2015-11-04_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, September 17, 2015 Page 16 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Bilotta advised that the Planning Commission was 733 being asked to review and recommend approval of these amendments to address current design 734 standards, essentially pushing buildings out to prominent corners and adjusting parking 735 accordingly to meet those urban design standards going forward for development and/or 736 redevelopment in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. 737 At the request of Member Murphy, and using RPCA Attachment C regulating maps on pages 8 738 and 9 of the staff report, Mr. Bilotta reviewed the specific area aroundLangton Lake with a 739 walkway and bicycle path recorded in greenway requirements going forward and over the 740 Metropolitan Council’s sewer interceptor easement, intended to be turned into an amenity as a 741 requirement versus an arbitrary negotiating point for future redevelopment proposals. 742 Mr. Lloyd further clarified those legends on the maps generally identified as required park 743 connection areas allowing access into the park and reserving that access as a requirement in 744 those areas for future development proposals. 745 Noting the potential reintroduction of Planned Unit Development (PUD) uses in this 746 redevelopment area, Chair Boguszewski questioned if the Table of Uses would then be 747 amended, and asked if during that process any potential uses may conflict or need further 748 amendment for use of a PUD. 749 Mr. Bilotta advised that, if PUD’s are reintroduced, it would require the City to work with an 750 applicant, since they are of a legislative nature like rezoning processes and this regulating map, 751 with a similar process for PUD applications, which would probably only need to occur if a road 752 was moved from one location to another.If other plans were indicated to achieve desired design 753 standards, Mr. Bilotta suggested it may move to a PUD at that point since that made the most 754 sense within that realm. 755 With form-based planning dealing with mass, size, setbacks, distance from curb, etc. with 756 considerable debate on those issues in the past, Chair Boguszewski asked if the intended goal 757 remained to control and manage that planning for positive aesthetics as building locations and 758 parking are established, whether at the street or if the building mass was stepped back if so 759 indicated.Chair Boguszewski noted his preference to fulfill and regulate the intended goals of 760 form-based planning while allowing developers some flexibility in their designs. 761 Mr. Bilotta concurred, noting that recent examples were the hotel developments in this area, and 762 while their final plans are no longer 100% what they original submitted, changes were made to 763 relate to the remainder of the community and increased pedestrian experiences, allowing 764 walkability and connectivity to parks, or a plaza effect such as in window placement to avoid a 765 warehouse look.While these design standards are not onerous, Mr. Bilottanoted that those 766 standards provided a better fit to avoid pedestrian barriers. 767 City Planner Paschke further noted the location of main entries that may not necessarily be on 768 the public frontage but rather in the parking lot interior, but having those frontages on sidewalks 769 or public streets and how building placement and design achieved that, allowing developers to 770 sharpen their deigns to meet city code requirements and articulate them accordingly. 771 Regarding park dedication lines indicated on the map, Member Murphy asked what their 772 presence or absence meant for potential developers in the area; noting that he understood the 773 intent, but questioned what it meant in this proposed text amendment as an additional 774 requirement of developers. 775 Mr. Bilotta advised that it was intended to serve as more of an alert to developers before they got 776 to the point of Letters of Intent or the application process itself, that they initiate working with the 777 Parks & Recreation Commission on that piece of their development proposal, rather than an after 778 the fact surprise or issue.Mr. Bilotta reasoned that if developers were aware up front, they could 779 design their project differently, knowing that defined location for a park. 780 Regarding the northern area referenced, Mr. Paschke advised that the City had already 781 purchased most of the park area with the exception of Mt. Ridge Road, with that elevation not 782 suitable for building, and therefore included on the regulating plan map.Mr. Paschke advised that 783 the other park location closer to County Road B is a grove or mature trees not within the park 784