My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2017_0717
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2017
>
CC_Minutes_2017_0717
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/18/2017 9:05:28 AM
Creation date
8/18/2017 9:03:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/17/2017
Meeting Type
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,July 17,2017 <br /> Page 16 <br /> Councilmember Willmus asked staff to explore the zoning designation of B-2 and <br /> what types of uses were permitted. <br /> City Planner Thomas Paschke noted that B-2 designation had been replaced in <br /> 2010 with Community Business District designation, with the city having at that <br /> time 4-5 business classifications and varying permitted uses. Mr. Paschke ad- <br /> vised that B-2 was not of limited nature but intended as a step-up toward the mid- <br /> dle rather than high end uses (e.g. Regional Business District). <br /> With the strip center on County Road D used as an example by Mayor Roe, Mr. <br /> Paschke confirmed that B-2 zoning designation at that time would have permitted <br /> such a use. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding Community Mixed Use (CMU) as an option with <br /> continued use of higher densities as well as business uses, creating more concerns. <br /> Councilmember McGehee opined that a business designation would prove more <br /> beneficial to the city's tax base, as well as taking into account the HDR already in <br /> the area in Roseville,New Brighton and the Village of St. Anthony. <br /> Councilmember Etten stated his interest in recognizing neighborhood comments <br /> and development on this site, recognizing their concern in meeting the city's tree <br /> preservation ordinance. However, Councilmember Etten noted that a business use <br /> if allowed would result in more impervious surface than typical housing, as well <br /> as less tree coverage and green space, and having much more potential for traffic <br /> congestion. <br /> Specific to traffic and speed issues, as he'd stated in previous meetings, Coun- <br /> cilmember Etten suggested that the city solve those identified problems as it had <br /> done on the east side of I-35W including working with neighboring cities. <br /> Councilmember Etten opined this was a good spot for HDR with transit along <br /> County Road D and west into the Village of St. Anthony developments and south <br /> into the City of Minneapolis. Councilmember Etten opined that the transportation <br /> issue had been a huge reason why the proposed development looked at this parcel <br /> and that it had scored highly with outside funders. Councilmember Etten also <br /> noted other uses abutting this site including major roads, businesses, and medium <br /> and high density housing, stating that he'd be much more concerned with the pro- <br /> posed development if it was in the middle of single-family residential. <br /> Mayor Roe agreed with the comments about businesses and the perspective of <br /> down-zoning from Business to HDR. <br /> Specific to transit, Mayor Roe added to Councilmember Etten's comments the <br /> availability of the Metro Transit's Park and Ride facility in Twin Lakes as another <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.