2012-06-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

st:1: 489 Member Gjerdingen noted that, if these guidelines and standards had been applied 490 with past developments in Roseville, they certainly would have looked different, 491 but in a good way than they do now. Member Gjerdingen expressed his 492 frustration that the PWETC still didn't have any more input related to 493 transportation - related design standards. As an example, Member Gjerdingen 494 noted primary streets and access points were not better defined or addressing 495 where pedestrian traffic would be better. From his perspective, Member 496 Gjerdingen opined that the language was weak (Section 1005.04) for developers 497 seeming to have the option of providing pedestrian connections or "encouraged" 498 to do so, without making it an actual requirement. 499 500 Chair Vanderwall noted that the "Statement of Purpose" provided that preference. 501 Chair Vanderwall noted the balance of getting businesses to locate in Roseville 502 versus getting them to pay for amenities. 503 504 Mr. Schwartz opined that it was a id comment that stri uirements were not 505 in place, but generally encourage , with Mr. chwartz g that this was 506 addressed between applicants and staff during ations. 507 508 Regarding Section 1005.02.a, Member Gjerdingen questioned the corner 509 placement in Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) Zonijg Districts, using Wal -Mart as 510 an example and their implication for two (2) potential businesses; however, 511 Member Gjerdingen opined that a developer should be required to fill in every 512 corner bef re developin site, not doing so piece meal. ,qk MW 513 514 Chair Vanderwall clarified hat development in Twin Lakes had not occurred 515 through a Master Plan process, but was n w actually being done piece meal as the 516 market brings development forward. C it Vanderwall opined that it would be 517 prohibitive to require everything to be built up before any development was 518 allowed to happen. NkL Ilk 519 520 Member Gjerdingen opined, again using Wal -Mart as an example, that the 521 buildings should provide a nice urban look up to the property line, without a huge 522 parking lot as part of that design until further development occurred. 523 524 Mr. Schwartz cla ied that the area identified for future development would be 525 retained as green space on those Outlots, not as a parking lot. 526 527 Chair Vanderwall requested that Member Gjerdingen focus his comments on this 528 document, not on Wal -Mart, since that was before the City Council, not this body. 529 530 Member Gjerdingen noted that he had observed it elsewhere, when intention 531 didn't measure up to reality, and used the Walgreens at County Road E and 532 Lexington in Arden Hills as another example, or the Super Target at Pascal in 533 Roseville. Member Gjerdingen opined that retail space continued to remain Page 12 of 14