My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_010709
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2009
>
pm_010709
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2010 10:38:08 AM
Creation date
3/1/2010 10:38:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/7/2009
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, January 07, 2009 <br /> <br />Page 6 <br />Original Motion [as amended] <br />Ayes: 7 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />Chair Bakeman noted that the case was scheduled to be heard by the City Council at <br />their January 26, 2009 meeting. <br />b. PROJET FILE 0004 <br />Consideration of the final draft of Roseville’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan; the <br />Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for final <br />action. <br />Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 0004. <br />Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon introduced tonight’s discussion of the <br />Comprehensive Plan Update, noting that it had been a long process. Mr. Trudgeon <br />assured Commissioners not to let the variation in size of the former Comprehensive Plan <br />compared to the Updated Plan be of concern; noting that the Update was a vital <br />document and all-inclusive, while the former plan had become a mishmash of conflicting <br />purposes and Master Plans. <br />Economic Development Associate Jamie Radel reviewed the culmination of the year-long <br />planning process; significant participation by the City Council-appointed Steering <br />Committee; review by the City’s advisory commissions; two (2) public open houses; <br />various public hearings; and review by neighboring jurisdictions and affected units of <br />government and special districts, as well as a preliminary review of the draft by the <br />Metropolitan Council. Ms. Radel advised that, prior to the City Council releasing the draft <br />Plan on October 13, 2008 to those parties, they had made several modifications, <br />including changing the future land use designation for the Har Mar Mall to Community <br />Business, and adding language to the land use implementation strategies regarding <br />parkland and the need for parkland in Planning District 14. <br />The staff report dated January 7, 2009 included modifications to the draft by the Planning <br />Commission and the City Council; and subsequent comments received to the draft Plan <br />from the reviewing parties (Attachment E), with staff differentiating those specific to the <br />Plan and those of a broader nature. Ms. Radel, as part of the staff report, included <br />several attachments of those responses, the informal review summary letter from the <br />Metropolitan Council and a draft resolution for the Planning Commission to recommend <br />approval of the Plan, as revised following those comments, to the City Council to <br />continue the process. Ms. Radel noted that all comments of reviewing parties had been <br />received, with the exception of the Grass Lake Watershed District, and that their <br />response was anticipated prior to the City Council meeting of January 26, 2009 when the <br />plan was scheduled to come before them for review and action. <br />Ms. Radel provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part thereof, a <br />list of those items identified by the Metropolitan Council in their informal review that <br />indicated missing elements, non-required suggestions or clarifications, and staff action <br />taken accordingly, depending on those various components. Ms. Radel advised that, <br />jurisdiction comments not included in the Comprehensive Plan Update had been included <br />in the proposed 2009 Work Plan to be addressed later this evening, and appearing more <br />applicable to integration at that time, rather than in the plan itself. Ms. Radel advised that <br />the majority of the comments had been integrated, stricken, or added, depending on their <br />application. As an example, Ms. Radel referenced suggestions of Capitol Region and <br />Rice Creek Water Shed Districts, and the advice of the City Engineer Debra Bloom that <br />they not be included as specific rules in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, as there were <br />three (3) different Watershed Districts within the City’s jurisdiction each with different <br />specifications. Ms. Radel advised that Ms. Bloom noted that the City’s Stormwater <br />Management Plan addressed those items as specified in comments of the Metropolitan <br />Council, and while those comments were not integrated in the Comprehensive Plan that <br />served as an overall guide, they were referenced in the Plan, or would become <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.