My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-11-04_PC_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2015 Agendas
>
2015-11-04_PC_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/22/2016 11:58:15 AM
Creation date
4/22/2016 11:58:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
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
Special Planning CommissionMeeting <br />Minutes –Wednesday, September 17, 2015 <br />Page 3 <br />With Senior Planner Lloyd pointing out two current HDR zones proposed for changes, Chair <br />101 <br />Boguszewski clarified if they were changed to CMU-2, the height restriction would be built into the <br />102 <br />new CMU-1 definition, but not the HDR-1, eliminating the 1,000 foot buffer problem. <br />103 <br />Mr. Bilotta clarified thatno higher than 2 stories would be allowed within or adjacent to any single- <br />104 <br />family residential area down to Twin Lakes Parkway where it dead-ends, and then in a straight <br />105 <br />line form WalMart from the Fireplace Store.Mr. Bilotta further clarified that everything north of <br />106 <br />that would be less than 2 stories, or not exceeding 35’ all the way down to the Fireplace Store. <br />107 <br />Chair Boguszewski opined that this would enable development south of Terrace Drive, and by <br />108 <br />this zoning change, it achieved 2 stories north of County Road C and more intense height and <br />109 <br />density south. <br />110 <br />Mr. Bilotta concurred, noting the additional 100’ buffer around Langton Lake for further <br />111 <br />protections. <br />112 <br />While he observed the City Council spending significant time in their consideration of the various <br />113 <br />subareas and their locations, Chair Boguszewski noted that they did not get into the specificities <br />114 <br />of each use or their line by line development. <br />115 <br />Mr. Bilotta concurred, noting that the City Council provided good and clear direction with each <br />116 <br />subarea and their dividing characters and the intensity levels for each of the CMU subareas that <br />117 <br />they’d discussed over several meetings, as well as line by line categories; their overall discussion <br />118 <br />were broader, especially related to various retail uses. <br />119 <br />Chair Boguszewskireviewed the process as staff belabored details and drafted the proposal for <br />120 <br />the City Council’s intentional and thoughtful review, with their general direction given to staff, who <br />121 <br />then drafted the details for Planning Commission review and subsequent recommendation to the <br />122 <br />City Council.Therefore, if the Planning Commission recommended additional changes, Chair <br />123 <br />Boguszewski suggested providing clarity on their rationale in those recommendations since <br />124 <br />considerable work had already gone into this by the City Council and their direction to staff. <br />125 <br />Mr. Bilotta concurred, noting that the City Council had put the broader pieces in place, and then <br />126 <br />charged the Planning Commission with review of the more minute details and subcategories, <br />127 <br />especially for retail uses, andtheir judgments and rationale in making their ultimate <br />128 <br />recommendations. <br />129 <br />Table 1005-5–Table of Uses for CMU-1, 2, 3 and 4 and General Design Standards <br />130 <br />Senior Planner Lloyd noted staff’s incorporation of proposed use changes in thetable presented <br />131 <br />at the September 2, 2015 regular Planning Commission meeting for each proposed district, <br />132 <br />anticipating additional review and changes tonight with time devoted specifically to this and only <br />133 <br />this issue at this special meeting of the Commission(Attachment C –RPCA dated September 2, <br />134 <br />2015, pages 4 –6). <br />135 <br />Mr. Lloyd reviewed those initial changes made by the Commission and their general direction at <br />136 <br />that time, including corporate headquarters and type of office or general office use. <br />137 <br />Discussion ensued on how best to go through the table of uses and various zoning designation <br />138 <br />subareas, with Chair Boguszewski determining, with consensus of the body that consideration <br />139 <br />would be given to individual member input for uses only for those not having consensus.Further <br />140 <br />discussion ensued in how best to highlight those areas to the City Council that were <br />141 <br />recommended for change and whether or not they are in agreement with those proposed <br />142 <br />changes or not.While recognizing that the public may wish to offer comment and participate in <br />143 <br />eachuse category, Chair Boguszewski ruled that in an effort to keep things moving in a timely <br />144 <br />fashion, public comment would be heard following the general discussion by the Commission, <br />145 <br />with any additional changes considered as a result of that public feedback, and prior to voting on <br />146 <br />the whole issue. <br />147 <br />Office Uses <br />148 <br />Corporate Headquarters <br />149 <br />At the suggestion of Mr. Lloyd, and based on previous Commission discussions, it was the <br />150 <br />consensus of the body to DELETE corporate headquarters as a Permitted (P) use. <br />151 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.