2011-07-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 06, 2011 Page 9 under discussion for a very long time; and in terms of getting something accomplished 409 and in place as a starting point to address the City’s interests in regulating this area, and 410 its vision for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, he intended to support the proposed 411 Map and Plan, as presented tonight, in part to get past this and move on. In addressing 412 Member Shrohmeier’s motion that failed, Member Boguszewski opined that it was his 413 sense from the majority of Commissioners following the Public Hearing discussion that 414 they supported moving toward a greater flexibility, not a higher leave of restriction as 415 indicated on the previous Regulating Map draft. While recognizing that there was always 416 friction in city interests and those of land owners, Member Boguszewski opined that that 417 tension forced the City to strike a balance for the larger benefit of its residents, and to 418 make the land marketable for property owners. In his opinion, Member Boguszewski 419 opined that this Map, as presented tonight, struck a good balance. 420 With Chair Boerigter’s approval, Mr. Paschke asked to address some of the public 421 comments of Ms. Phillips related to differences in the Twin Lakes area and other areas of 422 Roseville. Mr. Paschke opined that, while the Regulating Map may look different and 423 advocate form and placement perspectives, the hard lined percentages were no different 424 than and remained consistent with those allowed in current and previous business 425 districts. Mr. Paschke advised that the reason those things occurred on the proposed 426 Regulating Map were based on the previously-referenced documents (e.g. Imagine 427 Roseville 2025 community visioning process; 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and concepts in 428 the original Twin Lakes Master Plan and urban design standards). Mr. Paschke noted 429 that the City no longer had Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s) under its recently- 430 revised Zoning Code, and the underlying documents included those items addressed in 431 the Regulating Map. 432 Mr. Paschke opined that, if the proposed Regulating Map and Plan was not supported, 433 the Imagine Roseville 2025 findings needed to be rethought; since the discussion within 434 all of the Regulating Plan and Map was to attempt to provide greater green space. 435 Regarding comments on the amount of impervious coverage on a lot, Mr. Paschke 436 advised that, until a development plan was brought forward, there was no indication that 437 the coverage would ever get to 90%, and personally opined that it would not, but would 438 be less than that percentage. 439 Mr. Paschke noted that there was a greater burden regulating a previously-developed 440 area with essentially no existing green space, and to now create more green space. 441 Reiterating that all sites would be required to address storm water management, Mr. 442 Paschke opined that the statement that Langton Lake Park would be damaged further did 443 not hold true, when developments will have to treat any runoff before it goes off their site, 444 not like the past, and would be more restrictive, essentially making the quality of Langton 445 Lake better than it is currently when everything and all runoff can flow into it without any 446 treatment. 447 In conclusion, Mr. Paschke noted that Roseville is an urban community, not a rural 448 community; and the City was attempting to sustain its vision and goals throughout the 449 planning documents, especially at major intersections and regional connections. Mr. 450 Paschke opined that he personally thought a fairly good job had been achieved, but as 451 development came forward, there may need to be some things addressed, but that these 452 documents currently in place should allow the City to do so. 453 Mr. Lamb, as a follow-up regarding Greenway Frontages on the east side of the 454 proposed Regulating Map and the north/south pedestrian alignment, noted the first two 455 (2) parcels were adjacent to residential areas; and there was no parking west of that line 456 (Area E on the proposed Regulating Map). Mr. Lamb noted that the other parcels were 457 city-owned and would be retained as open space; and that the remnant parcel south of 458 Langton Lake Park was currently impervious surface. Mr. Lamb noted that the western 459 25’ setback contiguous to the Park from the extension of Iona to County Road C-2 on the 460 west side of the park had been relaxed as it related to vertical screening and parking 461