CC_Minutes_2017_0123 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,January 23,2017 Page 20 Councilmember Etten agreed this seemed to be of great importance to the neigh- borhood; and if it could be mapped out accordingly to protect that pond before a developer comes forward, he could support that effort based on the strong com- mitment heard from the neighborhood. Councilmember Willmus stated that he would not support the amendment, opin- ing that it created a significant issue for planning the future use of the property and created multiple zoning districts on one parcel, further complicating future development. From his perspective on the Roseville School District site used as an example, Councilmember Willmus clarified that dual zoning on that site proved a beneficial thing, but opined that typically it created issues from a plan- ning perspective. Councilmember Willmus noted that this discussion could be held when looking at park dedication and areas to look at for obtaining corridors as the site develops, with a process in place to consider land or fees. Coun- cilmember Willmus stated his preference with that process versus the City Coun- cil attempting in its infinite wisdom to draw lines within a property to designate different zoning. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she would not support the amendment based on being uncomfortable drawing artificial lines on property not owned by the city. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she would be supportive of considering park dedication funds and/or land when applicable, but was concerned in creating a zoned piece of land that would be difficult for a developer or property owner to redevelop. Specific to park dedication comments, Mayor Roe noted that if land in lieu of cash was considered, it would be a more appropriate way to look at the site, espe- cially if the land developed as single-family residential, probably resulting in a subdivision process being implemented at that point. As a supporter of the Fair- view Avenue site, Mayor Roe stated that he was now more comfortable with that decision for Institutional property versus development on a private site; and there- fore, was not supportive of the amendment. Councilmember McGehee stated that she would continue her efforts and not sup- port an alternative, especially given the fact that she had yet to see this or any previous City Council take land in lieu of cash. Therefore, Councilmember McGehee opined that this was the only way to protect this Open Space at the front end of its redevelopment. Roll Call Ayes: Etten and McGehee. Nays: Willmus, Laliberte and Roe. Motion failed. Original motion