2011-05-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 04, 2011 Page 3 Michael Lamb 99 Mr. Lamb provided a brief overview of the components used in a regulating map 100 approach, more specific and proactive than laying our zoning districts, while letting 101 development happen. Mr. Lamb advised that the regulating map basically outlined the 102 area contained within the Cleveland to Fairview Avenues and County Roads C to C-2; 103 with Langton Lake park classified as one of two urban parks that were well-developed 104 with trails and path improvements. Mr. Lamb highlighted portions of Zoning Code, 105 Section 1005.01 for Commercial and Mixed Use District, its statement of purpose, and 106 the guidance for an appropriate mix of commercial development, conveniently and safely 107 accessible, a mix of land uses, and appropriate transitions, while addressing sustainable 108 design practices. Mr. Lamb concurred with the statement of Mr. Paschke in that the Twin 109 Lakes Urban Design Principles provided a basis for the mixed use district land use 110 patterns, streets, and public spaces; and addressed such principles and considerations 111 as mixed use; connection to public spaces; commercial visibility; transition and 112 connectivity; gateways; dispersed parking; walkability; public edge; range of 113 transportation modes; street lighting; etc. 114 Mr. Lamb noted that the development was “set to” a street as a composition rather than 115 created by setbacks; and provided various examples from the Grand/Excelsior area of St. 116 Louis Park originally laid out through a Charrette Master Plan process in 1996; and how a 117 similar process, not design, would relate to Twin Lakes. Some of the past or current 118 design practices, compared to proposed design practices specific to a the focus of a 119 regulating map versus a zoning map, included: mixed use versus single use; building 120 frontage versus yards and buffers; build-to line versus setbacks; pedestrian-oriented 121 versus auto-oriented; connectivity versus separation; street as place versus street as 122 mover; all with the intent to create an arrangement of urban components into a 123 pedestrian-oriented place, allowing for flexible use, but establishing a predictable form. 124 Mr. Lamb concentrated on how to unlock the value of Langton Lake Park as a valuable 125 asset and connect that feature to work with other real estate around it; and through the 126 use of existing rights-of-ways, easements, parks, a series of connectors or corridors to 127 move vehicles; pedestrian connections; parking and site access – all providing a 128 framework for how this site would develop in the future. Mr. Lamb emphasized that the 129 opportunity is Langton Lake Park itself, and that it just needed opened up to the larger 130 area through using streets, corridors and connectors, with a composition of streets rather 131 than just uses. Mr. Lamb discussed examples of how streets could be defined and 132 regulated to achieve that purpose. 133 In concluding his presentation, Mr. Lamb reviewed the already held steps with an initial 134 review by the City Council similar to this review by the Planning Commission; with the 135 next steps for the public open house to receive input; a public hearing at the Planning 136 Commission level to hear public response to the proposal, followed by recommendation 137 by the Commission based on the public and their review; followed by City Council review 138 and approval. 139 Discussion among members, Mr. Paschke and Mr. Lamb included how to define the map 140 as a tool to apply the Zoning Code designation as Commercial/Mixed Use in the Twin 141 Lakes Redevelopment Area; clarifying that examples shown of St. Louis Park, mixes 142 uses at Larpenteur and Snelling, or on Rice Street in Little Canada were not necessarily 143 indicative of the intended look for Twin Lakes, or even were emphasizing excessive 144 mixed use development, but were used to provide an example of buildings closer to the 145 sidewalk and/or street rather than set back further with a parking lot in front. 146 Mr. Lamb noted the need for the regulating map and plan to provide enough flexibility to 147 address future development, design trends, and how they assist in guiding the 148 development based on a set of general parameters that can be calibrated in practical 149 use. 150 Member Boguszewski questioned if these proposed design standards were not counter- 151 productive to prevailing trends in Roseville for wider setbacks, more open space, better 152