CC_Minutes_2010_0823 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 23, 2010 Page 11 Mr. Schwartz noted that by designating a specific fee for the street lighting as an Enterprise Fund, the fee would be specific and restricted to meeting current unmet needs for capital replacement costs rather than sharing in the available pot. Mr. Schwartz clarified that street and signal lights were fairly uniformly located throughout the City, based on the available power grid. Further majority consensus was for staff to continue looking at and refining the proposed fee and rate structure. Councilmember Pust expressed some reluctance in proceeding, opining that she hoped staff was able to return with answers to those concerns expressed. c. Consider Amendments to Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations of 70 Anomaly Properties and Rezone Accordingly (PROJ0017) City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed the request for Comprehensive Plan -Land Use Designation for a number of anomaly properties in Roseville as discussed during the zoning ordinance update for compliance with the recently- adopted Comprehensive Plan update, as detailed in RCA dated August 23, 2010 (Attachment A). Mr. Paschke advised that these items had been reviewed at the July Planning Commission meeting and unanimously recommended to the City Council for action as indicated. Discussion included city-owned property and recommended designations, and whether right-of--way or parks/open space designation was indicated and rationale for such designation; easements versus rights-of--way designation; wetland par- cels; and potential conveyance back to property owner(s) if a parcel was deemed no longer needed or not needed in the future for city purposes. Councilmember Ihlan expressed puzzlement in needing to change the Compre- hensive Plan designation to comply with current use when the Comprehensive Plan was guiding property toward a future use; opining that a future park/open space (POS) land use may be indicated, using Langton Lake Park as an example, even if homes were currently located on the properties guided for future POS use. Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon concurred that the Compre- hensive Plan document was afuture-looking document; however, noted the need for the Plan and the City's Zoning Code to correlate. Mr. Trudgeon used several examples of nonconforming uses and limited potential improvements of such a property based on current zoning. Mr. Trudgeon opined that the City was better served to match up the Plan and Zoning Code; and noted that the completion of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process would designate future areas for expansion and use, and would be incorporated in future planning, and if neces- sary, land use designation changed accordingly.