My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-05-04_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-05-04_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/20/2011 2:26:34 PM
Creation date
12/20/2011 2:26:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/4/2011
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, May 04, 2011 <br />Page 2 <br />Member Strohmeier volunteered to serve as well; questioning the anticipated meeting <br />49 <br />schedule. <br />50 <br />Mr. Grefenberg advised that the first meeting, organizational in nature, was scheduled for <br />51 <br />May 17, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall; and at that meeting, schedules would be <br />52 <br />compared to accommodate the majority of the members. <br />53 <br />While unable to commit to the task force on a regular basis, and supporting and thanking <br />54 <br />Members Gisselquist and Strohmeier for volunteering, Chair Boerigter offered his <br />55 <br />enthusiastic support, and advised that he would attempt to attend as his schedule <br />56 <br />allowed, and offered to provide input on the issue from his perspective, in assisting the <br />57 <br />task force in achieving their mutual accomplishments. <br />58 <br />Mr. Grefenberg and Chair Boerigter both spoke of the positive process used several <br />59 <br />years ago in the lot split study; and hoped that this task force would provide similar if not <br />60 <br />even more productive sessions and ultimate recommendations. <br />61 <br />Mr. Grefenberg expressed appreciation to those members volunteering; and anticipated <br />62 <br />their participation. <br />63 <br />b. From the Commission or Staff: <br />None. <br />64 <br />5. Presentations <br />65 <br />a. PROJECT FILE 0017 <br />66 <br />Twin Lakes Regulating Map and Plan presentation and discussion <br />67 <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke introduced Consultant Michael Lamb with Cuningham <br />68 <br />Group; advising that the purpose of tonight’s presentation would be to provide an <br />69 <br />overview of the Twin Lakes Regulating Map and Plan, as the process moved toward the <br />70 <br />public open house seeking input on how things should be developed in the Twin Lakes <br />71 <br />area. <br />72 <br />Mr. Paschke provided a brief history of the process to-date, even before the <br />73 <br />Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code updates; with designation of the Twin Lakes area <br />74 <br />geared toward future designation of business use; past redevelopments through the <br />75 <br />Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, no longer indicated; and creation of a <br />76 <br />Commercial Mixed Use District for Twin Lakes when the zoning code was adopted by the <br />77 <br />City Council in 2010. With that adoption, Mr. Paschke noted that a need was established <br />78 <br />for an additional regulating map and plan related to form-based codes that would address <br />79 <br />placement of buildings and massing, rather than the previous Euclidian type of zoning <br />80 <br />that dealt more with specific building heights and setbacks in standard code. Mr. Paschke <br />81 <br />advised that the map and plan would provide an initial framework to guide future <br />82 <br />development. <br />83 <br />Related to Twin Lakes, Mr. Paschke referenced the Twin lakes Urban Design Principles <br />84 <br />that were currently in place, and while needing modification included many good <br />85 <br />foundations that would be incorporated into the regulating plan; and in final form may be <br />86 <br />indicated on the regulating map itself. Mr. Paschke noted that there were different kinds <br />87 <br />of blocks, corridors, and connections, but the goal was to move forward with a framework <br />88 <br />to receive public input in mid-May, followed by a public open house to refine and finalize <br />89 <br />the plan for public hearing at a Special Planning Commission in June, with a date yet to <br />90 <br />be determined by the Commission, and facilitating timing for public notice requirements; <br />91 <br />with the ultimate goal of forwarding the Planning Commission’s recommendations to the <br />92 <br />City Council at their last meeting in June. <br />93 <br />At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the regulating map and <br />94 <br />plan would incorporate elements of the Urban Design documents for their review at the <br />95 <br />June special meeting; with the plan providing more detail or design standards articulated <br />96 <br />within that document; with the map serving to go beyond how traditional codes and maps <br />97 <br />were discerned. <br />98 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.