My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_0818_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2014
>
2014_0818_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2014 4:02:47 PM
Creation date
8/14/2014 1:54:37 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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
2.“Big Box” retail. Big box retail is currently not restricted significantly in the Twin <br />29 <br />Lakes area, although the regulating plan includes some block face standards that may <br />30 <br />make it difficult to develop some big box concepts. Regulating plans can be used to be <br />31 <br />much more prescriptive regarding where and in what form big box retail is to be located, <br />32 <br />but currently those kinds of standards are not in the Roseville code.The proposed text <br />33 <br />amendments would still enable big box retail to occur throughout the Twin Lakes area <br />34 <br />but would remove the regulating plan that has likely been keeping some big box <br />35 <br />development away. Of course, some Twin Lakes locations are likely not suitable from <br />36 <br />the market’s perspective due to visibility and low traffic volumes, so the market would <br />37 <br />probably concentrate big box retail on Cleveland, County Road C, Fairview or the <br />38 <br />southwest corner of the Langton Lake area. <br />39 <br />The proposed amendments will not place any significant limitations on the location of big <br />40 <br />box development in Twin Lakes besides the city’s typical building permit level design <br />41 <br />standards. Roseville has traditionally been a very difficult location to develop big box <br />42 <br />retail due to the lack of large enough redevelopment sites with commercial zoning. <br />43 <br />Therefore, if standards are relaxed for big box retail, it could be expected that this use <br />44 <br />would be one that may have pent up demand and enter the area quickly and at a large <br />45 <br />scale. <br />46 <br />3.Park borders. The areas adjacent to Langton Lake and Oasis Parks appear to be some of <br />47 <br />the primary areas of neighborhood concern needing additional protection. The proposed <br />48 <br />text amendments provide a small landscape buffer adjacent to parks of 20 feet which is <br />49 <br />adequate for landscaped trail connections, and then has a maximum height step down as <br />50 <br />the primary park border protections. No limitations on uses are proposed in the areas <br />51 <br />around Langton Lake Park or Oasis Park. <br />52 <br />4.Confusion between “regulating plan” the tool and the “Cuningham Plan”.There have <br />53 <br />been some desires expressed in the neighborhood to see the area developed with an <br />54 <br />undefined level of enhanced design oversight, such as PUDs, charettes, etc. while also <br />55 <br />mentioning dissatisfaction with the current regulating plan. On the surface, these two <br />56 <br />statements appear to be somewhat at odds because the regulating plan as a tool is the <br />57 <br />common way to do what the neighborhood is indicating it might want (since PUDs are <br />58 <br />voluntary and charettes don’t have regulatory power on their own). It may be that the <br />59 <br />stated opposition to the “regulating plan” may be more in terms of the actual <br />60 <br />“Cuningham Plan” that was created rather than the tool. <br />61 <br />Whether there is confusion or not on this issue in the community, one structural problem <br />62 <br />with the Cuningham Plan, as implemented, is that it was adopted directly into the City <br />63 <br />Code, making it more inflexible. Regulating plans often are modified as development <br />64 <br />occurs and the developers’ designers offer their own creative solutions. By incorporating <br />65 <br />the plan directly into the City Code, it would have been very difficult to incorporate that <br />66 <br />sort of flexibility. The alternative approach to using regulating plans would have been to <br />67 <br />treat them more like “mandatory PUDs” which do not get written into the City Code. <br />68 <br />5.Mandatory EAW. As this memo was being prepared, staff has received feedback from a <br />69 <br />developer that the EAW process is too lengthy and interferes with their ability to break <br />70 <br />ground as scheduled next spring. They would like the City to consider waiving that <br />71 <br />requirement. <br />72 <br />73 <br />Twin Lakes Text Amendment 081314 (3).doc <br />Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.