2011-06-15_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 15, 2011 Page 11 Member Wozniak opined that, from the City’s perspective, he would be hesitant to bend 514 too much on greenway frontages and to not be too flexible, given that those areas are 515 essentially priority spaces for this development in terms of access to the park and 516 possible access to regional trails, at least a portion of the Iona segment. Member 517 Wozniak further opined that he was not so certain about the smaller segment east of 518 Mount Ridge Road on County Road C-2; and questioned staff and Mr. Lamb on whether 519 there were opportunities that could be considered as some type of trade off on parcels to 520 incorporate more flexible design standards (e.g. stretch of greenway frontage that the 521 developer be allowed to build parking on in exchange for extending urban frontage on a 522 corner segment no currently shown as urban frontage, but still desirable as an 523 intersection feature; or no screening for parking if not necessary due to adjacent open 524 space in exchange for something else, such as increased urban frontage). Member 525 Wozniak suggested that such compromises may be to everyone’s advantage to initiate 526 standards for the area that would encourage development, without abandoning ideas for 527 open space, park access, multi-modal transit options, and other goals and visions from 528 the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process and 2030 Comprehensive Plan 529 guidelines. Member Wozniak opined that those goals and visions needed to be retained. 530 Mr. Paschke assured Commissioners that staff was attempting to retain those goals and 531 visions. 532 Vice Chair Gisselquist spoke in support of the attempt to implement more flexible 533 frontage to address business owner concerns; however, he opined that that he didn’t 534 want the document to be a “work in progress,” but wanted the Regulating Map in place to 535 guide development as envisioned but also to be realistic. 536 Vice Chair Gisselquist asked that, if the Public Hearing was continued to July, staff and 537 Mr. Lamb return with a final plan for the Commission to vote up or down for 538 recommendation to the City Council. Understanding that the vision and reality were a fine 539 balancing act, Vice Chair Gisselquist noted Mr. Rancone’s and other developers’ 540 concerns for flexibility and zoning for the market versus zoning for the vision, while 541 recognizing pending environmental cleanup costs. Vice Chair Gisselquist noted his desire 542 to encourage development, not discourage it, but was unclear on how much the 543 Commission’s decision-making would impact development; but expressed his concern 544 that the new design standards and zoning code doesn’t end up looking a lot like the old 545 zoning code. 546 Mr. Paschke opined that he didn’t share those concerns that it might, but did note that the 547 old code and process was no different with its restrictions in what could be developed in 548 Twin Lakes by requiring urban design principles be met or achieved. Mr. Paschke 549 assured the Commission, and the public, that staff was very aware not to restrict 550 development with too many regulations; however, he opined that no matter what the 551 regulations are, development is difficult and cities created zoning regulations for a 552 reason, whether for now or in the future. Mr. Paschke opined that the City and its staff 553 owed it to its citizens to provide guiding documents for that development, or to re-think 554 the vision. Mr. Paschke further opined that, if this is not the correct plan to meet the City’s 555 vision, then it needed to be rethought. However, Mr. Paschke noted that this proposed 556 Regulating Map and Plan is a direct result of the Imagine Roseville 2025 community 557 visioning process and the updated 2030 Comprehensive Plan that put those urban 558 design principals in place. 559 Vice Chair Gisselquist questioned how set the guiding principles were for frontages. 560 Mr. Paschke advised that, from that standpoint, there were no internal property lines; but 561 big parcels with build-to lines or setback lines and additional requirements for that given 562 area. If someone bought all the property in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, Mr. 563 Paschke opined that they would need to remove the existing public road, having received 564 City support to do so, of course. Mr. Paschke noted there would also be a requirement for 565 additional environmental review against the AUAR, impacts on roadways, and other 566 items to consider. Mr. Paschke advised that, just because a developer wanted to do so, 567