2011-06-15_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 15, 2011 Page 10 requirement for lot coverage as it had been advocated for by staff. Mr. Paschke clarified 463 that staff supports the public corridors as proposed, since the greenway areas are the 464 most important consideration and development will provide an approximate 10-15% 465 additional green space minimum, with more possible based on code requirements. 466 Ms. Schreurs 467 Ms. Schreurs questioned how rainwater runoff and drainage would be managed in that 468 area. 469 Mr. Paschke advised that storm water management is required by City Code on each 470 parcel to contain rainwater runoff and drainage, and regulated by not only City Code but 471 by the respective district watersheds. Mr. Paschke noted that there are multiple options 472 available for that storm water management, whether through infiltration systems, 473 ponding, underground storage, rain gardens, or other improving technologies, although 474 he recognized that not all parcels would be conducive to green technologies for infiltration 475 and/or rain gardens based on their level of contamination; with those parcels required to 476 provide underground storage. Mr. Paschke advised that each development and each 477 parcel, as part of the development and permitting process would be thoroughly reviewed 478 by the City’s and watershed district’s engineers and in accordance with law. 479 Mark Rancone, Roseville Properties, 2575 N Fairview Avenue 480 Mr. Rancone asked that in the efforts for full disclosure, Commissioners do consider the 481 impact to developers for fees outside their purview, but as citizens of Roseville as well as 482 Commissioners since everything has financial implications on the final cumulative costs 483 for development as it proceeds. Mr. Rancone reviewed the history of their parcel, it’s 484 original value, subsequent reduction of the parcel to facilitate construction of Twin Lakes 485 Parkway, their previous role as master developer for the entire Twin lakes area in 486 accordance with the City’s vision for mixed use as guided by the Comprehensive Plan 487 allowing for flexibility to do green space when the property was owned by only one 488 property owner, until those plans were stifled by the Friends of Twin Lakes and the City 489 Council. Now, Mr. Rancone advised with multiple owners and developers those 490 infrastructure costs would escalate. 491 Mr. Paschke reviewed that a number of suggested improvements had been articulated, 492 with the AUAR specifying a number of off-site improvements that would need to occur 493 based on the Twin Lakes area redeveloping; with each property owner assigned a 494 formulated allocation for direct public infrastructure improvements adjacent to their sites 495 (e.g. signals at intersections, improvements to arterial roadways, access onto the 496 interstate), with that allocation based on a worst case scenario to address impacts of 497 redeveloping this area and shared by each property owner. 498 Mr. Rancone opined that no land owner had a problem in sharing that infrastructure cost; 499 however, he advised that the question was how much actual benefit or value was 500 provided in the allocated assessment for those improvements, and was an ongoing 501 discussion beyond the Planning Commission. Mr. Rancone noted, however, that the 502 decisions of the Commission did impact landowners and developers and their ability to 503 move development forward rather than have the property continue to sit in its current 504 condition. 505 Vice Chair Gisselquist recessed the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m.; suggesting that the 506 Hearing be continued to the July 6, 2011 regular Planning Commission meeting as 507 suggested by staff. 508 Discussion among Commissioners, Mr. Lamb and staff ensued. 509 Member Cook questioned the flexibility of the proposed Iona extension configuration, and 510 whether that sliver of property north of the easement may change. 511 Mr. Lamb reiterated that the attempt had been to respond to existing easements and 512 other conditions of the area that were felt to be appropriate for those connections. 513