Focus Area #1 - West Industrial Area Hwy 88 County Road D 2 Long Lake Road Cleveland Avenue Try to keep the lakes wild and clean Currently, this (1 and 2) is part of the school district but section 2 is being used as a park. As such the school district does not seem to want to take care of it, and Park & Rec is not allowed to. Can this area be re-zoned as a park? Our end of Roseville has no Parks (Midland does not count as it is private). Changing it to a park would ensure that it is taken care of and as neighbors we would be willing to help. B2 and Walnut is excellent access to Minneapolis Parkway. 2 I was looking forward to Cosco moving in!! Identify the changes in the places with dots or stripes many residents of retirement age would like to move but not out of Roseville, nice condos? Assisted living? Hwy 280 The Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain this area as a place for industrial jobs and for continued investment in new light industrial and office development. The highway-oriented commercial uses remain north of. Cleveland Avenue 1 2 Could this property (1 and 2) be leased from the School District by Roseville Park & Rec in the same way Evergreen Park is? Fairview fields are used by Park & Rec teams and the neighborhood. Up keep of this area needs more attention than the school district is giving. It needs park designation. What about all the empty offices elsewhere in Roseville? West Roseville Fairview on has NO PARKS. Incorporate walking path. School district needs to maintain property (1 and 2) at Fairview. Keep the Fairview field green space. Plant peripheral trees for wind break. Improve grounds surrounding community center with necessary green screen and trees. PAGE 1
Focus Area #2 - Twin Lakes Proposed Land Use Scenario 1 Proposed Land Use Scenario 2 Proposed Land Use Scenario 3 Cleveland Avenue Fariview Avenue Cleveland Avenue Fariview Avenue Cleveland Avenue Fariview Avenue These scenarios show different interpretations of existing plans for Twin Lakes. Scenario 1 concentrates on new job-intensive businesses with higher density housing and office as a buffer for adjacent neighborhoods. Scenario 2 expands the housing/office area around the lake and adds a retail area at /Cleveland. Scenario 3 proposes redevelopment that mixes housing, retail, services and office uses. Prefer scenario #2 would like to see new retail in place of older trucking, warehouse operations Scenario 1 with retail added from #2 makes the most sense to me. Mixed use designation should be avoided. How about a community pool? New access road through, by, Langston Lake good idea for Abandoned Area. I would vote for Scenario #2. I like the idea of a high density housing to buffer. The retail zone should remain neighborhood/community oriented. Why does neither of the scenarios expand a single family residential concept?? Why not more open space/nature preserve? Why are you trying to CRAM more people into an already crowded Roseville? Enough already!! You need to rethink Twin Lakes. I like scenario 3 the best I believe more integration is better. Let s listen to the people living around Twin Lakes after the storm passes and a developer gets interested in what they want. We don t have much left to develop lets make the most of it for the residents! Limit the retail development. With Rosedale just south and the strip mall attached to Byerlys, there is enough of it. Perhaps a few new restaurants on Co. Rd. C. West of Snelling would take the pressure off the other surrounding restaurants by the mall. Retain wet lands at Northwest corner of Langton Lake as park property. Scenario 3 is too vague. Scenario 1 has too much business park. I prefer scenario 2 because it buffers the lake and adds a small neighborhood retail zone at C & Cleveland. Retain wetland area as part of park. Two people prefer scenario 2. Please get it developed Put a road through from Cleveland to Fairview. Please keep the wooded area west of Langton Lake. How much more do you need? (referring to retail areas) PAGE 2
Focus Area #3 - Rosedale/Tower Place Proposed Land Use Scenario 1 Proposed Land Use Scenario 2 Oakcrest Avenue Oakcrest Avenue Fariview Avenue Prior Avenue 2 Rosedale Shopping Center Prior Avenue 2 Rosedale Shopping Center Hwy 35W Hwy 36 Hwy 35W Hwy 36 The key difference in these scenarios is the plan for property west of Rosedale and south of Oakcrest Avenue. Should the future use be oriented towards commercial uses (Scenario 1) or should more non-retail job-intensive businesses be encouraged? Should future commercial development be oriented to Roseville s community needs or provide a place for more businesses with a regional draw? Not sure prefer more business park (purple) like #2, but less regional business (dark red). Commercial focus with regional draw. Scenario 1 but with retail designated as regional business. Would love to see some formal Roseville downtown type shops, with a walking area. Scenario #1 prefer to let small business grow in this area. Scenario 2 seems better. This area seems out of the way for community oriented businesses. I think a mixture of business and retail would be the best. The green park serves no one my son played football there and it was a hopeless park to reach for recreational use. Community businesses would be my choice. Would it keep the traffic from escalating even more than it is now? Regional Draw. PAGE 3
