2015-09-17_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 17, 2015 Page 18 with existing uses and building heights, opining that those existing buildings still had a long life 835 expectancy. 836 In conjunction with CMU-3 designated areas, Ms. McCormick noted that the proposed distance 837 was 300’ from residential areas rather than the original 1,000’ discussed. Upon her review, Ms. 838 McCormick stated she saw only one area for potential development within 1,000’ and that was 839 along Fairview Avenue, thus the neighborhood’s request for height restrictions, since in this area 840 proposed for rezoning, the only area impacted would be along Fairview Avenue. As an example, 841 if one story indicated 10’, Ms. McCormick noted that a 6-story building could be developed 300’ 842 from residential properties; and while this may be found in some places in Roseville, she noted 843 that this area provided no buffer, no mature trees, and was in an area with flat topography. Ms. 844 McCormick stated that she would appreciate a more graduated approach for height in CMU-1 and 845 CMU-3 designated areas. 846 Using the genesis of her initial list as a reference and uses taken from the existing CMU Table of 847 Uses, Ms. McCormick stated that her impression had been that those uses suggested in January 848 2015 discussions were incorporated into that list, but sought clarification if that was true or if this 849 list of uses now being proposed had been generated after that planning session. 850 Other than specific items (e.g. corporate headquarters and vertical mixed use) not previously 851 listed in the CMU Table, Mr. Lloyd advised that the list of uses was a result of the January 852 planning session. Mr. Lloyd further advised that those uses listed by Ms. McCormick generally 853 came from the CMU district, but some had been generalized for that discussion, while others (e.g. 854 residential uses) had been expanded in this hybrid model for finer differentiation than current 855 code addressed. Mr. Lloyd noted that those uses highlighted during tonight’s discussion had been 856 intentionally brought forward as potential areas generating more interest or concern and more 857 discussion-worthy than some other uses. 858 Ms. McCormick noted that her curiosity arose from her understanding from the January planning 859 session and those first broad strokes presented to residents in the neighborhood and 860 understanding they would be further refined, and how the current Table of Uses had 861 subsequently been developed. Ms. McCormick noted her need to clarify that; and expressed 862 appreciation for the Commission recommending restricting some uses. However, in CMU-1, Ms. 863 McCormick opined that there remained a great variety of uses when only two parcels were 864 involved; citing as an example the “mortuary” use. 865 Discussion ensued about the parcels involved in this zoning designation, with Mr. Lloyd clarifying 866 that additional parcels were included in the CMU-1 subarea on the west side of Fairview Avenue 867 as well; clarifying for Ms. McCormick that she was perhaps referring to only the east side of 868 Fairview Avenue. 869 Ms. McCormick stated that she was referencing the whole CMU designation, no matter the 870 number of parcels involved; opining that she would like to see the uses pared down, noting that 871 those uses particularly catching her attention included: parking, mortuary, vertical mixed use, 872 community center, place of assembly and theater, performing arts center, and any others having 873 similar and specific characteristics. Since the total impact of Twin Lakes Parkway remains an 874 unknown, Ms. McCormick opined that it was fair to say that it would result in increased traffic on 875 Terrace Drive and concentrated at times that may become problematic depending on the number 876 of lanes. Ms. McCormick stated that she would prefer all those uses listed as NP (Not Permitted), 877 as well as others, depending on potential traffic generated and their hours of operation. 878 After having heard the Commission’s discussion tonight and their revisions to the Table of Uses, 879 Chair Boguszewski sought clarification from Ms. McCormick as to what she was specifically 880 calling out. 881 Ms. McCormick responded that she concurred with the comments of Ms. Kapaum regarding 882 hours, noting that she had a number of college students living in her neighborhood and they were 883 often disruptive during the summer, on weekends, or if partying. Ms. McCormick advised that she 884 didn’t feel she could complain until after 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. given current code allowances, but for 885 those getting up early in the morning, only 4 hours of guaranteed quiet time wasn’t really 886 sufficient. Given those uses she had previously mentioned, in addition to current uses for existing 887