CC_Minutes_2009_0713 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

part of town, SW Roseville, to determine properties where zoning might be upgraded to a higher density. I was aware of this specific property in question tonight. but fairly quickly dismissed it from my mind as a candidate for further study. ~ 33 6.7 The DRC, and especially the Planning Division, has considered the impacts of changing 134 the land use designation of the subject 2.61-acre parcel. This parcel is located adjacent to t~~ or near three major thoroughfares (Highway 36, Cleveland Avenue, and County Road B) ~ ~~ for which the DRC and Planning Division have concluded that low density residential ~s~ (single family homes or town homes) is not an appropriate future use. While such a~ 38 future use would be consistent with the use across County Road B (a natural dividing line ~ ~s for land use designations), it is not consistent with or complementary to the land use it t~c~ lies directly adjacent to, Midland Grove Condominiums. 6.8 Another factor taken into consideration by the Planning Division is that of fundamental 142 planning principles. It is clear from the Planning Division's review of the record that ~~~ future use of this remnant parcel did not receive proper consideration in the 1960's, nor ~~~ in the most recent Comprehensive Plan update process. Had a planning process occurred ~~~ during the original discussions regarding development on the former farmstead, it is the 7~~ Planning Division's opinion that the existing parcel would have been guided to either 1 ~ medium or high density. I believe we all are in agreement on this conclusion. The Planning Division Staff makes the case that low-density residential is not appropriate for this site, but that is not the same thing as making a case for high-density residential. Many of us here tonight, in the rows behind me, would agree that low-density is an underutilization, and probably many of them would recommend medium-density. That seems City Council Remarks July 13, 2009 3