2015-09-17_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 17, 2015 Page 2 uses adjacent to their residential properties understanding that they were legal, nonconforming 48 uses that would eventually work their way out of existence. 49 From staff’s perspective, Mr. Bilotta noted that there was considerable concern about the difficulty 50 in recommending zoning and future planning based on leaving something as a grandfathered use 51 that could feasibly and potentially remain for a minimum of twenty years essentially providing an 52 economic incentive for the landowner to retain that legal, nonconforming use in perpetuity. 53 Therefore, Mr. Bilotta advised that staff sought to find an economic incentive for the landowner to 54 seek out less intense uses during that twenty year period and encourage reinvestment in 55 buildings, and as one tenant leaves, find lower intensity tenants to make the use more compatible 56 with adjacent residential properties. 57 From the City Council’s perspective and as a compromise for this planning process, therefore, 58 Mr. Bilotta noted that the CMU zoning designation had been broken into various components 59 providing for less- to more-dense uses depending on their proximity to residential properties; as 60 well as providing for a maximum 35’ height limitation for MDR uses to address residential and 61 density restrictions versus taller apartment buildings immediately adjacent to single-family 62 residential designated zoning areas. 63 Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd arrived at this time, approximately 6:40 p.m. 64 Specifically addressing a second protest petition, requesting increased height and/or density 65 closer to Cleveland Avenue rather than Fairview Avenue, Mr. Bilotta advised that consideration of 66 that request went through the City Council review and discussion process as well; and as part of 67 that their breaking up of the CMU zoning designation further addressed that density and height 68 issue to have more intensity along County Road C and Cleveland Avenue and then stepping back 69 that intensity resulting in the fourth CMU zoning designation along Terrace Drive North becoming 70 less intense and therefore carrying out the requests voiced in the protest petition. Further, Mr. 71 Bilotta noted that as the zoning designations change, businesses hours are more limited beyond 72 what is done in general in the broader community, which had also come through that City Council 73 process as a consideration with 24-hour businesses. 74 Further, Mr. Bilotta noted that design standards in these various CMU designations are different 75 than other zoning districts in the community, utilizing form-based codes and regulating plans, 76 differing from other parts of City Code, as the City Council and staff attempt to put a common 77 theme together to match uses. 78 Using the displayed map, Mr. Bilotta noted further accommodations for height restrictions within 79 1,000 feet to serve as additional buffers for HDR-1 and HDR-2 zoning designated areas; even 80 though some existing towers in the community (e.g. Rosedale, Snelling Avenue, Lexington 81 Avenue, and along the commercial side of Highway 36) may exceed that but most of the area 82 would be covered in some manner by that 1,000 foot radius in height. Mr. Bilotta reviewed the 83 SW area of Roseville with little height in the proximity of the country club; as well as in the SE 84 corner with that area covered by several large county parks, cemetery uses and lakes (e.g. 85 McCarron’s and Owasso), most of those areas which also provided the 1,000 foot buffer from 86 single-family residential properties throughout the city, making it not out of line with and 87 consistent throughout the community, therefore with staff not recommending changes for that 88 standard. As noted in the protest petition, Mr. Bilotta agreed that at the time of the petition, the 89 CMU had no height limitations whatsoever, and given those concerns, staff was proposing height 90 and density limitations. While staff’s recommendations do not come out exactly the way they were 91 proposed in the protest petitions, Mr. Bilotta opined that the common themes had been 92 addressed. 93 Specific to the use table initially reviewed by the City Council, Mr. Bilotta noted that they were not 94 looking at actual text at that point, but more general categories, such as if they were generally 95 supportive of retail in a certain CMU subarea, they staff subsequently turned that into proposed 96 text for the Planning Commission to review. With lots of shades of retail, Mr. Bilotta clarified that 97 the City Council had probably not taken all of them into consideration as possibilities. However, 98 Mr. Bilotta advised that staff thought it best to start with a large list and cut it down versus the 99 other way, with Mr. Lloyd getting into the detail shortly. 100