2008_1013_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. recent plans and in�pult from residents sulpport keeping big box retail oust of redevelopment in Twin Lakes. 2) She sulggested that the Comp Plan does not cover implementatim of the plan. Strategies and processes for implementatim are needed and past plans have failed dune to lack of implementatim planning. She stated that open hioulses are not enough and the City needs more citizen in�pult and participation. 3,) She expressed her sulpport for Dan Roe's compromise position on how to address master plans in the Comp Plan. She stated that the fact that the Twin Lakes Master Plan was incorporated into the Comp Plan was not a factor in the lawsulit against the City. 3. Mark Ran�con�e, Roseville Properties — He has sent a letter to the City (Attachment B) regarding his opposition to the proposed land ulse designation for his property located within the Twin Lakes redevelopment area. He also caultion�ed the SC to be carefull not to assulm�e that a small vocal minority represents the majority of Roseville's citizens. 4. Ray Sch�reulrs, 3058 Wilder Street North — why do residents of the Twin Lakes area continuously have to defend the Twin Lakes Master Plan's position against big box retail? He believes it is becaulse of the motives of property owners along County Road C and Cleveland Avenue. He also doesn't believe there is a need for bulildin�g Twin Lakes Parkway uln�less big box retail is developed here. 5. Karen (Milton, 293,9 Mildred Drive —Her property abults Langton Lake. She was a member of the Twin Lakes stakeholder panel. She disagrees with Mr. Ran�con�e's statement regarding a vocal minority being against Twin Lakes development. She is opposed to additional big box retail development in Twin Lakes dune to traffic and water qulality concerns in the lake. She stated that Roseville already has one of the highest rates of retail per capita. 1111. Review Results of August Open House Fifield provided an overview of the open h�oulse focusing on the level of turnout of residents and the limited written feedback. He sulggested that the SC may want to think aboult other forms of feedback that coulld occulr dulrin�g the six-month review process of the draft updated Comp Plan. John Goedeke expressed his disappointment in the level of attendance. us =0 Fifield explained that all qulestion�s were previewed in the SC meeting memo that went oust with the meeting agenda. The sequlen�ce of the qulestion�s for the meeting has been revised based on sulggestion�s from City Staff. SC will be asked to vote on their preferred response to each qu�estion�. Minority opinions will be accommodated. Minority reports mulct be submitted by September 24 1h Bakemm asked whether the "m�in�ority report),) process described by Fifield was intended to replace the process that was described in the SC meeting memo. Fifield responded affirmatively. IhIm asked aboult how the decision was made to take a vote on these qulestion�s. She expressed her concern that minority reports coulld make the process more divisive and political. She was also concerned that this process is very different from the SC approval process ulsed ulp to now for the Comp Plan Update project. Trudgem asked whether lh�lan�'s concern was regarding the minority report process or the voting process. IhIm responded that both processes were a concern for her.