Snelling Avenue and County Road C-2, and other component toward Lincoln Drive and/or single-family residential areas on the west and north sides closer to the Eagle Crest building. Member Boguszewski pursued expressed his two concerns on Table 1005-1, but not pursuant to this particular issue at hand. Member Boguszewski advised that those concerns were related to the "Civic and Institutional Uses" portion of the table, (last line of Page 4 involving CMU designation) moving "college or post-secondary school, campus" use from "permitted" to "not permitted." Also, Member Boguszewski noted his other concern was with a similar proposed change (page 5 of 6 on the Table under the same CMU designation) for "school, elementary or secondary" moving from "permitted" to "not permitted." Member Boguszewski questioned staff's rationale for that recommended change, even though he was aware that such uses were permitted in CMU designated neighborhoods in St. Louis Park and other metropolitan communities. Member Boguszewski also questioned if the "not permitted" designation would exclude daycares, dancing or art studios, or training academies or schools as "not permitted" in CMU neighborhoods as well; and if so, why those were being singled out from "permitted" uses. Under Roseville City Code, Mr. Paschke advised that these were intentional as they related to school and/or campuses, with those differences addressed in business-related designations. Mr. Paschke suggested that, from his perspective, a business school (e.g. Rasmussen College) would fall under a business designation; and a performing arts studio would fall under the performing arts designation, whether educational in nature or not, it would have some of those specifics for use. Mr. Paschke noted that City Code speaks to those, and unfortunately was unable to recall staff rationale overall in intentionally addressed those specific items, as the suggested modification was made at the staff level during discussions several months ago. Member Boguszewski sought comment from Mr. Lloyd as to his recollection of those discussions; to which Mr. Lloyd responded that he couldn't be specific in addressing those proposed changes for elementary and/or secondary schools in CMU districts, other than as suggested by Chair Gisselquist, that it may be based on whether or not those uses would remove the property from the tax rolls if permitted institutional uses. Mr. Paschke opined that the intent in changing campus uses to "not permitted" was based on not allowing that much land to be used for such a use in the City's only current CMU District, the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area specifically. Since that area was intended for a redevelopment area, Mr. Paschke opined that the discussion held by Planning Staff and City Manager and former Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon involved eliminating such a potential large use in that area, to reserve it for business redevelopment versus institutional use. Mr. Paschke noted that this was part of a broader language revision as further review of the code was being performed over a number of months since its adoption in 2010, and after those months of practical and realistic application. Member Boguszewski asked that Mr. Paschke carry the question back to City Manager Trudgeon and report on that rationale for the Planning Commission at the next meeting. Member Boguszewski sought to understand the broader discussion and staff rationale in making the recommendation to he could better make his own determination.