2011-07-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 06, 2011 Page 10 requirements. Mr. Lamb noted that the 25’ setbacks could be retained, but that on the 462 west side, there was already a 25’ setback, as indicated on the Regulating Map. 463 At the request of Member Cook related to the south side of Langton Lake Park, currently 464 impervious surface, when Iona is constructed, it could swing north or south, and may 465 need to be addressed further at that time, and based on how development is indicated; 466 thus the recommendation for more flexibility. 467 Chair Boerigter concurred with Member Boguszewski’s comments about moving forward. 468 Chair Boerigter opined that he preferred the flexibility of this version of the Regulating 469 Map than the last iteration;; and that a yeoman’s amount of work had been done in 470 compiling the Comprehensive Plan, visioning documents and other regulatory documents 471 into this scheme. Chair Boerigter commended staff and the consultants on a job well 472 done; opining that while there may be specifics that were not strongly endorsed by 473 individual Commissioners, the Regulating Map as proposed reflected what the City has 474 long envisioned for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area and would allow development in 475 a manner that residents and City Councils have suggested. However, Chair Boerigter 476 opined that he wasn’t convinced that once the first development came forward, there still 477 wouldn’t be issues to address; but overall, he was supportive of the Map and getting it 478 initiated to move forward. If there were amendments indicated in the future as the plan 479 was put into use practically, Chair Boerigter noted that it would be similar to amendments 480 needed to the Zoning Code with those required tweaks as indicated. Chair Boerigter 481 opined that he was generally satisfied with this version, that it appeared to work, and 482 offered his support of the Map and Plan. 483 MOTION 484 Member Cook moved, seconded by Member Boguszewski to RECOMMEND TO 485 THE City Council approval of the proposed Twin Lakes Sub-Area 1 Regulating Plan 486 and subsequent amendments to Section 1005.07 of the Roseville Zoning 487 Ordinance (version 6/30/11 as presented). 488 Member Lester opined that, in reviewing the past proposal with this, it was much 489 improved from the many previous iterations; and should provide a good compromise for 490 the City and developers. Member Lester opined that, if this allowed for development of 491 the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, he was all for it. 492 Ayes: 4 493 Nays: 1 (Strohmeier) 494 Motion carried. 495 Staff indicated that the case was scheduled to be heard at the July 18, 2011 City Council 496 meeting. 497 b. PROJECT FILE 0017 498 Request by Roseville Planning Division for approval of a zoning text amendment to 499 ensure that variance requests are handles in conformance with the revisions MN 500 Stat. 462.357, subd. 6 501 Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing at approximately 7:54 p.m. 502 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly reviewed the requested amendments to comply 503 with recent legislation and modified statutory language, as detailed in the Request for 504 Planning Commission Action dated July 6, 2011. 505 Mr. Paschke noted that this modified language had been reviewed and vetted by the City 506 Attorney to be consistent with state statute. 507 Member Boguszewski noted language in the Purpose Statement (1009.04 Variances: 508 Purpose Statement) that referred to “special or extraordinary circumstances) being 509 struck, and replaced with “practical difficulties;” and other similar references and whether 510 they were consistent, or should all be changed from “special circumstances or conditions” 511 to “practical difficulties.” 512