2015-11-04_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, September 17, 2015 Page 12 Mr. Lloyd advised thatit didn’t vary; noting that they are listed in the Table of Uses today as per 538 City Council discussion, and even though their breakdown had been discussed, in the revised 539 table they need not differ.Specific to manufactured home park designations coming out of those 540 other districts, Mr. Lloyd noted that did require a more formalized land use. 541 Consensus of the Commission was to combine uses in the table as discussed. 542 One-family Attached (duplex or twin home)AND One-family attached (town home or row house) 543 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Lloyd clarified that twin home always had 2 units; 544 while there were some parallels in 3 or more units, but instead of stacked there were various 545 iterations possible; with a duplex similar to a single-family home and related to the LDR concept. 546 Based on previous discussions tonight, Member Cunningham questioned if the will of the 547 neighborhood was to desire more homes but clean-up of a site wasn’t feasible, if someone 548 wanted to build a one-story duplex of single-family home, why would that be a bad thing. 549 Discussion ensued regarding the definition of and number of construction variables for units. 550 Member Murphy refocused discussion on the location of this CMU designated area, noting it was 551 a transition area and proposed residential uses would run into issues with tiers and height 552 restrictions, and while residential uses may sound good on the surface, he opined that he wasn’t 553 sure if anything favorable would be accomplished for smaller family structures or units in the long- 554 term based on the other permitted uses in this CMU designation. 555 Chair Boguszewski concurred, referencing the bigger picture and intent for this CMU area, not as 556 a primary residential development as stated by Member Murphy, but potentially incorporating 557 such a use within the broader intent for the CMU and meeting the goals of the comprehensive 558 plan for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.However, if that is the case, Chair Boguszewski 559 asked why any of these potential uses by their very definitions are P in the CMU area, opining 560 that to him they seemed to be reluctantly hanging on to P such a residential use when the whole 561 point was not to do so. 562 Mr. Bilotta clarified that, in a number of mixed use projects, it wasn’t unusual to have housing as a 563 component ofa development, and actually allowing a transition for that use into an office/retail 564 use that works well. 565 As an example, Chair Boguszewski questioned if an example would be that of the 566 Grand/Excelsior Development in the City of St. Louis Park with mixed use development of 567 brownstones in a walkable neighborhood, or another example near the urban Guthrie Theater 568 Redevelopment Area. 569 Mr. Bilotta agreed those were both good examples and their intent was similar to providing a 570 buffer to the CMU. 571 Planning Commissioners decided they would retain these uses as currently shown on the Table 572 of Uses. 573 One-family Detached 574 Chair Boguszewski admitted he was having difficulty considering this use left in at all. 575 Mr. Bilotta clarified that the use came out of City Council discussions in their consideration that if 576 someone wanted to clean-up the property in an area overlooking Langton Lake Park in one viable 577 corner and within that 100’ lower height area, it may not be a bad idea; and similar to CMU-1 578 extended down, that use had remained as noted.While admitting this use would be somewhat 579 different than the original intent for CMU, Mr. Bilotta stated that was their rationale in allowing a 580 one-family detached home use only in that specific area. 581 Chair Boguszewski admitted it would only be possible on the western side of Langton Lake and 582 represented one of the last remaining properties in Roseville allowing a view of the water; which 583 he further admitted could be attractive.Whether relevant or not, with it being a potential use and 584 conditioned as noted, Chair Boguszewski offered his support of that use as shown on the Table. 585 Member Murphy, while opining it seemed like tortured rationale, agreed that he could see the 586 potential. 587