Focus Area #4 - South Proposed Land Use Scenario 1 Proposed Land Use Scenario 2 Proposed Land Use Scenario 3 Hwy 36 Hwy 36 Hwy 36 Fairview Avenue Hamline Avenue Fairview Avenue Hamline Avenue Fairview Avenue Hamline Avenue Each of these scenarios seeks to sustain and enhance this area as a community-oriented commercial district. The differences in the scenarios are in future plans for the single-family neighborhoods north of. If at some time in the future redevelopment is needed, should the use be high density residential (Scenario 1) or commercial (Scenario 2)? Or, do you think these neighborhoods will remain viable, as shown in Scenario 3, while adjacent properties may redevelop more intensely over time? Please keep Dave s Auto Care NW corner of Hamline and B. Also the auto repair shop SE corner of Hamline and B. The Keller building is unique Keep the low income housing north of B and W of Hamline should be kept. Low income housing is necessary. These residents do their best to upgrade their property. Snelling use to have such stately home and properties. Perhaps softening the area with more trees would enhance its fading beauty. I believe scenario 3 is the best. No high density residential development in Roseville unless it is in the form of condos (very limited). No apartments ever. What is wrong with planning for more single family residences?? I would not argue against high density residential development but let s be creative about it. This area needs to revitalize a bit and also avoid congestion. This is one of the most critical areas in the city right now, in my opinion. I think current families should be allowed to live there as long as needed. If development is necessary, high density residential seems best. A pedestrian bridge over snelling at Skillman to HarMar would be great. #3 Keep the low density residential. I hope the living areas remain viable. It is important to have people living within walking distance of places such as grocery stores. The neighborhoods provide that. PAGE 4
Focus Area #5 - Hamline Shopping Center Proposed Land Use Scenario 1 2 Hamline Avenue Proposed Land Use Scenario 2 2 Hamline Avenue The land use scenarios consider the redevelopment of the Hamline Shopping Center. Scenario 1 replaces the shopping center with housing and retail. Scenario 2 redevelops the property entirely with housing. I prefer #1. Housing and Retail. Tear it down and remove it. Use the space for new house stock which will attract more families to this area. We have the location, now we need newer homes and more green spaces. I like #1 as people can walk to the retail outlets A Condo. I think scenario 1 is the better option. No apartments! Rental property degrades Roseville. Hamline Center does need to be revitalized. A mix of townhomes (or condos) with retail would be nice since the area west of Hamline Center is medium to high density. Scenario 1 sounds better. Scenario 2 with affordable mid-density housing is good. We don t need more condos or high density space, but affordable residences are needed. Either ok with me. PAGE 5
Focus Area #6 - Neighborhood Nodes Lexington & Lexington Avenue Lexington & Roselawn Roselawn Lexington Avenue Dale & Dale Street Neighborhood nodes are places for neighborhood retail, small office and housing at the intersection of primary street corridors. These scenarios maintain the existing land use pattern. Please keep Ace s hardware! It is the only one now! Why are you preserving this island of 4 homes (Dale and Hwy 36 Service Drive) as guided residential when it is surrounded by zoned mixed residential and business? What is the reasoning? (Judith Bentley, 612 W Hwy 36, 651.489.6574 Please call me with the answer. Thank you). This change is the beginning, not the end. The key issue is what zoning classifications fit into a neighborhood business designation. The current zoning codes are poor for things like restaurants e.g. can the bookhouse have a coffee shop? Can the Old 7-11 at Roselawn and Lexington become a Starbucks or worse? These are the essential questions. No fast food restaurants. No apartments. PAGE 6
Focus Area #7 - Larpenteur and Lexington Avenues Larpenteur Avenue Lexington Avenue The Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain this area as a community-oriented (rather than a regional) shopping district. Good. Definitely! We already have Rosedale as a regional center; keep this smaller and more accessible to neighborhood foot traffic. Yes this neighborhood should remain community oriented. Making it regional would put negative pressure on the roads and residential areas. Traffic is pretty high already. This is right. The scale of the neighborhood feel would be destroyed if made regional. However, the city should attend to the beautification of the area. The new Rainbow will be an improvement and the Little Ceasar s has been an eyesore. This looks good. Good idea, traffic is heavy enough as it is. You have lots of space here. Perhaps the city needs to work hand in hand with business, namely Rainbow, in making this space neighborhood friendly. Okay PAGE 7
