2014_05_07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 7, 2014 Page 7 Snelling Avenue and County Road C-2, and other component toward Lincoln Drive 301 and/or single-family residential areas on the west and north sides closer to the Eagle 302 Crest building. 303 Member Boguszewski pursued expressed his two concerns on Table 1005-1, but not 304 pursuant to this particular issue at hand. Member Boguszewski advised that those 305 concerns were related to the “Civic and Institutional Uses” portion of the table, (last line of 306 Page 4 involving CMU designation) moving “college or post-secondary school, campus” 307 use from “permitted” to “not permitted.” Also, Member Boguszewski noted his other 308 concern was with a similar proposed change (page 5 of 6 on the Table under the same 309 CMU designation) for “school, elementary or secondary” moving from “permitted” to “not 310 permitted.” Member Boguszewski questioned staff’s rationale for that recommended 311 change, even though he was aware that such uses were permitted in CMU designated 312 neighborhoods in St. Louis Park and other metropolitan communities. Member 313 Boguszewski also questioned if the “not permitted” designation would exclude daycares, 314 dancing or art studios, or training academies or schools as “not permitted” in CMU 315 neighborhoods as well; and if so, why those were being singled out from “permitted” 316 uses. 317 Under Roseville City Code, Mr. Paschke advised that these were intentional as they 318 related to school and/or campuses, with those differences addressed in business-related 319 designations. Mr. Paschke suggested that, from his perspective, a business school (e.g. 320 Rasmussen College) would fall under a business designation; and a performing arts 321 studio would fall under the performing arts designation, whether educational in nature or 322 not, it would have some of those specifics for use. Mr. Paschke noted that City Code 323 speaks to those, and unfortunately was unable to recall staff rationale overall in 324 intentionally addressed those specific items, as the suggested modification was made at 325 the staff level during discussions several months ago. 326 Member Boguszewski sought comment from Mr. Lloyd as to his recollection of those 327 discussions; to which Mr. Lloyd responded that he couldn’t be specific in addressing 328 those proposed changes for elementary and/or secondary schools in CMU districts, other 329 than as suggested by Chair Gisselquist, that it may be based on whether or not those 330 uses would remove the property from the tax rolls if permitted institutional uses. 331 Mr. Paschke opined that the intent in changing campus uses to “not permitted” was 332 based on not allowing that much land to be used for such a use in the City’s only current 333 CMU District, the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area specifically. Since that area was 334 intended for a redevelopment area, Mr. Paschke opined that the discussion held by 335 Planning Staff and City Manager and former Community Development Director Patrick 336 Trudgeon involved eliminating such a potential large use in that area, to reserve it for 337 business redevelopment versus institutional use. Mr. Paschke noted that this was part of 338 a broader language revision as further review of the code was being performed over a 339 number of months since its adoption in 2010, and after those months of practical and 340 realistic application. 341 Member Boguszewski asked that Mr. Paschke carry the question back to City Manager 342 Trudgeon and report on that rationale for the Planning Commission at the next meeting. 343 Member Boguszewski sought to understand the broader discussion and staff rationale in 344 making the recommendation to he could better make his own determination. 345 Mr. Paschke duly noted that request; while maintaining that staff did not think either of 346 those uses should be “permitted” in a CMU District. 347 If the intent of staff was to retain the Twin Lakes CMU District as a catalyst for growth and 348 economic development, Chair Gisselquist opined that he could understand the rationale; 349 however, he suggested other uses may need to be considered based on various 350 scenarios. 351 Member Murphy stated that he wasn’t sure if he shared that opinion, and in reviewing the 352 table if the cell in Table 1005-1 remained blank, it may create a challenge for the City to 353