CC_Minutes_2008_1013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~~,,_~-C _~;~-ate. September 11 Ste~~rin; Com,nittee Meeting Sepcen,b~-r 4, 2008 Poke 6 because the various corners now designated for Neighborhood Business areas throughout the city are populated with differing sized buildings. Because no generalized standard could be identified, we dropped any size limitation from that defined ~onc,/area. Nevertheless, we have continued to include a square footage limitation, specifically a limitation of no buildings massed at more than 100,000 square feet, in a Community Business area. The Both stated (I know I have ar Icast stated it out loud) and unstated rationale for this limitation is to keep "Big Box" developments out of Roseville. No other rationale has even been hinted at in the discussions of the Steering Committee that I've attended. In the past, the "keep out the Big Box" argument has generally been made b}~ some, and nor all, voices in the community only with reference to the Twin Lakes area of Roseville. Nevertheless, the new ]and use designations in the Comp Plan Update include this 100,000 square foot limitation on all properties designated as a Community Business area. This designation is applied not only to Twin Lakes, but also to the Target site located on Sncaling and County Road B and to the HarMar site as well. By including the 100,000 square foot designation on all Comnnmiry Business areas, the Steering Committee is recommending, in effect, that the city ban any economically viable redevelopment of the HarMar site into the future. Why is this statement true.' Because by designating the HarMar site as "Community Business" and continuing to apply the definitional limitation of a 100,000 square footage limitation, HarMar in the future will be required to be a sea of asphalt with one ]00,000 squam foot building sitting on it. That will leave an awful lot of asphalt, as is shown in the attached illustration in which the red box approximates a 100,000 square foot structure. This result makes no sense to me. Some will point out that the definition of Community Business would allow more than one 100,000 square foot building, and will suggest that a c{eveloper will. be pleased to put up several 100,000 square foot buildings on the HarMar site. In response, I ask you to em~ision 4 of the red boxes on the attached document, all linked either by sidewalks (for summer use) anti,/or skytivays (f~,r winter use), and challenge you to explain why that configuration makes sense on this site and%or represents More the type of redevelopment anal redesign that the community will prefer in the future. Much like the new portion of Rosedale where many customers actually drive from one store to another rather than access the businesses through a a~mmon area, this plan will come to fruition with the accompanying traffic snarls, overly lit signage and competing hours of operation that each business will need to attract customers to a specific corner of the large area. Again, this makes no sense to me. For these reasons, I support the reu~uval of this square footage re;tricti<~n from the definition .;f Community Business. Dan Roe It will probably not be a mystery that I would suggest that the 2 key items 1 sec <n~tsr,nding are the Master Plans question and the Couimuniry Business definition (and the Har Mar and perhaps Twin Lake; ~CMU IinkedJ ramifications). I had asked Pat Trudgeon ti> talk a hit with Har Mar and Target abut their ruction to the proposed CB designation, and would be curious to knew their response. Also, I think we may have to "generalize" the CB definition language to offer a range of square footages (like the original 1-35W Coalition language on which the definitions were based, qualified with more words like "generally" and "approximately," and even "of the order of magnitude," or the like.