2011-05-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 04, 2011 Page 5 Further discussion included the viability of mixed use and whether it was still a desirable 205 use given the ongoing and/or frequent number of vacancies in many of those types of 206 developments. 207 Chair Boerigter noted the previous direction from the community in not wanting more 208 destination retail for Roseville; continued disinterest in a big box retailer in the Twin Lakes 209 area; and the limited potential for small shops and allowing for pedestrian access by foot 210 or bicycle; and what options remained other than MDR or HDR with some limited mixed 211 use. Chair Boerigter noted that the community’s vision didn’t appear to be a downtown 212 feel, or regional shopping draw; and questioned the actual majority vision for the area 213 and if it was being addressed by focusing on a new urbanism. 214 Mr. Lamb advised that his and staff’s approach is that there was not a determination 215 being made on what goes into the Twin Lakes area, whether mixed use, HDR, 216 commercial or office use, but allowing for enough flexibility to facilitate the community’s 217 vision for livable wage jobs at whatever use developed rather than minimum wage jobs 218 such as would be found at a big box retailer. Mr. Lamb identified with comments of 219 Commissioners on what would or would not work in this current economy, with indicators 220 being that some smaller mixed uses, but not larger mixed uses depending on what the 221 market could deliver; bur ways to provide incentives to developers to achieve that 222 employment base. Mr. Lamb noted the need for amenities surrounding the Metropolitan 223 Transit’s park and ride facility; and the potential for the area and its proximity to the 224 Northeast Diagonal for future long-term transit corridor uses, in addition to the existing 225 great public amenities in Roseville. Mr. Lamb advised that the intent was to make it all 226 work together; while recognizing the multiple visions that could occur in Twin Lakes. 227 Mr. Paschke clarified that the regulating map would not be specific enough to provide a 228 template for a developer, but identifying what could be built and what could not be built 229 based on the map and plan dictating where development could occur, not the specific 230 use, but a development’s connection and interaction with primary streets, accesses, 231 corridors, whether structures could be single or multi-story, and their massing and 232 density. Mr. Paschke advised that the use was already set through Commercial Mixed 233 Use Zoning District designation. 234 Further discussion included how to arrange a structure on a site to reinforce walkability or 235 liability of a street, identifying Langton Lake Park as a connection for residential areas 236 and potential future residential areas; and how to make that park an asset for workers, 237 residents, and the entire community. Mr. Lamb noted his observations with people 238 currently using the west side of Langton Park for walking, creating a destination already; 239 and the need to emphasize the flexibility of that asset, whether on the site itself, or by 240 creating corridor streets that help connect he park with other areas to recognize its 241 benefit. 242 Mr. Paschke reviewed the next step for the Planning Commission and their next view of 243 the map and plan after the public engagement process and open house to understand 244 better what the community would like to see, once they understand the purpose of a 245 regulating map. Mr. Paschke advised that the plan would provide the details: building 246 heights, articulation of those buildings, how to achieve corridors and their proposed 247 types, a pedestrian corridor plan reserved for pedestrian access with no building in that 248 specific area, areas where buildings could locate. As an example, Mr. Paschke noted the 249 existing Metropolitan Council’s interceptor pipe and easement that couldn’t be built on, 250 but could accommodate a pedestrian corridor allowing it to be maximized to bring people 251 to the park and create a natural separation between potential uses. Mr. Paschke advised 252 that the plan would address many such opportunities, areas dedicated or reserved, and 253 how it all ties together with specific design standards and zoning code requirements. 254 Mr. Lamb advised that the plan and map would be used synonymously through diagrams 255 for the public, with Langton Lake Park highlighted as an asset to reinforce, protect and 256 use as a valuable resource for future development, with graphic lines on the map 257 indicating “no build” areas and potential paths and connections. Mr. Lamb further noted 258