2012_0709_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

AttachmentF Member Strohmeier stated that he still had issues of apparent conflict, when focusing on District 10, 45 Future Land Use Section, and the portion about Twin Lakes and shopping as a primary focus of land 46 use. 47 Mr. Lloyd advised that the Twin Lakes area was generally described from Cleveland Avenue west to 48 almost Snelling Avenue, and north to County Road C-2 and even beyond excluding Langton Lake Park. 49 Mr. Lloyd noted that this was a large area with many existing developments that are relatively new (e.g. 50 medical office) that were not retail; however, he also noted that there were a significant number of 51 parcels that remained vacant and were ready for development. The fact that this is the first proposal for 52 redevelopment in the area, Mr. Lloyd noted, just happened to be a retail use. Mr. Lloyd responded from 53 staff’s perspective, that there remained a lot of room for other uses as the area develops; and if it became 54 apparent that retail was becoming the main focus for development in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment 55 Area, it would then no longer be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 56 City Planner Thomas Paschke referenced the AUAR for Subarea 1, bounded by Cleveland Avenue, 57 County Road C, and Fairview Avenue, which document gauges maximum thresholds in place governing 58 the types of uses; noting that the AUAR identified retail for the subject area and noted that further 59 development may create a threshold for too much retail in a given area. Mr. Paschke noted that, 60 obviously, that would only become apparent as the area expanded further, and that the AUAR document 61 would be used in judging any and all development or redevelopment, and tied to the recently-adopted 62 overlay district requirements. 63 Based on his personal review, Member Strohmeier opined that the staff report’s contention that this 64 proposal was consistent with the Twin Lakes Master Plan (page 11) suggests that the area should not be 65 recommended for large scale, big box retail, and sought staff’s response. 66 Mr. Lloyd advised that the simplest response would be that it was also not prohibited; and that it was not 67 a goal of the Master Redevelopment Plan to prohibit big box retail as it prohibited some industrial uses. 68 As with any review, Mr. Lloyd noted that this development proposal may not fully achieve every goal 69 and aspiration of the document, but this proposal was more or less consistent, and this specific retail use 70 provides for some of the same things recommended in the Plan. 71 Member Wozniak questioned if this was the only Public Hearing on this development; with Mr. Lloyd 72 responding that it was the only legally required hearing. Mr. Lloyd advised that the only reason for the 73 Public Hearing requirement was due to the applicant’s request for the disposal of the property and the 74 Plat itself, and the need for discussion in this venue and format. Mr. Lloyd noted that the Preliminary 75 Plat would not live or die with the analysis of the land proposed for disposal by the City; with nothing 76 else in the proposed development triggering a Public Hearing, unless Wal-Mart found the need for a 77 variance or other site issue in the future as the project developed. 78 Chair Boerigter sought clarification of the interaction of Preliminary Plat approval with the 79 Comprehensive Plan, AUAR and Twin Lakes Plan. Chair Boerigter questioned if additional traffic 80 control measures were part of the Preliminary Plat approval. 81 Mr. Lloyd advised that, as for the Plat itself, there was really no correlation with any of those 82 documents, other than superficially, since the Comprehensive Plan addressed transportation, but the 83 AUAR addressed transportation more specifically. Mr. Lloyd noted that when Twin Lakes Parkway was 84 constructed as part of the City of Roseville’s proactive infrastructure investment to facilitate 85 redevelopment in the Twin Lakes area, it was not related to this specific development but the overall 86 Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, with each project, including this proposed Wal-Mart development, 87 reliant on roadway connections. Mr. Lloyd advised that the traffic analysis for this particular 88 development, as a requirement for all proposals, was still under preparation, to determine if additional 89 traffic amenities were indicated (e.g. signals or additional turn lanes), staff did not anticipate that this 90 Page2of14