My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012_0709_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2012
>
2012_0709_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/12/2012 2:46:09 PM
Creation date
7/5/2012 4:14:34 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
337
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
AttachmentB <br />Big box retail is not recommended <br />2. because of the following elements <br />(see page 11), all of which are going to be an issue for Roseville if and <br />when this Wal-Mart is built: <br />i. Increased level of traffic <br />ii. Longer hours of operation (this would be 24/7) <br />iii. Reduce quality and quantity of jobs created <br />1. Lower value of building finish <br />2. Large parking lots required due to parking demands <br />3. Section XIV on Land Use and Zoning states (see page 20):Retail is not <br />encouraged especially large scale regional and subregional big box <br />developments.The City has adopted a policy of not expanding retail area. <br />In addition, the City policy for redevelopment is to attract head-of- <br />4. In addition, the AUAR which governs this development and which formed <br />the basis of the Traffic Impact Analysis, did not take into account this scale <br />of development. At the time the AUAR was finalized in 2007 (and the Twin <br />Lakes BP Master Plan was finalized in 2001), this land was considered <br />Business Park district. Currently, BPD requires general retail sale to <br />adhere to Standards (see Table 1006-1 of Allowable Uses for Employment <br />Districts) which provide additional protections to the city. This is no longer <br />the case, and therefore the AUAR, based on a set of assumptions set <br />forth in the zoning, becomes less relevant to this development proposal. <br />5) <br />The Most Recent Staff Determination of Compliance Fundamentally <br />Misunderstands the Role of the Roseville Comp Plan <br />The Comprehensive Plan and its Land Use chapter is not a vision statement, as <br />articulated in the June 21st Staff Determination (page 6); but a guide for <br />uture development and a blueprint for the development of a Zoning <br />Ordinance. <br />City staff argue in their June 21st Determination letter (under Comprehensive <br />Plan Land Use Designations)thats are general <br />4 <br />developments.That is not the language which was used by city staff when the <br />Comp Plan was first drafted by city staff and reviewed and revised by the <br />Steering Committee. In fact, the vision statement element was found in the <br />previous community engagement process of Imagine Roseville 2025. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />SWARN Appeal--July 2, 2012 <br />6 <br />Page6of18 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.