My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_121609
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2009
>
pm_121609
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2010 10:47:42 AM
Creation date
3/1/2010 10:47:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
12/16/2009
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.
/
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
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, December 16, 2009 <br />Page 6 <br />Commissioner Doherty noted the recent completion and available of the MnDOT <br />“Complete Streets” study to develop streetscapes that would be more pedestrian, bicycle <br />and transit friendly and how that might be implemented from a code perspective and <br />urban aspects of certain major commercial and/or retail corridors. <br />Commissioner Gisselquist noted the same need in residential areas to make them more <br />pedestrian friendly through development and connectivity of paths and sidewalks. <br />Mr. Paschke indicated that not all of those issues could be addressed in zoning, but also <br />through the Pathway Master Plan and Park Master Planning process, with those <br />amenities available in zoning as redevelopment of parcels occurred, with connections to <br />path systems, adjacent parks and/or residential areas part of the design standards. <br />Commissioner Gottfried noted the problems in achieving those amenities on roads not <br />under the City’s jurisdiction (i.e., County roads). <br />Mr. Paschke noted that those were typically addressed by the City through <br />Reconstruction of those roadways, and it was infrequent that it happened otherwise <br />unless grant monies were available or petition-driven. <br />Further discussion was related to future need for Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s) <br />once the zoning code was rewritten, with them becoming the exception to the rule, based <br />on successful development of design standards and flexibility within comprehensive plan <br />land sue designations where unique circumstances don’t exist; and historical micro- <br />management of development details by the City of some PUD’s those standards. <br />Concluding discussion addressed whether a tree preservation ordinance was anticipated <br />to be incorporated as a part of the rewritten code; and whether there was a need to <br />address farm animals in the zoning code (i.e., accessory structures to house them) or if <br />the nuisance code was sufficient. <br />Mr. Paschke noted the difficulty in defining tree preservation from various perspectives, <br />and suggesting that this would probably be addressed through the landscape ordinance <br />with components of preservation of existing trees or their replacement, given the <br />difficulties in creating and enforcing a true tree preservation ordinance. Mr. Paschke <br />advised that the City could attempt to protect the City’s tree investment in the code, but <br />across-the-board enforcement was difficult, especially on private property. <br />Commissioner Boerigter noted the need of a rewritten landscape ordinance to include the <br />environmental component of the comprehensive plan to provide for and encourage <br />alternative landscapes in residential neighborhoods. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that at the January 2010 meeting, the consultant would be available <br />for a broad and preliminary discussion of the location of specific zones; the format and <br />content template for the new code; general details and discussions consistent with a <br />‘meet and greet” type of meeting, and talking about the next steps and preparation for the <br />upcoming public open house as an introduction to the process. <br />Discussion ensued on the proposed agenda for the January 2010 meeting and <br />anticipated cases to be heard. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that the Parks Department would present a brief update on the Park <br />Planning process at the January Planning Commission meeting as it related to land use. <br />7. Adjourn <br />Chair Doherty adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:40 p.m. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.