Laserfiche WebLink
RCA Attachment E <br />wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ <br />aźƓǒƷĻƭΑ‘ĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲbƚǝĻƒĬĻƩЋͲЋЉЋЋ <br />tğŭĻВ <br />370 Member McGehee withdrew her motion. <br />371 <br />372 Member Aspnes asked if the City is aware that this neighborhood has traffic issues. <br />373 <br />374 Mr. Paschke knew the City as well as the County was aware of the issues at County <br />375 Road B and Snelling Avenue. He reviewed some other issues within the area that are <br />376 not functioning as the County would like to see but he was not sure if the City was as <br />377 aware of issues on local streets in the area. <br />378 <br />379 Member Pribyl moved, seconded by Member Bjorum, to recommend to the City <br />380 Council approval of the proposed residential density of 36 units per acre, based <br />381 on the content of the RPCA, public input, and Planning Commission <br />382 deliberation with the two conditions listed. (PF22-020). <br />383 <br />384 Member Pribyl indicated she sympathized with the residents in the neighborhood and <br />385 hears the neighborhoodÓs concerns but felt that going from the fifty-seven that they <br />386 would be allowed to by right to the eighty-six that the developer is asking for is going <br />387 to make a significant difference and she sympathized with the developers concerns as <br />388 well and what is needed to make this development work. She also agreed with the <br />389 Fire Departments comments on this development as well. <br />390 <br />391 Member Bjorum agreed and felt this is a quality development in a vacant lot. The <br />392 area is busy and he lives close to this intersection but he did not think the change to <br />393 the density allowed to what the developer is asking for is significant enough, <br />394 especially given that the traffic study was expecting more than double what is being <br />395 asked here. He thought this is a quality project which makes sense and worth moving <br />396 ahead. <br />397 <br />398 Ayes: 5 <br />399 Nays: 0 <br />400 Abstain: 1 (McGehee) <br />401 Motion carried. <br />402 <br />403 7. Other Business <br />404 a. Discussion Regarding the Table of Uses (Table 1007-2) For The Institutional <br />405 District Of The Roseville Zoning Code And The Need For Potential <br />406 Amendments (PROJ0044-Amdt 1) <br />407 City Planner Paschke reviewed the Table of Uses for the Institutional District of the <br />408 Roseville Zoning Code and the need for potential amendments with the Commission. <br />409 <br />410 Chair Kimble thought it was a lot to read. She indicated as she looked at the research <br />411 the White Bear Lake looked good, but the Shoreview did not. She liked that <br />412 Roseville has the Institutional District, but she understood staff issue that it is not <br />413 defined enough. She also liked the idea of having the zoning or district that is public <br />414 or institutional and to Mr. PaschkeÓs point, maybe it is a use, not whether it is public <br />415 or private necessarily because there could be some things. She liked the way <br />416 Roseville is doing it but with more definition of uses. She noted the only use she did <br />Page 8 of 13 <br /> <br />