My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_0811_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2014
>
2014_0811_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2014 4:02:20 PM
Creation date
8/7/2014 4:18:11 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
207
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
Member Murphy suggested that the Planning Commission not wordsmith the document tonight, but now <br />that it had been brought to staff’s attention, they could resolve that omission if there was no reason not to <br />do so. <br />Mr. Paschke suggested that staff consult with the City Attorney for wordsmithing as appropriate and make <br />the change as recommended by Member Murphy; with that clarification occurring before the request went <br />before the City Council for action. <br />In Item 5.8.C and listed conditions, Member Murphy questioned how that would be interpreted if a subject <br />property was surrounded by multiple zoning designations. <br />Mr. Paschke responded that setback requirements for the structure(s) would apply according to each use, <br />or require a variance or other tool to accomplish that application; but clarified that not just one setback <br />provision would apply if the property had varying zoning designations surrounding it. <br />At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke reviewed the instances when the City would work with other <br />and/or adjacent jurisdictions when an entity, such as the University of Northwestern, was located in both <br />Roseville and Arden Hills. Mr. Paschke advised that agreements would be put in place as applicable to <br />address those joint efforts (e.g. parking garage and student center constructed in the past). <br />Since this campus was located in both communities, Member Daire asked staff if they had consulted with <br />the City of Arden Hills regarding joint adoption of this kind of language in both City Codes. <br />Mr. Paschke responded negatively, since this is an off-campus site only located in the City of Roseville, and <br />not on the campus proper that would impact the City of Arden Hills. <br />Since the impact of this new use would be the same or less than the current use, Member Keynan clarified <br />that staff’s review involved the re-use itself and determination that there would indeed be no additional <br />impact from this proposed use. <br />Mr. Paschke concurred with Member Keynan’s assumptions; advising that, if these revisions are approved <br />for adoption, and the University of Northwestern completes their purchase of the existing building, the time <br />frame would proceed for finalization of their plans to modify the building to convert if form a hotel design to a <br />design consistent with student housing. Once those plans are submitted to staff by Northwestern’s <br />architects and engineers, they would go through the regular permit review by various staff and departments, <br />and include a review of student numbers, occupancy restrictions, whether ample parking was available on <br />site, and other necessary modifications required by City Code. Mr. Paschke noted that the permit process <br />and review would be no different than any other building permit for re-use of a structure; but clarified that <br />the review would not occur until those plans and a review of potential impacts from the conversion had been <br />thoroughly vetted, based on current codes and ordinances in effect at the time of the review and specifically <br />addressing the proposed use. <br />At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke advised that he was not aware of any limitations on the <br />proximity of educational facilities and/or properties to establishments serving liquor. <br />In Section 5.8.D, Member Murphy questioned if the intent for locating the roadway if LDR designation was <br />on one side and another classification on another side, and how residences would be potentially impacted. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that access to a public street was more likely unless part of the interior development; <br />with the intent to place taller buildings near streets, and consistent with code for lower portions to be placed <br />adjacent to lower density areas to avoid negative height impacts. Mr. Paschke clarified that general design <br />standards would apply and need to be incorporated into any plans, but how it may play out was difficult to <br />determine at this time for various areas in the City depending on where those potential sites for student <br />housing may occur in the future and adjacent uses to those side, even with a roadway between them. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.