My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2015_0622
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
CC_Minutes_2015_0622
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2015 1:28:00 PM
Creation date
7/10/2015 4:05:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/22/2015
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
152
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
V" <br /> Pat Trudgeon <br /> From: mccormicklm@aol.com <br /> Sent: Sunday,June 21, 2015 9:27 PM <br /> To: *RVCouncil <br /> Subject: Information relating to Monday's Twin Lakes Agenda Item re: height, 24 hour uses, Big <br /> Box, etc. <br /> Attachments: Twin Lakes Data-unformatted raw.docx; Excerpts from Twin Lakes Survey Results PPT - <br /> Subareas 4 -5.docx; 2015_0616_HRA_Hotel Motel Study - NOTES.pdf; 2015_0622 <br /> _Building sizes - Roseville.pdf <br /> Mayor and Members of the Roseville City Council: <br /> 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 <br /> am sending it in advance of the meeting. <br /> 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 <br /> discussion on this topic—especially since the issue of 24-hour operations was a specific question on the survey. <br /> Height was another topic that was also frequently noted in the survey results. I'm attaching a revised version of the document I <br /> showed at the council meeting. I updated the businesses listed to include more of the current buildings in the Twin Lakes Area. I <br /> think the 100,000 sq. ft.recommended by staff is excessive and inconsistent with other more recent development in Twin Lakes. <br /> Given the significant amount of time that residents were asked to contribute in completing these surveys,I would appreciate knowing <br /> that you have at least taken them into consideration in your deliberations. To that end,I have copied into a Word document,the <br /> sections relating to the prior Subarea 4(the area north of Terrace Drive)and Subarea 5 (the area fronting Fairview from Co Rd C <br /> north). To minimize any question that I may have skewed the results provided,I am also attaching the source document—the <br /> unformatted raw data results that were available upon request(as indicated on the Twin Lakes planning page). I would hope that you <br /> would review the written comments associated with these subareas. <br /> I also think it's worth mentioning that in Subarea 4—light industrial,limited processing/warehousing were all"below the line"(see <br /> page 11)in the Survey Results PPt presentation compiled by Paul Bilotta.These results are available at <br /> http://www.cityofroseville.com/DocumentCenterNiew/17192 . <br /> 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 <br /> density commercial uses and generally one story in height. <br /> As you hopefully recall,subsidy in general was NOT desired by the residents in any of the subareas for any land use. <br /> As you consider this input,please remember that with notices sent City-wide,only approx. 130 people attended the planning session, <br /> of those,I think only 66 surveys were returned. Letters were also submitted and included in the comment sections of the survey <br /> results. The petitions that were submitted from residents in the immediate area impacted by any development in Twin Lakes, <br /> contained approx. 80 signatures—more than the survey results. You dismissed the petition concerning Subarea 4 requesting that the <br /> area be rezoned MDR. The petition requesting certain conditions be applied to the Twin Lakes area included: <br /> 1. Concentrate greater height and densities closer to major arterial roads such Co.Rd.C and Cleveland(rather than Fairview); <br /> 2. Height restriction to maximum of 2 stories within 1000 feet of LDR parcels; <br /> 3. For businesses—limited hours of operation;no 24/7 operations;and <br /> 4. Preferences for uses include A)Office/Business Park as defined in Section 1006.04 along with design standards as outlined <br /> under Employment District;and B)MDR owner-occupied housing or HDR1 housing according to above standards. (These <br /> uses provide positive tax benefit to the City by providing new housing options and employment opportunities while being a <br /> more appropriate transition between residential and higher-density commercial uses.) <br /> 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 <br /> take-aways I got from the presentation included that the factors that constituted a"magnet"for crime,referenced by Chief Mathwig, <br /> 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 <br /> "discount"establishments that may add to this magnetic effect. <br /> Thanks, <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.