Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, October 01, 2008 <br />Page 13 <br />By consensus, Commissioners approved adding a statement to recommended <br />additional language on page 3 of the staff report, Section 11. entitled, “Using the <br />Plan,” for master plans adopted prior to 2009, as follows: <br />“These master plans are not addressed as part of the Comprehensive Plan <br />without further action by the City Council.” <br />Further discussion included avoiding the Comprehensive Plan becoming a work plan, <br />and to include implementation strategies that the City Council will use to determine a <br />review process for master plans; and recommendations of City Attorney Squires in his <br />comments included in the staff report. <br />MOTION <br />Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Gottfried to add additional <br />language to Implementation Strategies, page 11-3 entitled, “Using the Plan,” as <br />follows: <br />? <br /> “The City Council will establish a plan to address the issue of master plans <br />adopted prior to 2009; and these pre-2009 master plans are not addressed as <br />part of the Comprehensive Plan without further action of the City Council.” <br />? <br /> Provide clarification of relationships between master plans and the <br />Comprehensive Plan in the “official controls” section of the Comprehensive <br />Plan, indicating that official controls are consistent with Comprehensive Plan <br />amendments, effectively creating a timetable. <br />Ayes: 6 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />MOTION <br />Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Gottfried to incorporate language <br />as recommended by the City Attorney in Section 2.5 of the staff report (page 4) <br />clarifying the role of master plans in relation to Comprehensive Plans, with specific <br />revisions included on page 4-4, Policy 13.2 and page 4-21/22, District 10 Future <br />Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan update. <br />Ayes: 6 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />Section 4-8, HarMar/100,000-square-foot and/or definitions <br />Discussion included consensus preference to remove the 100,000-square-foot threshold <br />reference in its entirety to avoid being too restrictive; current identification and operation <br />as regional business of HarMar Mall and Target, not simply community-based; business <br />turnovers and economic realities; neighborhood concerns with traffic; advantages of the <br />PUD Public Hearing process; potential for transitional design standards or screenings <br />between commercial and residential areas; and zoning code amendments to address <br />pedestrian and walking paths in those areas. <br />Commissioner Boerigter noted that Roseville was facing a huge issue in making the <br />community more pedestrian friendly, when no one wanted sidewalks or to pay for them, <br />as evidenced in past discussions. <br />Chair Bakeman concurred with Commissioner Boerigter’s observations. <br />Commissioner Gottfried suggested that language, as previously suggested by <br />Commissioner Wozniak, be incorporated into each section of the Comprehensive Plan, to <br />encourage pedestrian and bicycle access whenever possible. <br />Chair Bakeman opined that this could be added to all definitions. <br />Ms. Radel advised that, in Land Use Policies for each District, reference had been <br />included for walkability, multiple transportation modes, and recommended that <br /> <br />