CC_Minutes_2015_0622 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

V" Pat Trudgeon From: mccormicklm@aol.com Sent: Sunday,June 21, 2015 9:27 PM To: *RVCouncil Subject: Information relating to Monday's Twin Lakes Agenda Item re: height, 24 hour uses, Big Box, etc. Attachments: Twin Lakes Data-unformatted raw.docx; Excerpts from Twin Lakes Survey Results PPT - Subareas 4 -5.docx; 2015_0616_HRA_Hotel Motel Study - NOTES.pdf; 2015_0622 _Building sizes - Roseville.pdf Mayor and Members of the Roseville City Council: I see that Twin Lakes is once again on the agenda for Monday's council meeting. So that you have more time to consider this input,I am sending it in advance of the meeting. I was discouraged by the fact that the results of the Twin Lakes Planning Survey were not provided as reference as part of the last discussion on this topic—especially since the issue of 24-hour operations was a specific question on the survey. Height was another topic that was also frequently noted in the survey results. I'm attaching a revised version of the document I showed at the council meeting. I updated the businesses listed to include more of the current buildings in the Twin Lakes Area. I think the 100,000 sq. ft.recommended by staff is excessive and inconsistent with other more recent development in Twin Lakes. Given the significant amount of time that residents were asked to contribute in completing these surveys,I would appreciate knowing that you have at least taken them into consideration in your deliberations. To that end,I have copied into a Word document,the sections relating to the prior Subarea 4(the area north of Terrace Drive)and Subarea 5 (the area fronting Fairview from Co Rd C north). To minimize any question that I may have skewed the results provided,I am also attaching the source document—the unformatted raw data results that were available upon request(as indicated on the Twin Lakes planning page). I would hope that you would review the written comments associated with these subareas. I also think it's worth mentioning that in Subarea 4—light industrial,limited processing/warehousing were all"below the line"(see page 11)in the Survey Results PPt presentation compiled by Paul Bilotta.These results are available at http://www.cityofroseville.com/DocumentCenterNiew/17192 . On page 5,you'll note that the areas with the highest level of satisfaction were Subareas 5&6,which are currently parcels with lower density commercial uses and generally one story in height. As you hopefully recall,subsidy in general was NOT desired by the residents in any of the subareas for any land use. As you consider this input,please remember that with notices sent City-wide,only approx. 130 people attended the planning session, of those,I think only 66 surveys were returned. Letters were also submitted and included in the comment sections of the survey results. The petitions that were submitted from residents in the immediate area impacted by any development in Twin Lakes, contained approx. 80 signatures—more than the survey results. You dismissed the petition concerning Subarea 4 requesting that the area be rezoned MDR. The petition requesting certain conditions be applied to the Twin Lakes area included: 1. Concentrate greater height and densities closer to major arterial roads such Co.Rd.C and Cleveland(rather than Fairview); 2. Height restriction to maximum of 2 stories within 1000 feet of LDR parcels; 3. For businesses—limited hours of operation;no 24/7 operations;and 4. Preferences for uses include A)Office/Business Park as defined in Section 1006.04 along with design standards as outlined under Employment District;and B)MDR owner-occupied housing or HDR1 housing according to above standards. (These uses provide positive tax benefit to the City by providing new housing options and employment opportunities while being a more appropriate transition between residential and higher-density commercial uses.) Finally,I had the opportunity to watch the HRA meeting held on 6/16 and found the Hotel/Motel Study quite interesting. One of the take-aways I got from the presentation included that the factors that constituted a"magnet"for crime,referenced by Chief Mathwig, included"cheap"rooms and location close to 36 and I35. I ask that you please keep this in mind and correlate cheap rooms with other "discount"establishments that may add to this magnetic effect. Thanks, 1