2011-07-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 06, 2011 Page 8 allowed anywhere; but that the purpose of this process was to create how they’re placed 356 on the site and regulations within that placement. 357 Annette Phillips, 3084 Shorewood Lane, resident northeast of Twin Lakes area 358 Ms. Phillips reiterated some of the concerns she had observed; and questioned why an 359 Urban plan was suggested for this particular tract of land. Ms. Phillips opined that, to her 360 knowledge, this hasn’t been done in the rest of Roseville, where nice setbacks and more 361 greenery was provided, with no buildings set on a corner or having a solid wall. Ms. 362 Phillips opined that this was not a good diversion for Roseville; and that Roseville 363 deserved to have more green space, and a more livable environment, and to retain its 364 nice tax base. Ms. Phillips objected to her presumption for 90% of properties covered 365 with buildings and parking lots, providing for little green space; and needing a healthier 366 and more aesthetic look. 367 Regarding Twin Lake Parkway, as a 45-year resident of Roseville, Ms. Phillips advised 368 that she had attended many of the prior meetings over the years related to this linkage 369 through Terrace Drive to Snelling Avenue, originally proposed as an ideal situation for 370 any traffic coming from I-35W. However, it the highway department is not going to allow 371 that connection, Ms. Phillips opined that it removed any rationale for the road connecting; 372 and that traffic coming out on Fairview Avenue would have no place to go, and no major 373 road other than County Road C. By putting traffic on Fairview Avenue, Ms. Phillips 374 opined that the City was impacting residential areas, and asked that it reconsider the 375 connection. 376 Member Strohmeier noted that a number of good issues had been brought forward 377 tonight for discussion; and asked staff to comment on whether it was mandatory in the 378 AUAR to retain Langton Lake Park as a wildlife habitat. 379 Mr. Lamb opined that Langton Lake Park had been designated as one of two urban parks 380 in Roseville; and had implications on how development could occur around an urban 381 park. Mr. Lamb noted that the southern and eastern parts of the Park were undeveloped 382 parcels, and retaining the urban habitat concept was important, but was unsure how the 383 AUAR guided that or how it would be specifically addressed. Mr. Lamb opined that the 384 Park was a fabulous resource, with at least four (4) existing homemade trail connections 385 to Langton Lake Park pathway, indicating that people were obviously interested in those 386 connections. Mr. Lamb advised that the Regulating Plan looked to improve those 387 connections; and for wildlife issues addressed by the AUAR, he would defer to staff. 388 Mr. Paschke, while unsure how the AUAR sought to enhance wildlife corridors, noted that 389 the AUAR set out a number of mitigations for when development occurred. Mr. Paschke 390 noted that most of the Twin Lakes area was already developed with little untouched by 391 machines or with dirt not already turned over, so the goal was to redevelop paved areas 392 and former parking lots. Mr. Paschke advised that the AUAR would be utilized and 393 implemented as necessary when development projects came forward, but that no 394 specifics were in place to-date, and were no different than traffic mitigations discussed at 395 the last Commission meeting. Mr. Paschke noted that as developments come forward, 396 the specifics for all of those issues would be reviewed and analyzed. 397 Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m. 398 Member Strohmeier opined that this was a special area, surrounding the park, and in his 399 analysis of the issue and review of the area, he preferred that the Map revert back to the 400 version presented at the June 15, 2011 Public Hearing, as it related to Greenway 401 Frontage to address lot coverage restrictions and trees, open space provisions. Member 402 Strohmeier made this request in the form of a motion, but due to the lack of a second, 403 Chair Boerigter declared the motion failed. 404 Member Boguszewski opined that the Regulating Map and Plan was a new concept, but 405 it didn’t set aside any of the AUAR requirements that may apply on an individual or case 406 by case basis; and still allowed for adjustments, variances, or amendments to occur for 407 specific issues as they came up. Member Boguszewski opined that this area had been 408