2011-07-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 06, 2011 Page 3 Member Strohmeier questioned the evolution from the Roseville Comprehensive Plan 96 approved in 2001 to this proposed Regulating Map and Plan, opining that based on his 97 extensive research on the timeframe to-date, the proposal for this extensive zoning map 98 with build-to lines and three (3) frontages. 99 Mr. Paschke responded that the Comprehensive Plan didn’t specify what would occur on 100 any property, simply guided it in a general sense. Mr. Paschke noted that, when the 101 Comprehensive Plan was developed in 2009, it designated Community/Mixed Use for the 102 Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, followed through when the 2010 Zoning Ordinance 103 was adopted, stipulating that a Regulating Map be created to guide that area. Mr. 104 Paschke noted that this Regulating Map and Plan attempted to combine all those into 105 one document, as well as including the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning 106 process, and previous Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area’s Urban Design Principles. 107 Member Strohmeier questioned if he could be assured that all environmental concerns 108 were taken care of, or their status. 109 Mr. Paschke advised that all environmental concerns had not yet been addressed; and 110 that as properties develop, they would be subject to a Phase I or Phase II environmental 111 review, and if soils were determined to need remediation, it would need to be done, 112 similar to requirements for the City, when they had done the infrastructure improvements 113 for the development. Mr. Paschke noted that there were dollars to assist those 114 developments depending on the level of contamination found, and with City Council 115 approval. 116 Member Lester referenced the June 30, 2011 letter from Martin & Squires, page 2, 117 alleging that the proposed regulatory structure was being unequally, arbitrarily and 118 capriciously applied; and that the City was using disparate treatment of owners within the 119 development area. Member Lester sought staff comment on whether they had 120 considered all property owners comments, and whether there was any special treatment. 121 Mr. Paschke advise that staff had listened to the concerns of all property owners 122 participating in the various discussions, and based on soil conditions at County Road C-2 123 and Cleveland Avenue, had attempted to address some of those concerns and issues. 124 Mr. Paschke noted that some issues and concerns could be addressed, but others could 125 not be, but opined that this did not indicate special treatment. Mr. Paschke noted that the 126 concerns of the property owner at County Road C-2 and Cleveland was concerned that 127 the previous frontage requirements would require them to site a building on a former 128 swamp, and the recommended revised Map and Plan allowed greater flexibility on that 129 site to realistically facilitate future development. Mr. Paschke noted that the entire area 130 was available for potential build out in this redevelopment area, with some properties 131 required to do more remediation than others as the property developed; however, he 132 opined that if some of those property owners were of the opinion that the City was 133 providing arbitrary approval, it was not justified and was simply the existing condition of 134 their particular property. 135 Member Lester questioned who would be responsible for development of the special 136 corridors. 137 Mr. Paschke advised that, as part of any future development plan, a developer would be 138 required to dedicate that portion of their property and include it as part of their 139 development project, providing trail connections to Langton Lake Park to create a public 140 realm as suggested in the Plan. 141 Member Lester requested the intent of the corridor in Area B of the Regulating Map. 142 Mr. Paschke noted the revised dashed line from the previous fixed line, located over the 143 sixty foot (60’) wide Metropolitan Council’s Interceptor Easement and how best to 144 develop adjacent properties. Mr. Paschke noted that those issues and concerns were 145 related to how a fixed point intersecting with Iona Lane and Mount Ridge Road may not 146