CC_Minutes_2015_0323 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 23,2015 Page 25 limited throughout the area for office buildings (e.g. corporate headquarters) or whether there should also be limitations for those uses in areas direction adjoining single family neighborhoods until a further Conditional use or PUD process was used. As an example, Councilmember Etten used the area on the north side of Terrace Drive with current retail uses significantly lower than some residential properties; and questioned whether height differentials made that adjacent use ac- ceptable. Councilmember McGehee agreed with the adjacent neighborhood height com- ments and solar access consideration; and also noted significant issues occurring in the past around parks and viewing the park, with existing residential properties not wanting anything imposing on their view of those natural areas. Councilmember Laliberte agreed with the comments expressed by her colleagues. Mayor Roe also agreed, and noted past discussions around parks and low and me- dium density zoning (LDR and MDR) with shorter height allowances being con- sidered relative to their distance from property lines. Mayor Roe suggested height could be increased if a parcel was big enough and far enough away, providing for a stair step approach. Upgrade versus Redevelopment Mayor Roe noted that this question (#5, page 8, lines 300-301) was specific to subarea 6. Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in considering upgrades versus redevelopment as something to be further looked at, using as an example build- ings similar to those off County Road B-2 and Cleveland Avenue where upgrades had been accomplished with improved facades and/or parking lots redone. Councilmember Laliberte expressed her total agreement with that, using subarea 6 as a good example of where such an approach would work. Councilmember Laliberte agreed that it may not be necessary to demolish existing buildings for redevelopment if existing buildings could be repurposed and made more aestheti- cally pleasing. Regarding staff's question as to whether or not the City Council would consider incentives, Mayor Roe expressed his support in doing so, suggesting that the Ro- seville Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) would be the most appropri- ate entity to provide that help through some of their programs. Even though the HRA and City are all the same family, Mayor Roe noted advantages in the HRA taking the lead in such redevelopments or upgrades. As an example, Mayor Roe noted the former strip center off County Road B housing a former grocery story and now repurposed for an engineering firm. Mayor Roe noted the advantages in