pm_040804 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

acres, the developers propose approximately 600 homes (over 1,000 in the three phases), 300,000 square feet of multi-floor office space, and between 300,000 and 350,000 square feet of retail space. (By way of comparison Har- Mar is about 450,000 square feet.) In addition the developers are considering a re-alignment to Twin Lakes Parkway to adapt to their internal traffic flows. Welsch introduced Adam Arvidsen, Michael Noonan, John Johannson, and Tim Whitten. Adam Arvidsen, consulting planner, provided a review of the Stakeholder process. The proposed project has more housing and retail (and less office space) than the Adopted (June 2001) Twin Lakes Master Plan amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to considering whether an amendment to the comprehensive plan is necessary, the city and developer will have to review the project impacts and determine whether notice of reduced impact amendment or a full scale amendment must be done for the Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR). The developer will then file an application for concept approval of a Planned Unit Development and a preliminary plat. The approximate phase 1, 70 acre parcel lies between County Road C and C-2 and between Cleveland and Fairview Avenues. Interspersed in this site are four new (less than 10 years old) one story Ryan hi-tech-flex or office buildings, as well as McGough's new buildings, all of which will remain in the development. The current Rottlund proposal has two options, each of which would reduce the traffic projected in the 2001 AUAR by 40%. Option One is considered the continuous Twin Lakes Parkway option which follows the original master plan site layout, except for more retail north of the parkway nearer to Cleveland. Housing surrounds Langton Lake, some additional parkway and walking trails and new park edges are added to Langton Lake and Drainage Ditch 4 as well as Oasis Park. The traffic consultant (Steve Wilson of SRF) projects that this alternative will cause fewer vehicles (staff estimate 500 to 1,000 daily) to turn north or continue north on Fairview into the existing neighborhood. Option Two is considered the Loop Road, Non-Continuous access from Cleveland to Fairview option. While similar to Option One, it has a direct or easier access to Langton Lake because the Parkway crossing the site has been disconnected and reduced in size to reflect the residential uses which are adjacent to it. Housing surrounds Langton Lake, some additional parkway and walking trails and new park edges are added to Langton Lake and Drainage Ditch 4 as well as Oasis Park. Mr. Welsch suggested that the Commission provide Rottlund Homes, Mr. Noonan and City staff with comments, direction and and/or any questions pertaining to the development proposal. Member Traynor liked integrity of park, lake and closeness of housing to park. Location of Big Box could be at C and Cleveland with smaller stores north and east, nearer to the residential areas. Why break up Twin Lakes Parkway? It moves traffic better in a tasteful manner. This is not a "main street", but something different, like a mix of housing types and affordable. It needs an entertainment complex and independent restaurants - model after Centennial Lakes. The park is the public amenity, focus on it, and add to it. Showcase for the "sense of place". Member Doherty asked if the City will have a say in whom the Big Box is? John Johanson explained the differences between Big Boxes. Member Doherty asked in Phase 1 (70 acres) how much will be devoted to Big Box (13-14 acres), retail (20 acres), office (8 acres), residential (30 acres). Chair Mulder asked if there will be "mixed use buildings". John Johannson explained that Twin Lakes will not have a "main street" because of prohibition on parking on Parkway and the direct access to the freeway. Only 20-30,000 s.t. of office above retail could be done in this plan. Member Doherty asked if Phase 1 (600 homes on 30 acres, no single family, some townhomes) - could be ten units to 30 units per acre. Member Doherty asked about the 300,000 square feet of multi-level office at C-2 and Cleveland, and said he did not like the jog in the Parkway. A general discussion of financing strategies ensued. Member Doherty asked what is done in winter on open spaces; are there people using them in winter? (limited use) Could the park area be more manicured? He asked if small retail will lease up (yes). Member Bakeman commented that traffic management\control is an imperative; solve County Road C and D from today through 2020. Show if this would be a fully functioning truck terminal in 2020. Chair Mulder asked what happens with traffic. Mr. Noonan explained that the Parkway carries more traffic, but less traffic goes north on Fairview. Chair Mulder advised he struggled with disjointed parkway. Deb Bloom agreed. The County will have issues with it; p.m. peak hour traffic and capacity is important. Member Pust appreciated respectful approach to Stakeholders. If not office uses at C-2 and Cleveland, what use is proposed? (Multi-family). A sub-neighborhood could be created. What are the price points for housing? (High end seniors, empty nesters, young professionals with mid-point $250-350,000) He asked if this retail will hurt Rosedale. John Johannson noted this (Roseville) is a very strong market. Rosedale itself is trying to develop a life style retail center at the Mervyns site. Competition is good for this market.