My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-01-07_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
2015-01-07_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/2/2015 2:07:44 PM
Creation date
4/2/2015 2:07:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/7/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, January 7, 2015 <br />Page 4 <br />Community Development Director Bilotta advised that the traffic study consisted of <br />144 <br />building a model, with each development added onto the other. Mr. Bilotta advised that <br />145 <br />this traffic study would take into account land use changes over time, including those <br />146 <br />from the WalMart development. Mr. Bilotta noted that sometimes the studies went ever <br />147 <br />broader, referencing another traffic study being done by the City now for the entire Twin <br />148 <br />Lakes area related to Twin Lakes Parkway development and extension, that included <br />149 <br />areas involving Lincoln Drive and Snelling Avenue, as well as taking into consideration <br />150 <br />private development within that area, as well as the proposed hot lane on I-35W and <br />151 <br />other area-wide traffic situations. <br />152 <br />Member Cunningham noted recent online postings and concerns expressed on the <br />153 <br />Neighborhood Forum about traffic; and asked if the public could be made aware of traffic <br />154 <br />study results before, now and after each study. <br />155 <br />Mr. Bilotta clarified that this traffic study was related only to this project, but was related to <br />156 <br />the broader model, and offered to consult with the City Engineer to determine whether or <br />157 <br />not it had been finalized. Mr. Bilotta advised that the broader Twin Lakes traffic study still <br />158 <br />underway would take into account all these pieces, and provide that information to the <br />159 <br />City Council for local development impacts as well as background traffic under three <br />160 <br />different scenarios and considering local and regional issues and impacts. <br />161 <br />Within that concept, Member Boguszewski cautioned the difficulties in comparing a <br />162 <br />development or redevelopment to nothing. Using Walmart as an example, Member <br />163 <br />Boguszewski noted that increased traffic increases needed to be proportioned and not <br />164 <br />skewed in interpretation based on that area never having been developed in the past. <br />165 <br />Member Cunningham stated that, from her perspective, it was less about changes or a <br />166 <br />need to curtail development versus whether or not current infrastructure supported and <br />167 <br />was adequate for development or if it was indicated that better or improved traffic <br />168 <br />management or infrastructure was needed. <br />169 <br />Using WalMart as an example, Mr. Bilotta noted that it was working fairly well, and while <br />170 <br />there were some impacts of course, the majority of traffic appeared to be moving more <br />171 <br />toward the west. Mr. Bilotta noted that, as part of the planning and zoning in the broader <br />172 <br />area, sensitivity was needed for various uses such as how different types of uses <br />173 <br />affected overall traffic or traffic during peak hours and differences in office building <br />174 <br />impacts and residential impacts as uses in the area. <br />175 <br />At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Bilotta clarified that the City became owner of the <br />176 <br />traffic studies, with the developer(s) paying for the studies as part of their application and <br />177 <br />development costs. Mr. Bilotta confirmed that the traffic studies were public data and <br />178 <br />accessible by the public when finalized. <br />179 <br />Applicant Representatives: Mark Krogh, Java Properties; Patrick Saurer, Civil Site <br />180 <br />th <br />Group, 4931 W 35 Street, St. Louis Park, MN; with other development team <br />181 <br />members available in the audience. <br />182 <br />Mr. Krogh advised that, due to non-disclosure requirements on potential users of the two <br />183 <br />retail buildings, as well as the larger grocery store building, he was unable to identify <br />184 <br />those users, even though the applicant was recipient of a number of Letters of Intent for <br />185 <br />the properties. Mr. Krogh did confirm that, while the applicant had originally intended one <br />186 <br />larger retail spot, the market was dictating interest in two smaller retail spots that would <br />187 <br />provide two separate end cap buildings with sufficient patio space for each building. <br />188 <br />Mr. Krogh clarified that, while the grocery store was inadvertently identified in some <br />189 <br />documents as an “Aldi” facility, that was an error on his part and the end user had yet to <br />190 <br />be identified. <br />191 <br />Dean Dovolis, DJ & R, 333 Washington Avenue, Mpls., MN <br />192 <br />Mr. Dovolis confirmed that the applicant had received Letters of Interest from several sit- <br />193 <br />down restaurants already, making the patio and end cap buildings more marketable, <br />194 <br />along with meeting the urban retail building requirements of Roseville City Code. With the <br />195 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.