2012-04-24_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Gjerdingen noted that, if these guidelines and standards had been applied with past developments in Roseville, they certainly would have looked different, but in a good way than they do now. Member Gjerdingen expressed his frustration that the PWETC still didn't have any more input related to transportation-related design standards. As an example, Member Gjerdingen noted primary streets and access points were not better defined or addressing where pedestrian traffic would be better. From his perspective, Member Gjerdingen opined that the language was weak (Section 1005.04) for developers seeming to have the option of providing pedestrian connections or "encouraged" to do so, without making it an actual requirement. Chair Vanderwall noted that the "Statement of Purpose" provided that preference. Chair Vanderwall noted the balance of getting businesses to locate in Roseville versus getting them to pay for amenities. Mr. Schwartz opined that it was a valid comment that strict requirements were not in place, but generally encouraged, with Mr. Schwartz noting that this was addressed between applicants and staff during negotiations. Regarding Section 1005.02.a, Member Gjerdingen questioned the corner placement in Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning Districts, using Wal-Mart as an example and their implication for two (2) potential businesses; however, Member Gjerdingen opined that a developer should be required to fill in every corner before developing a site, not doing so piece meal. Chair Vanderwall clarified hat development in Twin Lakes had not occurred through a Master Plan process, but was now actually being done piece meal as the market brings development forward. Chair Vanderwall opined that it would be prohibitive to require everything to be built up before any development was allowed to happen. Member Gjerdingen opined, again using Wal-Mart as an example, that the buildings should provide a nice urban look up to the property line, without a huge parking lot as part of that design until further development occurred. Mr. Schwartz clarified that the area identified for future development would be retained as green space on those Outlots, not as a parking lot. Chair Vanderwall requested that Member Gjerdingen focus his comments on this document, not on Wal-Mart, since that was before the City Council, not this body. Member Gjerdingen noted that he had observed it elsewhere, when intention didn't measure up to reality, and used the Walgreens at County Road E and Lexington in Arden Hills as another example, or the Super Target at Pascal in Roseville. Member Gjerdingen opined that retail space continued to remain Page 12 of 14