2011-05-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 04, 2011 Page 4 visualization; with this development seemed to be an experiment leaning in the other 153 direction with an urban feel within a suburban area. 154 Mr. Paschke further clarified that this was not an experiment, and that this type of design 155 or type of development was supported since approximately 2007 when the Imagine 156 Roseville 2025 community visioning process was undertaken, as well as throughout 157 development of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update leading to the Zoning Code 158 update, and now this Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area regulating map and plan. Mr. 159 Paschke noted the number of years invested in addressing those concerns raised in the 160 community, and to bring resolution forward, with the elimination of PUD’s and a zoning 161 code designed with a composition to achieve the goals defined by the community at 162 large. 163 Member Boguszewski clarified that it wasn’t his attempt to imply that he wanted to move 164 backwards, and noted that his personal feeling was one of excitement in getting to 165 something unique and different in one area of the City. 166 Member Gisselquist noted that differing viewpoints came up from time to time since last 167 fall’s discussions on the zoning code and design standards; however, he voiced his 168 excitement in proceeding with this part of the larger vision and as a whole, and as 169 envisioned by citizens driving the various processes to-date; opining that it represented 170 an interesting concept for the Twin Lakes area. Member Gisselquist also noted the 171 natural reservations in implementing the design standards, since it was contrary to those 172 standards used when Roseville originally developed in the 1950’s and 1960’s with wide- 173 open parking lots in front of buildings. While not anticipating that the design concept 174 should be implemented across the entire city, Member Gisselquist opined that it was 175 exciting to consider it in this area. 176 Further discussion included how to incorporate areas of interest or charm within a larger 177 footprint; how to set the table for private investment and provide the ability for that land to 178 be invested in to maintain its long-term value; the objective to drive new development for 179 their benefit as well as the City’s to recoup the investment it had already expended on 180 infrastructure in the Twin lakes area; differentiation of this area from Arbor Lakes in 181 Maple Grove, Centennial Lakes in Edina, or Main Street in Hopkins, with those 182 developments done at a different time with a different market than currently found for 183 development or redevelopment; shared characteristics exclusive to the relationship 184 between buildings, streets and sidewalks and how a composition was to work; how to 185 maximize and organize development around a street, with the regulating map providing 186 flexibility to make use of the lake as an amenity and further reinforce real estate values 187 and take advantage of open spaces through connections. 188 Mr. Lamb noted the topography and buffer issues to be addressed in the Twin Lakes 189 area as part of any future development, and as a consideration for the regulating map; 190 and address the existing characteristics to use them for their maximum value, such as 191 easements, rights-of-way, short connections, and their relationship to Langton Lake and 192 Langton Lake Park to direct where development would occur. 193 Additional discussion included the next review by the Planning Commission before 194 making recommendation to the City Council of the proposed regulating map and plan; 195 indications of where additional streets, whether for vehicles or pedestrian access and 196 private or public, may be indicated but not currently on the map; recognizing the 197 differences in previous proposals for the Twin Lakes area compared to how it may 198 actually develop; access to interior lots (e.g. north of Prior) and how that will impact the 199 type of development; and possible recommendation of staff and the consultant on a 200 street north of Prior to provide access, or individual parcels assembled to provide value to 201 future development; and terrain issues east of Mount Ridge Road and County Road C-2 202 while retaining the buffers already in place, but providing an opportunity to finesse and 203 explore various options depending on whether it developed as residential or office use. 204