pm_070208 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chair Bakeman noted the Commission’s review of the Land Use Chapter to-date; and rationale for upcoming Public Hearings for each chapter at the Planning Commission level. Ms. Radel encouraged comments from Commissioners and alerts of any omissions they observed in any sections, to be incorporated prior to the plan going before the general public in August. Ms. Radel provided an overview of the Land Use Chapter as included in the staff report; noting creation of Goal 4 regarding intergovernmental cooperation; addition of a policy regarding parkland acquisition; text revision to Police 6 pertaining to higher-density housing; and addition of language related to future opportunities in Planning District No. 11. Discussion included Goal #1: to include recognition of private and public institutions (i.e., colleges, private companies) in partnerships, not just those with other governmental agencies; impacts of Goal 5.2 in required code revisions following approval by the City Council and Metropolitan Council of the updated Comprehensive Plan and meeting requirements for projects of significant impact, and who defines “significant impact,” prior to bringing City Code into compliance and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and consideration of all the ramifications of potential zoning and land use revisions; recognition that there will always be some non-conforming issues within the City Code at any given time, no matter how much due diligence is performed, with all attempts to bring all regulatory tools into consistency around the Comprehensive Plan framework and guidelines; and critical components brought into compliance first. Further discussion included Goal 1.9 regarding wind turbines, and public confusion when they’re not currently allowed under City Code, and whether such a goal or policy is misleading; and would be better addressed as an “aspiration,” or “objectives,” rather than a “goal;” and to promote “study” of such new technologies, rather than “encourage” and “support” their new development. Commissioner Boerigter noted a typographical error on page 4-28 under Land Use Issues related to the Rice Street Corridor. Additional discussion included the former plan serving as more of a work plan, with this version being more about visions or aspirations, and deleting many of the “Thou shalt” or “Thou shalt not” connotations; recognition that the existing plan is a challenge for staff, policy makers, and the public to navigate and understand; intent of this plan to allow more flexibility for implementation and evolution of the City into this vision; clarification that if “big box retail” were allowed in Roseville, the only new land use designation that would support it, based on square footage, would be in the “Regional Business Zoning Districts;” lack of consensus by the Steering Committee on what “big box” entailed, and staff’s suggestion that it not be defined as “big box” in the plan, but simply leave it at the square footage, to avoid confusion, but allow the zoning to address future projects; and future guidance of the new Comprehensive Plan versus what is in those areas today, to accomplish the future vision by 2030 of the community as it continues to evolve and/or redevelop. Further discussion included Metropolitan Council mandates for increased housing density; use of Master Plans under the proposed revisions; definition of “mixed use;” and the Steering Committee’s request for additional comment regarding the Master Plan issue during discussions in the “Implementation” section of the Comprehensive Plan update; identification of sixteen (16) zoning designations identified in the new Plan; and need for correction of various slivers of land on the Land Use Map that should be identified as right-of-way. Page 2 of 9