2011-06-15_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 15, 2011 Page 12 they would still need to go through various steps before seeking an amendment to the 568 Regulating Map and Plan, similar to requirements for an amendment to the Zoning Code, 569 after the final Map and Plan area adopted by the City Council. Mr. Paschke advised that 570 the City, and its staff, is always open to any conversation. 571 Member Cook suggested that, prior to the July meeting and continuation of the Public 572 Hearing; staff brings forward the concerns of respective property owners for the 573 Commission’s awareness and consideration of their specific concerns. 574 Mr. Paschke advised that staff could provide those concerns; however, he suggested that 575 the Commission should consider what staff was recommending to address concerns for 576 an entire area on the Map, rather than for individual property owners. Mr. Paschke 577 advised that when considering the overall development area and various impacts for the 578 development, the Twin Lakes area as a whole, and adjacent properties, the rationale for 579 retaining some strict prescriptive may be needed. Mr. Paschke noted that the developers 580 would need to advocate for themselves, while the City would need to advocate for itself 581 based on its guiding documents. Mr. Paschke assured Commissioners that staff had 582 been very receptive to developer and property owner concerns, and was still formulating 583 some good ideas to address some of their specific situations and obstacles or concerns; 584 and that staff was more than willing to meet them halfway. However, Mr. Paschke 585 suggested that the Commission not address specific issues, but once staff presented 586 their revised recommendations for the Regulating Map and Plan that incorporated some 587 of those solutions, in addition to additional comments from property owners following their 588 review of staff’s recommendations, the Commission proceed from there based on public 589 comment at the Public Hearing and further consideration of individual Commissioners. 590 Mr. Rancone 591 Vice Chair Gisselquist recognized Mr. Rancone for additional public comment. 592 Mr. Rancone, speaking for all Twin Lakes area landowners, expressed their appreciation 593 for staff’s willingness to listen to their perspective and concerns, and to be more flexible. 594 Mr. Rancone opined that this has not always been the case in Roseville; however, he 595 opined that current staff is much more approachable from a common sense position, 596 rather than so idealistic, and had more of a reasonable attitude in considering options. 597 Mr. Rancone advised that developers were not expecting staff to concede everything, 598 and advised that he had no problem with what was proposed for the Roseville Properties’ 599 parcels, but recognized that Mr. Dorso had some remaining issues, and that the PIK 600 property owner had the most concerns remaining, as they were the most impacted by the 601 various frontage options as currently proposed. Mr. Rancone opined that, overall; staff’s 602 willingness to compromise is a breath of fresh air that hasn’t been around for awhile. 603 Member Boguszewski expressed his preference that tonight’s meeting record be 604 provided to those Commissioners not in attendance to provide them with a feel for 605 tonight’s discussion. 606 Mr. Paschke advised that it was staff’s goal to get something back to all Commissioners, 607 as well as the public, as much in advance as is possible, recognizing the holiday 608 weekend prior to the July meeting. Mr. Paschke reiterated that staff had received good 609 ideas from their discussion with property owners immediately prior to tonight’s meeting. 610 Member Strohmeier spoke in support of continuing the Public Hearing until the July 611 meeting; opining that the Regulating Map is a new concept to many people who were 612 used to zoning maps. Member Strohmeier asked if there were any other frontages within 613 the Regulating Map, beyond the greenway, urban and flexible frontages, that had yet to 614 be presented; whether these were the main frontages or the only ones. 615 Mr. Lamb advised that those three (3) frontages referenced by Member Strohmeier were 616 the extent of those developed to-date; and while other frontage options are available and 617 may be considered at a later date if deemed appropriate or served a purpose, staff may 618 come forward with them as part of the revised Regulating Map. Mr. Lamb noted that, 619 consideration for those other frontage options would be given only based on the changes 620