CC_Minutes_2017_0925 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 25, 2017 Page 22 Mayor Roe advised that the number of people involved and parking, as well as limiting activities, would be addressed by staff during the building permit process. Specific to the underlying zoning, Mayor Roe noted that an earlier discussion for another use on this property had addressed that issue and it had been explained that the zoning is the PUD itself and therefore, that underlying zoning no longer existed. Mayor Roe noted that the city's zoning code had been changed in 2010 with zoning indicated on a map, but that the PUD remained in place as the zoning of the property. City Council Deliberation Councilmember Laliberte confirmed with City Attorney Gaughan that he was not aware of any particular legal issues to be aware of during their discussion and de- liberation of this particular item currently before them. Laliberte moved, Roe seconded, approval of the Concept PUD, an amend- ment to PUD Agreement 1177, as recommended by the Planning Commis- sion, modifying the permitted uses on the subject property to include college or post-secondary school, office-based use, as defined by Zoning Code, Sec- tion 1001.10. In stating her support of this motion, Councilmember Laliberte opined that the original PUD had a purpose that had now changed. With a new, recently-adopted PUD process in place, Councilmember Laliberte suggested a future review of all existing PUD's within that new process. Councilmember Willmus prefaced his comments by acknowledging the good of the University of Northwestern to the community and its many partnerships with the City of Roseville and its residents. Specific to this request, Councilmember Willmus noted that the area was currently zoned PUD, but also had a past of un- derlying uses resulting in the current Table of Uses. Similar to the previous re- quest coming before this City Council (mini storage use), Councilmember Willmus opined that he didn't see the nexus or connection of old use or the cur- rent Table of Uses (Table 1006.01) to be any different than the intended use. Councilmember Willmus stated his agreement that this area in general and the ex- isting PUD should be looked at in the near future; however, he opined that it didn't make sense to continue amending this area. Instead, Councilmember Willmus suggested that this body and the community take a step back to see what they wanted in this area, and proceed accordingly with that new designation. Councilmember Willmus stated that was his issue with adding yet another PUD amendment to an existing PUD. Councilmember McGehee stated her agreement with many of the comments ex- pressed by Councilmember Willmus, and didn't see the nexus between this pro- posal and existing approvals; also recognizing the residents who lost their homes when this area was changed to a business district. Councilmember McGehee stat-