My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0716
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0716
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/17/2012 12:59:07 PM
Creation date
8/17/2012 12:58:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/16/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
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
Regular City Council Meeting AND <br /> Board of Adjustments and Appeals <br /> Monday,July 16, 2012 <br /> Page 33 <br /> Mr. Rancone reviewed the history of this project in Twin Lakes since 2001 and the five years <br /> taken to develop a mixed use plan for the eighty (80) acres under their ownership in the Twin <br /> Lakes Redevelopment Area for comprehensive mixed use development in line with the City's <br /> Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rancone noted the development in 2001 of the Twin Lakes Master <br /> Plan showing this corner as service with retail uses included. Mr. Rancone clarified that the <br /> intersection of County Road C and Cleveland Avenue provided for, and had always been in- <br /> tended, for a natural commercial use, not residential use. <br /> Mr. Rancone noted the first proposal in 2006 with the Costco proposal. With the Costco pro- <br /> posal, Mr. Rancone noted that there had been a Twin Lakes Stakeholder panel, which included <br /> fourteen (14) Roseville citizens, who spent six (6) months determining the best uses for that <br /> area. Mr. Rancone opined that there appeared to be a misunderstanding of what a mixed use <br /> plan consisted of, noting that while one large retailer was indicated to prompt and support other <br /> uses, it had been a majority conclusion that this was the route to follow. Mr. Rancone noted <br /> that there had been concerns expressed about additional retail at that time as well; however, <br /> based on a comprehensive analysis by staff, a professional urban planner, and citizens serving <br /> on that panel, it was their conclusion that the area could support a larger retail use as a draw for <br /> other supportive retail and residential uses. <br /> Mr. Rancone addressed another apparent disconnect, and noted that this parcel represented less <br /> than 1/10 of the development parcel; and that that small portion did not exclude mixed uses, <br /> whether or not additional retail is indicated. Mr. Rancone noted that, depending on the mar- <br /> ketplace, both in 2001 and now in 2012, other uses may be indicated, and had included upper- <br /> scale senior residential uses as well. <br /> Continuing his review of the history of attempting to develop this property, Mr. Rancone noted <br /> that, in 2001 and initial development of a Costco use at this site, the map called for service use <br /> on that corner. <br /> With the 2004 Stakeholder's Panel, and an 11th hour Court of Appeals by The Friends of Twin <br /> Lakes, and another court case fighting development, Mr. Rancone noted that the Court of Ap- <br /> peals had clearly stated that they were not throwing the case out due to the proposed "big box <br /> retailer," since, while not recommended in the Plan, it was not precluded; but had made their <br /> decision based on the City's practice of attaching Master Plans to its Comprehensive Plan. Mr. <br /> Rancone noted, therefore, that based on that taking a super majority vote, and the Plan requir- <br /> ing four (4) votes to move forward, it was lacking that super majority. Mr. Rancone reiterated <br /> that their decision was not based on Costco as a proposed use, but the decision-making process <br /> itself. Mr. Rancone noted that Roseville had subsequently taken that system out of play to <br /> avoid a repeat. With that Court ruling, Mr. Rancone noted that a five (5) year project in the <br /> making went down the tubes, as well as residential uses proposed for the development; and ul- <br /> timately another Roseville business, Rottlund Homes, going out of business as a result. Since <br /> then, Mr. Rancone noted that there had been no interest in the market place for an office build- <br /> ing, no hospital, or any other pieces or uses. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.