pm_041014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

feet from OHWL. The open space must be 50% or more. The ordinance applies to the developer's land. The 30 foot height is limited to a residential PUD. A four story building is more than 30 feet. Why is the ordinance thought of as an impediment? Why is the B-6 zone the underlying zone? Why is this possible? Is the big box in B-6 allowed? A big box is a non conforming use; why/how can it be rebuilt? Larry Sullivan, 3092 Fairview, a Stakeholder panel member, expressed concern about regional development. The regional impacts are not taken into account. There are changes to come all along 35W. He is concerned about traffic on Fairview, Lydia, and County Road D. What has the Planning Commission done with the Metropolitan Council? Tim Kotecki, 3078 Mount Ridge Road, 3078 Mt. Ridge Road, a Stakeholder panelist, expressed concern about too much retail and traffic. He said there are 204 stores in the area. He provided a list of the stores. More retail will impact existing retail. There are 68 restaurants within two miles; too many. The traffic on Fairview will increase; the road is at capacity now. Traffic (comparing the AUAR to the proposal) has 2% less traffic based on the cars on the road. ----- ten minute break ----- 9:30 p.m. Terry Moses, 1776 Maple Lane, explained the rezoning for the Indianhead property (1987). He said the comprehensive plan is not being adhered to. He objected to the proposal. He explained how the property has not been developed, based on the Ryan Development Agreement through 2003. The parkway is not needed. The stand still traffic on 35W will enter the neighborhood through the parkway. It will force the County to widen Fairview and County road D to be four lanes. The tax base will not grow for 25 years. Development along the edges of the park should be opposed. Buffer the park from the residences. He prefers office buildings with only weekday traffic. How will deep excavations impact ground water and the lake? There will be 2000 new residents and no new park. The visual and new resident impact on the park will overburden the park. There will be more noise in the park. The back yards of the new homes will be the park, affecting wildlife. There needs to be balance between residence and retail. Quality of life is very important and should be protected. Dan Roe, 2100 Avon Street, a Stakeholder panelist, suggested review of www.rcl.org for details. He asked if "improvement or do nothing" is an issue? The 2001 office plan generated less average daily trips (56-70,000 vs. 36-40,000 trips). County Road C is already being widened. The big box is different, but the plans do say retail can be placed in B-6 with PUD conditions. The proposed plan is an improvement. The 2001 plan is not feasible. In Phases 2 and 3 there is no retail. The proposal is better than the current industrial uses or to create another plan. Ray Schreurs, 3058 N. Wilder, explained problems with traffic from 35W and Cleveland at County Road D. How could the Twin Lakes plan be changed? It supports regional shopping. He is opposed to the project. Joe Machyowsky, 2690 N. Oxford, expressed his concerns - is this in the best interest of the community? He opposes the project - it does not show a small town neighborhood, it is not Roseville's image. It will cost the taxpayers $40 million to subsidize developers. The new retail is not needed. Big box will threaten existing business. It will wreck the neighborhood with noise and traffic. Retail creates blight on the Cleveland and "c" corner. This will be an uninviting area adjacent to County Road "C". "c" is important; big box is uninviting - a park, green space or offices would be fine. Find a different approach; reject the proposal. Carole Erickson, 2925 Mildred Drive, said the area is very important. In the 1970s there was opposition to the original park. The edges around Langton Lake are blighted and need to be cleaned up. She is in favor of the proposal. The city must be progressive and clean up the site. The Comprehensive Plan is a guide not an obstruction. Stephen Carlson, 1770 Lydia Avenue, explained that the city must understand the impacts on the neighborhood. Traffic must be addressed. Phosphorus in the lake must be addressed; the imperviousness (78%) surfaces must addressed; open space must be set aside (10-15%) - not given away. What is the public value? What will the costs of support be? Katherine Smith, 1784 Maple Lane, opposed the "small urban walking area". Seniors could not cross the parkway or Prior. This is not a walking community. Traffic pollution, lower property values, eminent domain are objections; she is opposed to TIF expenditure. She is opposed to big box - is it really better than doing nothing? She urged "doing nothing" at this time. There is not enough information. Defer for more meetings or reject at this time. Tam McGehee, 77 Mid Oaks Ln., expressed concern with traffic. The AUAR is so different. A new AUAR is needed. Environmental issues have not been explored. It is not a good fit for the city. Delay or turn the project down. Terry Moses, 1776 Maple, said new industrial could not be built on the site. It is contrary to the comprehensive