2014_0915_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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