Focus Area #8 - Rice Street Corridor Redevelopment area needs to be deeper between Cty Rd C and Wewers Rd. Are development funds going to be available for existing businesses to expand in the area? If you eliminate my two homes on Rice Street, how am I compensated? You can tell that different people live/work on both sides of the street what is our neighbors plans for the area?? No red on Rice Street East. Why not? Don t start moving west with the red development!! I never visit any business on Rice St. It s a scary place as far as I can see. Make sure the intersections like have turn lanes. 2 Rice Street Larpenteur Avenue A more detailed study of the Rice Street Corridor will be recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. The change shown in this scenario is the redevelopment of single-family homes adjacent to Rice Street. What issues shape the future of this area? PAGE 8
General Comments Very fine work! We live behind Fairview Community Center. Our house backs up onto the fields owned by school district. We would like to see this space remain open, green-space with possible additional development related to trails, or more park equipment playground, jungle gym, etc Do not add low density residential areas. We don t need to cram in more and more housing units. My main concern is with the Fairview Community Center zone. The neighbors would like to see the baseball, soccer and tennis courts turned over to the Park & Rec department. That would ensure better maintenance and safeguard against further development. NE corner of Lex and Woodhill the lot across from Bike Shop is commercial. Pond S of Woodhill, W of Oxford. Protected by DNR - I have a vision of well-designed attractive townhouses around that pond No curb cut on Woodhill!! Lake and Owasso School Property we prefer medium density housing! Are there any plans to add more bicycle trails? I think it would be great to make any future development as friendly as possible for pedestrian/bike traffic. The past couple years, I ve watched job postings for web development positions. It seems more of them are available in Minnetonka and the South west metro. Is it possible to attract more low-impact technology oriented businesses to any new commercial development? I feel strongly that Roseville, being a close suburb is well positioned for long-term stability and popularity in an age of increasing gas prices. Ten years from now, it may be even more attractive. But the fundamentals must be attended to particularly the quality of schools, and the improvement of density (townhouses, condos) and public/pedestrian traffic. I applaud the city council s efforts, wherever they have been made, to be a guiding hand in the quality of development. Aesthetics matter. Green space and green design matters. I would love to see the city consider ways to encourage creative and attractive, even interesting, new buildings. I ve seen some wonderful European styled developments in places like Addison, Texas and they have been real credits to the city. Lonnie told us he would check the future land use map for Villa Park. It looks like it might be zoned for residential lots at Crescent and Cohansey. That area is now park and has trails and a playground, so we assume it will stay that way. Southwest Roseville has NO parks. Evergreen is a baseball park. I attended open house to learn if city has any interest in property owned by the school district, Fairview Community Center field. My house borders this property and I am extremely interested in being kept apprised of any changes to the ownership or use of this property. I will continue with neighbors to stay in contact with the school district and hope that the city will also keep neighbors informed if the city shows an interest in this property in the future (Karen Routte-Roger, 1925 Shryer Ave. W, 651.633.5746) I am glad you are reworking these areas. I believe the future will require more flexibility in zoning. Allowing some business within residential areas. My major concern is that the development process focus on getting consensus about a development from those residents primarily affected. A 20 minute slide show does not do it. It should depend on getting buy in from those primarily affected before proceeding to avoid costly do overs when the development plan does not meet resident and staff approvals. Community needs for environmental clean up should be a community need versus big box or large residential units. Example - if you get a favorable response from any of these plans, a second PAGE 9
General Comments Continued round with better definitions should be reviewed by staff and affected residents any major roadblocks should be resolved before proceeding this process requires Time and patience. Good luck. I appreciate the cares and thoughts of the Comprehensive Plan as presented and this opportunity to share concerns and give suggestions. 1. I live in the NW corner of Roseville W of 35W and South of County D. It is almost easier to identify with St. Anthony or New Brighton. Is there a way to help us feel more included as part of Roseville? 2. Could one of the primary focus of the CP be to make Roseville an exceptionally friendly place to live for the 60+ population? How about a senior directory to the possibilities of life (opportunities resources) for seniors. Thank you (Joan Smiley, 651.633.2725, joanmjsmiley@aol.com, 3050 Old Hwy 8 #127). Change the Comprehensive Plan to correctly designate three lots at the corner of Cohansey and Crescent as park property, not single family residential. No houses exist on this land, only children s play equipment and paved park trails. PAGE 10