2011-07-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 06, 2011 Page 4 be as feasible or prudent as one possibly needed in a different location in order to line up 147 with the intersection, depending on what type of development occurred at that location. 148 Member Boguszewski, in his comparison of the June 15 DRAFT Regulating Map and 149 Plan with the June 30 DRAFT, opined that it appeared the majority of the proposed 150 revisions recommended by staff provided less strictness, and appeared to address the 151 majority of previously-stated concerns of developers and/or property owners and their 152 perception of overly restrictive frontage requirements. Mr. Boguszewski noted that, if the 153 Plan and Map were approved at this time, modifications could be made in the future 154 whether for commercial or residential use, similar to other City Code amendments for 155 addressing specific development projects. 156 Member Strohmeier, in his review of numerous documents, expressed his concern in the 157 apparent lack of open space, and a sufficient buffer zone for Langton Lake Park; noting 158 that in his review of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, those were major concerns in 159 the documents he’d already referenced, in addition to the AUAR. Member Strohmeier 160 questioned how the Regulating Map reflected that and the efforts made to address those 161 major concerns. 162 Related to sufficient buffering for Langton Lake Park, Mr. Paschke advised that, from 163 staff’s perspective, the proposed setbacks could achieve greater buffering around 164 through requiring certain dedications to provide connections, while not attempting to limit 165 a property owner from developing their private property, which staff didn’t feel was 166 appropriate or warranted. 167 Regarding open space, Mr. Paschke noted that this is between 80-90% an Urban 168 Development, and was fairly in keeping with how things have been proposed to-date in 169 Roseville, and discussions over many years on the community’s vision for the area 170 related to setbacks and other improvements on private property not listed in the specific 171 regulations of the Regulating Map and Plan. Mr. Paschke advised that this document 172 was an attempt, cooperatively with other City Code requirements already in place, to be 173 cognizant of current market trends for developers and property owners in the Twin Lakes 174 Redevelopment Area. Mr. Paschke noted that the numerous storm water management 175 requirements and options for developers to consider would provide substantial green 176 space; and that staff was not suggesting more green space requirements in an urban 177 development area. 178 Public Comment 179 Amy Ihlan, 1776 Stanbridge Avenue, resident northeast of the Twin Lakes area 180 Ms. Ihlan requested that her comments and notes, as verbalized at tonight’s meeting, be 181 allowed into the public record upon her submission of them to the Commission in written 182 format at a later date. 183 Chair Boerigter duly noted her request. 184 Lack of Public Input 185 Ms. Ihlan expressed concern with the lack of public input received to-date from residents 186 in surrounding neighborhoods, while having received significant input from commercial 187 landowners in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. In her discussions with residents in 188 the area, and her knowledge of neighborhood interest for this Plan, she opined that the 189 neighbors area aware of the Plan Map being presented at tonight’s meeting. With 190 respect to proposals, Ms. Ihlan noted the pedestrian walkway that would intersect with 191 backyard residential properties along County Road C-2 and impacts to those residential 192 neighborhoods. Ms. Ihlan opined that she knew those residents had concerns and would 193 desire to provide input. Ms. Ihlan urged the Commission and staff to think about 194 additional ways to bring residential property owners into the discussion, not just 195 commercial property owners. Ms. Ihlan noted that residential property values area tied to 196 amenities of Langton Lake Park, and those property values were also impacted by traffic 197 in the Twin Lakes Area, both issues of great neighborhood concern. Ms. Ihlan requested 198 that those people be brought to the table. 199