CC_Minutes_2011_0718 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,July 18, 2011 Page 19 sholds that dictate some uses and footages in the area for existing rights-of-way and easements, as well as park land within the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. Mr. Lamb noted that parcels, utilities, and buildings were addressed in the overlay for the extent of Sub-Area 1 in this Regulating Plan area, with Sub-Area 2 east of Fairview and not addressed as part of this Plan. Councilmember Pust noted the amount of time spent on this project to-date; and various iterations of the map, and lack of those previous iterations in tonight's presentation. Councilmember Pust opined that the map being presented tonight was vastly different than the map presented at the May 26, 2011 Community Meeting. Mr. Lamb advised that the map entitled Version 1 was the earlier version pre- sented at the open house. Councilmember Pust advised that she was referencing the greenways showing the park as an amenity and green space drawn into that park and correspondingly keeping development form eating up that green space. Mr. Lamb advised that V.2 of the Regulating Map provided a specific overlay that met the Metropolitan Council's easement; and those three (3) locations in combi- nation with the three (3) dashed circles indicated where public connections were needed into Langton Lake Park. Councilmember Pust questioned the greenway onto Prior. Mr. Lamb advised that during the public vetting process and subsequent meetings with land owners, it had morphed into the area requiring a connection (Letter C on V. 3 map) corresponding with the greenway frontage defining that connection to Langton Lake Park. Councilmember Pust, in her review of the proposed minimum connections ad- dressed in page 7 of the RCA, didn't reflect her understanding of the original pro- posal to provide ways to allow the public and community to have access to that asset. Councilmember Pust opined that this provides apparent connections from private development to the park, but doesn't add to the public asset. While not at- tempting to be negative, Councilmember Pust opined that it appears that the City has compromised away the intent of the project; and questioned what value add- ed this now has to the City, when parking was allowed up to the build-to line for flexible frontage properties and even buildings up to that edge and surrounded with parking. Councilmember Pust opined that this was not in the first plan; and her understanding of what was trying to be accomplished and why this concept was being considered, to keep a sea of asphalt from the park. Councilmember Pust opined that it was also her understanding that the public liked that original