pm_001213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Nays: 0 Motion carries 5-0. b. Planning File 3232: A request by the City of Roseville to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area from its current designation of Business (B) and Industrial (I) to Business Park (BP), a new land use designation. The Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area is generally located east of Cleveland Avenue, west of Lincoln Drive, south of County Road C2 and Brenner Avenue, and north of County Road C. A map of the specific parcels can be obtained from the Roseville Community Development Department. Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested Cathy Bennett to explain the Twin Lakes proposed amendment to the Master Plan as provided in staff reports dated December 13, 2000. She reviewed goals and objectives and planning principles. Ms. Bennett explained the history, the planning process, and presented the staff recommendation. Member Mulder asked if fiscal disparities were figured into the financial feasibility. Member Mulder encouraged flexibility. This is a vision. There is no specific proposal "in the wings". Parking is important. How does the City get higher density/ramped parking? There will be new drainage and parking designs needed. Cars can be screened making a more open, inviting site. Member Olson noted in Option 3 proposed housing along the north side. There may be less of a mixing of uses. She noted that the CIP puts funding into Twin Lakes Parkway - explain. Member Cunningham asked if there was a demand for a hospital. Chair Klausing asked how the pieces would fit together. Could the Commission identify items that should be located there? Chair Klausing asked for detail about what the area might develop into. Member Rhody noted that this is a vision of a block of land uses which the City will invite proposals for new land uses over the next 20 years. Comments: Steve Miller, Dominium Truck Terminal/Freight, 2750 Cleveland Avenue, noting staff recommendation 3.5, asked what "intrusion" meant. What creates more of an intrusion, trucking or the other uses proposed by the staff? Low building quality does exist because the trucking industry will not reinvest without clear-cut assurances from the City. Trucking has economic hardships; diesel fuel is expensive; drivers are at $58.00/hour; but the relocation costs much more. It adds cost and congestion to freeways. Chair Klausing asked what options would occur for the land in the future. Mr. Miller recommended tabling the issue until property owners meet to resolve issues. Truck traffic is minimal. Can trucking remain and be compatible? Sean Regan said he liked the City's effort to plan for the future. The scenario 4 Fruehoff and Masa buildings (both of which Mr. Regan owns) are candidates for redevelopment. Traffic issues will be addressed in the AUAR. The staff recommendation scenario of multi-tech, high tech/flex, is in demand, but is the low value option. Mr. Regan asked for a retail scenario to be studied as well as the staff suggestions. How could a further discussion opportunity be created? The property owners may want to be heard. There are numerous financial issues that should be evaluated - especially the impact on property owners. Patricia Johnson, 2986 Mildred Drive, noted that Twin Lakes is an evolving process, not a wholesale change. An example of good planning was the results at Centre Pointe, after many years of no activity. She urged the Commission to more forward, creative tax base. Member Mulder noted that the City is not seizing land but planning for the future use of the land. He said the plan provides direction, but he does not want big-box retail. The staff recommendations are good, except there may be a need for boutique stores, deli and coffee shops. Chair Klausing noted that planning, moving in a direction, can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Delay by 30 or 60 days may not help. There are opportunities for input as the study process proceeds. Members Rhody and Olson felt that tabling the item would not help the process.