2004_1025_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

. 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 3 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 � industrialuses or to create another plan. tr T � r r� LI k'' � I� L� k� ' �1 L� �� � �� ?�F �� �? �;; ,� � �� �� �� �� �� ?�h �] 3? � 5 �� 3� 3b �" �� �9 �� �� �� �.� � 4$ �{, Ray Schreurs, 3058 N. Wilder, explainedproblems withtraffic 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. Carol Erickson, 2925 Mildred Drive, said the area is very important. In the 1970s there was opposition to the originalpark. 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. Tim 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 plan. Dave Seaberg, 3194 Fairview Avenue, explained that "doing nothing" provides taxes. With this project, city services will cost the city. Big box does not leave funds in Page 8 of 12 � � . �