2012-02-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 1, 2012 Page 2 the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; based on the comments and findings of Section 4-7, and 45 the recommendation of Section 8 of the staff report dated February 1, 2012. 46 Chair Boerigter sought clarification on the original intent in the City acquiring the property 47 for creation of Twin Lakes Parkway, and now the City’s determination that it was no 48 longer needed and could be disposed of. 49 Mr. Lloyd advised that the property had been originally acquired from the property owner 50 for its potential use in connection with the roundabout as access to the redevelopment 51 property, but had not been intended to create a public street south of the roundabout. 52 Chair Boerigter requested more detailed information from the City’s Engineer. 53 City Engineer Debra Bloom 54 Ms. Bloom concurred with Mr. Lloyd’s analysis of the City’s original intent in using the 55 property as the fourth leg of the roundabout for landscaping treatments. However, Ms. 56 Bloom noted that this was prior to the City knowing final roadway design, the type or size 57 of the development that may occur in this area, and that acquisition was for the most part 58 precautionary in planning ahead; however, the City’s need ended at the crosswalk and 59 this property was no longer needed. 60 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd advised that the overall acreage of the 61 Walmart/Roseville Properties property was approximately fourteen (14) acres. 62 Member Strohmeier asked how staff responded to his interpretation of various areas in 63 city-wide plans versus Planning District 10 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Chapters 4 64 and 7) and development of a big box retailer in the Twin Lakes area. 65 Mr. Lloyd noted staff comments that it was odd for a given development proposal to be 66 reviewed by the Planning Commission against the Comprehensive Plan, since it was not 67 intended for that purpose, and provided a misapplication of individual goals and policies 68 of the Comprehensive Plan if it were used as a lens for this or any development. Mr. 69 Lloyd noted that the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan was to serve as a guide for 70 creating specific requirements attempting to meet its policies, for instance the zoning 71 code update now addressing goals like walkable communities that were not addressed in 72 previous code. Mr. Lloyd opined that no one business was going to achieve entirely the 73 goal of walkable streets; however, walkable communities remained an overarching goal. 74 Member Strohmeier stated that he still had issues of apparent conflict, when focusing on 75 District 10, Future Land Use Section, and the portion about Twin Lakes and shopping as 76 a primary focus of land use. 77 Mr. Lloyd advised that the Twin Lakes area was generally described from Cleveland 78 Avenue west to almost Snelling Avenue, and north to County Road C-2 and even beyond 79 excluding Langton Lake Park. Mr. Lloyd noted that this was a large area with many 80 existing developments that are relatively new (e.g. medical office) that were not retail; 81 however, he also noted that there were a significant number of parcels that remained 82 vacant and were ready for development. The fact that this is the first proposal for 83 redevelopment in the area, Mr. Lloyd noted, just happened to be a retail use. Mr. Lloyd 84 responded from staff’s perspective, that there remained a lot of room for other uses as 85 the area develops; and if it became apparent that retail was becoming the main focus for 86 development in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, it would then no longer be 87 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 88 City Planner Thomas Paschke referenced the AUAR for Subarea 1, bounded by 89 Cleveland Avenue, County Road C, and Fairview Avenue, which document gauges 90 maximum thresholds in place governing the types of uses; noting that the AUAR 91 identified retail for the subject area and noted that further development may create a 92 threshold for too much retail in a given area. Mr. Paschke noted that, obviously, that 93 would only become apparent as the area expanded further, and that the AUAR document 94 would be used in judging any and all development or redevelopment, and tied to the 95 recently-adopted overlay district requirements. 96