pm_041014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

AI Sands, 2612 Aldine, explained industrial uses and the history of planning and land uses. The B-6 zone was explained as was the PUD process. The big box does not conform to the 2001 staff report. The big box draws from the region, contrary to drawing from the local area. He read Resolution #9904 defining a business park. Any plan with a "big box" is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the City Zoning Ordinance. This is a back door moratorium on any use other than those proposed by the developer. Mr. Sands said only one developer actually owns property. Almost one-half of the site is not within developer control. Rezoning is premature and this project is not consistent with the B-6 zone. Mr. Sands asked if the Planning Commission is by-passing the amendment to the comprehensive plan? Should the comprehensive plan be changed? Is this spot zoning? Should the Metropolitan Council review this? Is the Rottlund plan consistent with the mixed business park? Shelia McComb, 3092 Mount Ridge Road, said her road is one block east of Cleveland. There are children and young families. Traffic is not being addressed if there is retail; the neighborhood will be impacted Wal-Mart and Target are expanding. Highway 36 and 35W are congested; 20,000 more cars will make it congested in her neighborhood. What is the economic responsibility here? Jobs are not paying well and fewer residents are participating. Her local taxes went up $50, while a school in Mounds View will close. What will this cost her? Property value is a worry; three homes are for sale. In her neighborhood young families are moving. Della Gunard, 1716 Ryan Avenue West, explained the traffic in her neighborhood is very bad. Fairview traffic already backs up. Adding more retail adds more problems to traffic. She expressed concern with taxes for this project; the impact is hard on seniors. Dave Seaberg, 3167 Fairview, said he cannot get into his Fairview driveway now. No additional retail is needed. The density of the residential area is too high. There will be 1,400 cars (from 730 units). With less density, four- plexes with children could live there. How many trees will be removed from the Park? (none) Roseville does not need more retail. Dick Houck, 1131 Roselawn, is concerned about the concept, not the finished plan. He said the Council has already had hearings on this. The developer doesn't own all the property; eminent domain may be used. The Council may be a developer (he does not agree). Eminent domain has not been discussed to date; it is an abuse of power. Mr. Houck is opposed to the use of eminent domain - it stifles creativity. The decision regarding development should be market driven. Mr. Houck cited "Abuse of power". Elizabeth Alverado, 1903 County Road D, said the project is over ambitious. The infrastructure cannot handle the traffic - should be on a much smaller scale project. County D will be very difficult. This project would be good in Woodbury. There is not enough access to the freeway. Use the funding to improve Roseville. Howard Wagner, 1148 Autumn, said in the Stakeholder's meeting, the developer may over-run the City of Roseville - he is opposed to proposal. Gale Pederson, 929 Roselawn, Stakeholder panel member, representing a medical office said the medical CEO is excited about 730 new housing units. The retail can be supportive to Roseville. High density housing is for seniors and professionals. Other phases could add children. Traffic can be worked out. The tax base and services in Roseville will benefit the city. There will be no bad impact on Langton Lake because of the shoreland management ordinance and the Park Commission. Hicri Koroylu, 1673 County Road C2, wanted an explanation of what expenses the city will have in year one through ten. What will be the gains, losses? Why should we support this? Barb Simon, 1709 Lydia Avenue, explained she was concerned about traffic, especially between 4:00 - 5:30 p.m., on Fairview. Twin Lakes should be redeveloped, but she is concerned about a regional big box draw. Traffic, environment, and eminent domain are of concern. Meg Downer-Carlson, 1770 Lydia Avenue, said her three children cannot cross Lydia because of traffic. With more traffic, living on Lydia will be difficult. With a big box her house will not be valued as highly. She spoke of traffic back-ups in the area. Speed is 30 mph but police must be there because of 40-45 mile per hour traffic. Trucks should be eliminated. An office park is preferred. She explained that the Byerly's Center is constantly changing shops. She objects to the proposed plan. Craig Christenson, 2585 Wheeler, a member of the Stakeholder panel, supported the non-residential design near the busy streets. He liked the industrial plan and use in Phase 2. Traffic is a problem. The density of the proposed housing was too high. He objected to the use of TIF. Tim Callahan, 3062 Shorewood Lane, expressed concern with the shoreland management district if the PUD is treated as one lot. The coverage of the site is required to be 30%. He explained that the shoreland overlay is 1,000