pm_000412 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

table action to May 8; and, further that the Planning Commission hold a special meeting and continue the public hearing to April 26 to review details of the applicant plans. Member Cunningham noted that he prefers this not be postponed any further, but with applicant's final plans being prepared for the Council meeting, including bus pick up/drop off, traffic, roofing, landscaping, hours of operation and other items. Chair Klausing discussed procedural issues of changing zoning. Thomas Paschke clarified reuse and redevelopment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The uses which change also require change in the Code requirements related to the site. Member Mulder stated that if the Planning Commission believed the uses would not work, the developer should be told that at this time. The uses proposed could be either well done and a complimentary use and to existing uses, a community asset or a community problem. Member Rhody stated that the neighborhood planning process should be undertaken and that reviewing the plans is necessary to appropriately respond and to allow neighbors to also respond. The developer must explain how they will spend their limited budget on this. If residents are not included, this appears to be circumvention of the neighborhood process. Member Wilke noted the charitable gambling final approval is necessary by the City Council. Member Egli supported the motion and supported the critique of school, traffic, outdoor plan and improvements to the site. Member Cunningham supported the proposal to bring quality schools as the anchor tenant, brings a new vitality, health and safety to the site. Motion carried 7-0. Motion. Member Rhody moved, Member Wilke seconded, to hold a special meeting on April 26, 2000, beginning at 6:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, with a minimum of three days notice. Motion carried 7-0. Thomas Paschke stated that staff will attempt to notify more property owners for a neighborhood meeting. Chair Klausing asked that notice be posted in the apartment buildings. Member Mulder asked that the bus lane drop off be included in the plans. Deb Bloom noted that the staff will work with the School on drop-off lanes. - 10 minute break - Gb. Planning File 3201. A request by the City of Roseville for a text amendment to Section 1007, Industrial District, of the Roseville City Code. Specifically, the request would amend Section 1007.01 E (Building Height) from the current language "shall not be greater than 45 feet..." to a proposed language "not greater than 45 feet or four office stories...." Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested the City Planner Thomas Paschke to provide a verbal summary of the staff report dated April 12, 2000. Member Olson asked if there are combination of uses such as labs and offices. Member Egli asked what the maximum height could be? Thomas Paschke estimated a total of 55 to 60 feet including HVAC, satellites and other roof equipment. She asked about what the setbacks to residential setbacks are? (20 to 40 feet) Chair Klausing asked for reasons for the request; who was asking for clarification (staff). He suggested having a maximum height for offices. Member Mulder remarked that staff will have to determine the definition of the "office".