CC_Minutes_2016_0725 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 25, 2016 Page 11 Mr. Culver further reviewed steps over the next 60-90 days from tonight's public hearing and additional public comment opportunities after a vote by property owners on the noise wall and prior to final municipal consent vote. For clarification, Mayor Roe confirmed that unless the city specifically requests an add on to the MnDOT project (e.g. storm sewer and sanitary sewer infrastruc- ture improvements), there would be no financial participation from the city. Mr. Adams confirmed that, at this point, the City of Roseville would have no cost participation; and would only have a cost if they added to the MnDOT project as noted by Mr. Culver related to attempted resolution of the sanitary and storm sewer conflicts noted at County Road C, with this project serving as an opportune time to address those issues if feasible. Mayor Roe opened the public hearing at approximately 6:57 p.m. for the purpose of receiving public comment on a proposed MnDOT project along I-35W adding a managed lane in each direction from Trunk Highway 36 in Roseville to Anoka County State Aid Highway 17 (Lexington Avenue) in Blaine, MN; tentatively scheduled for spring of 2019, pending finalization of full funding, and possibly as early as spring of 2018. With no one appearing for or against, Mayor Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 6:58 p.m. Mayor Roe reiterated that the proposed project would return to the City Council for official action probably within ninety days. 13. Budget Items 14. Business Items (Action Items) a. Discussion Regarding High Density Residential (HDR) Aousing Districts and the Planned Unit Development (PUD)Process (PROJ0039) Mayor Roe introduced this item and recognized City Planner Thomas Paschke for up update based on past discussions and direction to staff from the City Council. As detailed in the RCA, Mr. Paschke reviewed the current HDR and PUD pro- cesses and issues, and outlined several potential options for consideration by the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council (page 2, lines 31- 34). Mr. Paschke advised that staff felt these revisions addressed the two areas of concern and allowed more flexibility in HDR-1 and HDR-2 to address those is- sues. Specific to the PUD issue and possible amendment to increase density, Mr. Paschke noted lines 36 — 86 addressed staff's analysis related to senior and other housing. Mr. Paschke cautioned that staff thought this may have intended conse- quences, and therefore at this time, could not support revisions as noted.