My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-06-02_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
2010-06-02_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2011 1:41:51 PM
Creation date
2/18/2011 1:41:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/2/2010
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.
/
18
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, June 02, 2010 <br />Page 13 <br />Commissioner Gottfried, in order to support the Comprehensive Plan process <br />612 <br />and for consistency sake, opined that the Commission should rezone the area, <br />613 <br />and in the zoning rules the language could be tightened up to protect the <br />614 <br />interests of both parties. <br />615 <br />Commissioner Gisselquist spoke in support of designating the parcels <br />616 <br />Community Business in keeping with the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan; <br />617 <br />providing that the zoning regulations be put in place to protect both parties, <br />618 <br />based on public comment. <br />619 <br />Commissioner Wozniak spoke in support of guiding the parcels as Community <br />620 <br />Business, while being sensitive to the adjacent neighbors and their concerns <br />621 <br />related to traffic. Commissioner Wozniak noted that he would not want to see his <br />622 <br />neighborhood street used for access by a busy commercial area such as Har <br />623 <br />Mar; and echoed statements made by other commissioners to ensure protection <br />624 <br />to avoid any additional access. However, Commissioner Wozniak did not rule out <br />625 <br />access to nearby streets based on other potential redevelopment options and <br />626 <br />might allow access to neighboring streets without accessing the entire mall, with <br />627 <br />potential development on the southern parcels accessing the surrounding <br />628 <br />neighborhood rather than the mall itself, but based on development-specific <br />629 <br />criteria, speaking in support of other types of business uses that would have <br />630 <br />great potential in a medium density area. <br />631 <br />Commissioner Best spoke in support of the Community Business designation, <br />632 <br />with zoning code language needing to specifically address Community Business <br />633 <br />uses meeting residential uses. <br />634 <br />Commissioner Boerigter concurred with other commissioners speaking in support <br />635 <br />of Community Business designation, noting there may be certain situations <br />636 <br />where additional access would be appropriate, however, couldn’t provide a <br />637 <br />specific situation unless the entire site were to be redeveloped. Commissioner <br />638 <br />Boerigter opined that Community Business designated zoning areas would <br />639 <br />create interaction, with other such designations throughout the City also close to <br />640 <br />residential, creating the initial debates in considering whether the Har Mar Mall <br />641 <br />and Target sites should be designated Regional or Community Business. <br />642 <br />Commissioner Boerigter opined that it didn’t make sense to designate a parking <br />643 <br />R-1. Commissioner Boerigter further observed that if discussion was how <br />644 <br />Commercial Business zoning meshed with neighboring residential properties, this <br />645 <br />was a prime example; and opined that there was no rationale to indicate that the <br />646 <br />southern portion was off limits and excluded from the Commercial Business <br />647 <br />designation, any more than a portion of the northern half adjacent to the <br />648 <br />apartment buildings. Commissioner Boerigter concurred with the need to <br />649 <br />seriously consider and think through the intent of Community Business and <br />650 <br />medium density as it developed zoning code language and definitions for parcels <br />651 <br />throughout the community, not just this specific area. <br />652 <br />Unidentified male audience member who previously read the <br />653 <br />Comprehensive Plan Purpose Statement <br />654 <br />The unidentified speaker suggested that the Commission remain consistent with <br />655 <br />the Statement of Purpose and related designations as to protecting residential <br />656 <br />areas; questioning if the commission was in fact doing so. <br />657 <br />Chair Doherty advised that the Planning Commission, for the record and by <br />658 <br />majority consensus, found no need to change the designation of Community <br />659 <br />Business for these parcels; noting that Commissioner Cook would support the <br />660 <br />parcels remaining Single-Family Residential. <br />661 <br />Cedric Adams, 556 West County Road C (SE corner of County Road C and <br />662 <br />Dale Street) – Request that property, currently zoned Single-family <br />663 <br />Residential be retained for LDR-1 zoning ( <br />PIN 12-29-23-22-0003) <br />664 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.