2011-07-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 06, 2011 Page 2 Mr. Paschke introduced Michael Lamb of The Cuningham Group to review the Twin 45 Lakes Urban Standards (Draft 6/30/11) in more detail. 46 Michael Lamb, Cuningham Group 47 Mr. Lamb provided a review of the Regulating Map, as revised, and the proposed 48 locations of Greenway, Urban and Flexible Frontages, and rationale for edits and 49 modifications following further discussion with commercial property owners in the Twin 50 Lakes Redevelopment Area, and their concerns with the proposed Map and Plan being 51 too restrictive, thereby thwarting the successful marketing and/or redevelopment of their 52 properties. Mr. Lamb noted that the most significant relaxation of the proposed design 53 standards involved the build-to line along County Road C-2, and was based on certain 54 soil conditions. However, Mr. Lamb advised the previously-addressed locations requiring 55 public connection to Langton Lake Park were still in place, but there was less specificity 56 to an exact location for that connection. Mr. Lamb noted that the most visible or 57 prominent corners retained required public and pedestrian connections while allowing 58 more flexible frontages (e.g. Fairview, Iona, Cleveland, and Twin Lakes Parkway) where 59 applicable. 60 Mr. Lamb reviewed the specifics for each of the three (3) Frontages, and applicable 61 revisions, as detailed in the Request for Planning Commission Action dated July 6, 2011. 62 Mr. Lamb provided illustrative examples of the various frontages, addressing vertical 63 and/or landscape screening for setbacks and parking, depending on the actual siting of 64 buildings as development occurs. 65 Mr. Lamb emphasized the need to continue to facilitate the public realm connections to 66 Langton Lake along County Road C-2, east and west of the Lake, and the Iona 67 Corridor/Greenway, while allowing flexibility on the Metropolitan Council’s easement. On 68 Page 7 of the revised Plan, Mr. Lamb reviewed details of the proposed public realm 69 connections and how they would work with building relationship and specifications of 70 each. Mr. Lamb noted that the Langton Lake connection on the east is a pedestrian 71 pathway, and was proposed to occur on public property, and would not be imposed over 72 private property. 73 Mr. Lamb and Mr. Paschke addressed comments and questions of the Commission at 74 this time. 75 Questions of Commissioners 76 At the request of Member Cook, Mr. Lamb noted that the Metropolitan Council’s 77 interceptor easement was an existing easement that the Plan attempted to take 78 advantage of in connecting to Langton Lake Park, not through a neighborhood. 79 Member Strohmeier asked for the rationale in changing frontage classification at County 80 Road C-2 and Cleveland Avenue from Greenway to Flexible to address soil conditions 81 and potential geotechnical improvements/costs (Section 2.2 of the report). 82 Mr. Lamb advised that there were fairly significant soil condition concerns at the 83 northwest corner of County Road C-2 and Cleveland; and by extending the Urban 84 Frontage along County Road C-2 that allowed greater flexibility for the build-to lines in an 85 attempt to accommodate that potential concern. 86 Member Strohmeier noted that the Greenway Frontage was the most regulatory of the 87 three (3) frontage options; and questioned how making those dictates more flexible would 88 address soil concerns. 89 Mr. Lamb advised that the corridor was still dictated by the Regulating Map, but it 90 suggested the Flexible Frontage on County Road C-2 to address those soil conditions. 91 Mr. Lamb advised that, at the discretion of the Commission, the area could revert back to 92 Greenway; however, this was staff’s attempt to address the feedback from commercial 93 property owners; and would still encourage a pedestrian connection fronted by a building 94 as opposed to other areas of the Lake. 95