2014_05_07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 7, 2014 Page 6 Mr. Paschke responded that setback requirements for the structure(s) would apply 249 according to each use, or require a variance or other tool to accomplish that application; 250 but clarified that not just one setback provision would apply if the property had varying 251 zoning designations surrounding it. 252 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke reviewed the instances when the City 253 would work with other and/or adjacent jurisdictions when an entity, such as the University 254 of Northwestern, was located in both Roseville and Arden Hills. Mr. Paschke advised that 255 agreements would be put in place as applicable to address those joint efforts (e.g. 256 parking garage and student center constructed in the past). 257 Since this campus was located in both communities, Member Daire asked staff if they 258 had consulted with the City of Arden Hills regarding joint adoption of this kind of language 259 in both City Codes. 260 Mr. Paschke responded negatively, since this is an off-campus site only located in the 261 City of Roseville, and not on the campus proper that would impact the City of Arden Hills. 262 Since the impact of this new use would be the same or less than the current use, 263 Member Keynan clarified that staff’s review involved the re-use itself and determination 264 that there would indeed be no additional impact from this proposed use. 265 Mr. Paschke concurred with Member Keynan’s assumptions; advising that, if these 266 revisions are approved for adoption, and the University of Northwestern completes their 267 purchase of the existing building, the time frame would proceed for finalization of their 268 plans to modify the building to convert if form a hotel design to a design consistent with 269 student housing. Once those plans are submitted to staff by Northwestern’s architects 270 and engineers, they would go through the regular permit review by various staff and 271 departments, and include a review of student numbers, occupancy restrictions, whether 272 ample parking was available on site, and other necessary modifications required by City 273 Code. Mr. Paschke noted that the permit process and review would be no different than 274 any other building permit for re-use of a structure; but clarified that the review would not 275 occur until those plans and a review of potential impacts from the conversion had been 276 thoroughly vetted, based on current codes and ordinances in effect at the time of the 277 review and specifically addressing the proposed use. 278 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke advised that he was not aware of any 279 limitations on the proximity of educational facilities and/or properties to establishments 280 serving liquor. 281 In Section 5.8.D, Member Murphy questioned if the intent for locating the roadway if LDR 282 designation was on one side and another classification on another side, and how 283 residences would be potentially impacted. 284 Mr. Paschke advised that access to a public street was more likely unless part of the 285 interior development; with the intent to place taller buildings near streets, and consistent 286 with code for lower portions to be placed adjacent to lower density areas to avoid 287 negative height impacts. Mr. Paschke clarified that general design standards would 288 apply and need to be incorporated into any plans, but how it may play out was difficult to 289 determine at this time for various areas in the City depending on where those potential 290 sites for student housing may occur in the future and adjacent uses to those side, even 291 with a roadway between them. However, Mr. Paschke reiterated that the intent was for 292 the taller components to be adjacent to the street as they were typically busier than the 293 rear or sides adjacent to LDR or single-family uses. 294 Discussion ensued between Member Murphy and Mr. Paschke as to how a new structure 295 on this site may be located or stepped if surrounded by roads and various uses. From his 296 perspective under current code and his interpretation if the structure was rebuilt on this 297 site, Mr. Paschke opined that the building would be placed on the corner and stepped to 298 the west and north, with parking centered around the interior or along Lincoln Drive. Mr. 299 Paschke noted that this would push the taller component toward the busier intersection of 300