CCP 03232026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment 5 123 Chair Bjorum asked for clarification about the type of perimeter fencing proposed for the 124 site. He referenced a previous project where fencing had raised concerns. He asked whether 125 the State Patrol facility would require high-security fencing, such as tall fencing with razor 126 wire, or if the design would instead use a more typical or decorative style of security fencing. 127 Mr. Keenan explained that the proposed perimeter fencing would be designed to provide 128 security while still maintaining visibility and an appropriate appearance. He said the fence 129 would not be a solid barrier and would not include elements such as razor wire or other 130 features that would make it resemble a correctional facility. Instead, it would be a more 131 visually open fence that people can see through, and the design team is still evaluating the 132 appropriate height and placement to ensure it fits well with the surrounding neighborhood 133 and avoids creating a bunker-like appearance. 134 Member Cyra asked whether the applicant had received any notable feedback from the public 135 during the project's open house. He asked if any concerns or suggestions from residents led 136 to changes in the plans, or if overall the public response indicated general support for the 137 project moving forward as proposed. 138 Mr. Keenan stated that the open house did not generate many comments specifically related 139 to the zoning change. Most attendee questions focused on general aspects of the project, such 140 as the building’s appearance, placement, and how the facility would be used. He noted that 141 some feedback related to pedestrian movement and how people travel between the nearby 142 high school and Target, which the design team plans to consider as the project moves 143 forward. Overall, he said the project appeared to be generally well-received by those who 144 attended the open house. 145 Chair Bjorum invited members of the public to provide comments on the proposal. After 146 confirming that no one wished to speak, he closed the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. and asked 147 if the commission had any further discussion before calling for a motion. 148 Member Aspnes stated that she attended the project open house and reviewed the proposed 149 designs, where she asked questions about impervious surfaces and stormwater management. 150 She noted that earlier concepts had included a solar array on the parcel south of Commerce 151 Street, but it appeared that idea may no longer be part of the plan. 152 Member Aspnes said she appreciated the proposed green space and native plantings included 153 in the project. However, she expressed concern that rezoning the property to institutional 154 would permanently remove it from the City of Roseville’s property tax rolls. 155 Mr. Paschke clarified that the property had already been removed from the city’s property tax 156 rolls because the State of Minnesota owns it. He explained that the zoning designation itself 157 does not affect tax status. 158 Community Development Director Janice Gundlach clarified that zoning does not determine 159 whether a property is tax-exempt and noted that the property is already tax-exempt because 160 the State of Minnesota owns it. She also explained that rezoning the property to institutional 161 now does not permanently prevent it from being rezoned again in the future, as the city has 162 the authority to initiate zoning changes if circumstances change. 163 Member Aspnes stated that the potential loss of property tax revenue had been her only 164 concern regarding the rezoning proposal. Qbhf!49!pg!33: