Please let us know your thoughts, ideas and opinions regarding the Rolla West Master Plan Alternatives. All public comments and suggestions will be considered in the finalized Rolla West Master Plan which will be presented by HNTB Corporation to the Rolla City Council later this year.
You can see each plan by clicking on the following links:Alternative #1 / Alternative #2 / Alternative #3
----------------------------------------
(Comments containing profanity or that are off topic will not be included.)
28 comments:
Alternatives 1 & 2 shows additional industrial areas. These should not be located so near other high use public spaces. With industrial zoning keeping noise and odors away from the public spaces may be difficult.
Alternative 2 shows a railroad crossing lining up with Blue Lake Parkway. If the road at this crossing interconnected with Ceder Grove road it would provided easy access to the Blue Lake area from the Lion Club drive area.
Should the interchange be located more to the west? Is it not the assumption that this interchange will be part of the Highway 63 bypass? In the years that it will take for all of this to come about I would expect Highway 63 to be improved to the north of Rolla. This will create more through traffic on Highway 63. With the plans shown are we not planning to to have major traffic going through our major shopping/commerical area? It seams that a interchange further to the west with large boulevards runing between the new interchange and Kingshighway ( on both the north and south side of I-44)would have the advantage of keeping the through traffic out of the growth areas.
Alt 2 shows more industrial areas and I feel that our community needs more industry. Big box retail in this is kept down and I don't think that we need another golf course as in Alt 3.
I really like alternative #1. But it just seems that the single family zone just seems out of place. Either remove it, which we cant cause theres already homes there. Or expand it to the outer road.
Alternative #3 the new hwy 72 extension comes out right at motomart. Which would not ease congestion at all. It needs to follow down to the new interchange if you want to ease congestion and make a true bypass.
And to go off of garys post. The industrial zoning isnt too wrong. Royal Canin is already out there. Taking up a vast majority of the right zone. The rest will be to the west, which is a fairly good ways out of town. I dont know about you, but we need more jobs in Rolla. And how else are we gonna get them? Then give business a good place to go.
I really like the layout of Plan #3, but could live without the RV park and historical tourism area. Leaving that land open for future development would give more flexibility. (The same argument could be made for what I believe is the best layout of industrial land in Plan #1.)
My biggest drawback for Plan #3 is the roadway layout near the current interchange. I think the other plans have better traffic patterns. And what is a 'lifestyle center?' I think Plan #1 has too much Big Box space, and the residential neighborhood doesn't fit.
I really like alternative 3. I do have three things to comment about it.
My biggest comment is that this alternative needs to be revised so that it is much easier to get to the outer road like on Alt 1. You would want a road on both sides of the lifestyle center, not just one going through it. Same on the other side roads on both sides of the retail. This way people getting on and off the highway have easy access to the outer road and I-44.
I really like the amount of green. This is something we will not regret later on. Having a park or a golf course or a tourism area in the middle of town is not an option once everything else has been built up around it. But right now we can plan it into it. I could see us spreading out the green by swapping the golf course and the multifamily area in the NW corner. Then we could build high end houses around the golf course.
I like the way the industrial is placed so as to have a way to grow and expand out. I would think you would want to switch light industrial/distribution with industrial to put it closer to I-44 .
Our family is concerned about the plan to isolate the existing area of single family homes (University Park Subdivision) by completely surrounding it with retail, commercial, or big box retail.
For those unfamiliar with the University Park area, it is located to the east of Sally Road, immediately to the north of the retail hospitality strip just north of the Old Wire Cutter Road (north outer road west). On the alternative drawings, it is delineated in yellow and is labeled single family, and in each plan, the area is readily discernable as it is completely surrounded by land use that is inconsistent with residential homes. These homes are only 3-6 years old.
When we purchased our home 3 years ago it had just been completed and we were assured by the developers and realtors that the area to the north of University Park was planned for single family homes by planning and zoning. Had that not been the case, we would not have purchased the home.
All three of the alternative plans being considered would have the same negative impact on the quality of life and property values in University Park. For example, we already have a problem with trash from retail property along Old Wire Cutter Road. Wrappers, cardboard boxes, and styrofoam packing from shipping containers blow from behind the buildings, down the hill into our subdivision. I hate to think how bad it would be if our subdivision was completely surrounded by retail or big box retail.
It would seem more logical to retain the original zoning for the area in question, and increase the size of the subdivision with additional single or multi-family homes in order to retain and expand the character of the existing residential neighborhood.
As we are still in the planning stage, now would be an excellent time to consider buffer strips between residential areas and any retail, commercial, or big box retail area. This would help to minimize the adverse impact that industrial, retail, or big box retail property usage would have on existing and planned residential property.
I do believe that the extra housing and park area in alt. #3 is important to push growth in this direction... but are we all overlooking the need (and future need) for an additional elementary school? If an entire zone of our small city is being planned, incorporating education into the equation is easy, important, and appropriate.
Are there any plans for a new Fire Station to be added in this area? If they are expected to respond from the current stations it could take a very long time for them to get out to those businesses. Will this increased response time affect the city's ISO rating we've been hearing so much about?
Also how about some sort of Police "sub-station" where officers can maybe have a small office with a computer so they can do reports and such without having to go back to the main station all the time. As the city grows, it becomes increasingly impractical for the police officers to constantly be running back to the main station for every little thing. A substation will keep a police presence in that area and saves them driving time to and from the center of town. (This might work for other areas of town as well...perhaps a small office in one of the unused businesses at the Forum, or on South 63 to keep them spread out and reduce their response times to those parts of town?)
To add to the fire station question. The station by family video is more then capable to be there. Its only 1 mile away from all this. And has a straight shot to old wire rd. So an extra station is not needed.
To add to other peoples gripes. I do believe that the people already in university park should not be forgotten. I agree that just north of them should be left for homes. Other whys it would not only look funny, but be very unattractive to residents there.
Take a loot at St Robert. The city planners there have no clue what their doing. And it in turn has turned out to be a disaster. Their main road by walmart is a cluster mess. And the Oak Point apartments behind all the retail does not fit. I know i take care of all the properties around there including Oak Point. And a lot of people complain about it being so close to retail.
And how the heck do you get the idea for a new elementary school? Where did that come from? We do not need another elementary school.
To the guy above who said "the station by family video is more then capable to be there"
Have you not seen the Fire Coverage Map posted on the city's webpage?
Not a criticism of the Fire Dept by any means...just a simple fact of time and distance.
My choice is alternative # 3. However, the city must also include plans for a future fire station and police substation as well more spaces for future rolla schools to account for growth . i would see a new rolla library out on I-44 . we must balance retail stores with family housing and public services that includes room for a new fire station, additional police substation and a new libaray at some point in this planing and another family park for recreational needs. i would also like to see a expo center for hosting concerts, and business conventions.
I would like to see Rolla add a Mall of some sort. Did anyone think of that idea? We are definately in the middle of everything, but there are no shops other than Wal-mart. We have colleges and small stores, but major purchases and other specialty items have to be purchased at locations that are an hour away or more. I hope city planners are thinking of this idea. That would bring revenue and jobs to the area and would bring business from the ajoining counties and other locations closer that St. Louis and Springfield.
I completely agree with Bob A on this. I also live in the University Park subdivision and was assured that the North area was residential zoned when I purchased my home in 2006. These plans will cause nothing but trouble for a very nice neighborhood and drive down property values. Please rethink zoning new industrial/retail areas into an already existing housing area. I’m sure if the planners lived in my neighborhood they would feel the same way.
Take a look at the city's financials and then someone please tell me how in the name of hades they plan on pulling this off. They are B-R-O-K-E. They can't even give their employees a raise. They are selling you all a big ole bunch of blue sky.
While I certainly understand the concerns of families living in the University Park subdivision, at some point when you're purchasing a home don't you have to think to yourself: "Gee, the interstate and a major intersection are two blocks away... Someday the area near my home might be developed." Zoning regulations change. Think for yourself and don't be so naive. Work with this project to find a reasonable layout that protects everyone's interests instead of just complaining.
And to address the concerns of the city's finances, how do you expect to increase the city's fortunes, job outlook and economic vitality without a development like this? Even if only small parts of this project can be afforded over several years, Rolla will be a better community for the effort. At least the University and the city are both growing in the same direction and working together. Many cities would love to have that cooperation.
Brad, that is easier if you you don't live in one of these affected areas and interests of business are ALWAYS chosen over the interests of the residents. For example: the Ridgeview neighborhood. It is on the far Eastern edge of all of these maps and will be cut in half by the 72 extension as it goes down Ridgeview road. The lucky residents will have their homes bought for the extension. The remaining residents get increased noise, traffic, reduced access as roads are blocked off, and lower property values as the project progresses. The plan for this neighborhood is to cut it off and let it die. University Park residents can expect to have their input ignored as well.
As for the finances of all of this...pipe dream. How does Rolla expect to fund its part until businesses are developed in this area to begin collecting the special taxes? And in case anyone hasn't looked at state finances, Missouri isn't exactly flush either. http://www.mobudget.org/
I like alternative 3, but feel the lifestyle centers in that proposal should be replaced with zoning as laid out in 1 or 2.
Assuming the Lifestyle centers are city run and funded, I am not interested in paying for more of that. If one can assume those areas will be populated with private sector "Lifestyle" businesses, I am for that. However, as a tax payer, I have already helped fund the Center and Splash Zone and am not interested in paying more taxes for similar items.
Allow for more highway frontage commercial and/or big Box property. This will increase the tax base by attracting traffic passing by on I-44 and will help to fund this and many other projects of which the people of Rolla are in need.
If we want to bring jobs to Rolla, we need to offer attractive locations for Industry. Our industrial park does not provide for that. However, plans 1 and 3 look like a good mix. Plan 2 doesn't seem to provide for enough of that.
The RV facility, in my opinion, is a great idea as there are few places along I-44 which offer RV travelers a nice place to stay which is close to the highway, but also convenient to shopping and other amenities. I believe this will help increase our transient tax dollars by making Rolla a popular stopping ground for the RV traveler.
I really like 3, but am concerned over the tax burden if the Life style centers are intended to be City funded facilities as opposed to areas zoned to attract private facilities intended for this purpose (Day Spas, entertainment venues, etc).
As I currently live on County Road 8100 just west of the BIG BOX retail areas, Rolla's expansion is of great importance to me. I noticed several months ago the city limit signs were moved farther west from just in front of the Furniture Factory Outlet. This told me substantial growth was on the way. I'm very interested in what businesses are in the running for the prime piece of real estate located just west of the proposed new interchange? Hopefully not Wal-Mart as this corporation, when it moves from one side of town to another (anywhere they are located) habitually leaves their former building standing until the residents pay for demolition services. Few enterprises will ever use the building, it's very expensive to remove and no new business wants to pay for demolishing a former Wal-Mart building to construct their own business. Let's get some competition for Wal-Mart-it benefits everyone. Any BIG BOX store, if allowed to build in Rolla or nearby, must be made to return the land to its original condition if they ever decide to leave. The tax payers should not have to do it for them. The Highway 72 bypass sounds good but in conjunction with the possible build up of the area, are there plans in effect to construct roads to handle the traffic for the next 20 or so years? Most of the local roadways weren't built to withstand the enormous strain that will be put on them when this plan begins to be put in effect. It is better now, before plans are locked in concrete, to over build rather than under build. Once roadways are complete, going back to enlarge them for further economic growth will be expensive, time consuming, noisy and detrimental to local inhabitants. Let's look ahead 20/30 years. Incidentally what about improvements to 63 North in the coming years by MoDOT to benefit travelers to Jeff City-are these road improvements going to connect/tie in with those potential improvements? After all Jeff City is only 60 miles away but the two lane road used to get there is a nightmare.
As BIG BOX retail stores vie for the greatest advantage, let's keep in mind that these businesses pay minimum wage and don't do much to help Rolla residents move farther up the ladder of success. Minimum wage is minimum wage. What about courting businesses that produce a product-Microsoft, Apple, General Electric or any other Fortune 500 company. Rolla is strategically located as a transportation hub for any corporation and making use of the enormous potential of Missouri Science and Technology students would benefit everyone. Rolla experiences a "brain drain" every year as high school and college students leave because there are no jobs to be had. Let's make some. Mixed use residential and multi family residential tags are euphemisms for apartment complexes and duplexes-not really something I want next to my home. If these types of buildings are constructed trash in the area will multiply exponentially, crime will increase dramatically and traffic congestion will be an everyday affair (among other problems); I wonder if the city of Rolla is prepared for those eventualities. What will the people already living in the single family home area do since the expansion plans are counter to what they were told when they bought their homes? What exactly is the Life Style Center-what does it do and who will pay for its upkeep-same question for the golf course as Missouri S&T's course will soon close. Water usage for that golf course may one day be a problem. The pedestrian walkways are an excellent idea-hopefully that idea encompasses bike trails also. All in all, the plans are viable but Alternative #1 seems to be the best of the three and even as that plan or any other plan is implemented, changes will inevitably occur over the lifespan of the project.
These plans do sound attractive but a plan that includes a small functional airport and a mall will be better. If not now, it should be there for future consideration. Missouri university of science and technology has many students and professors that need to use airport. The nearest airports are 100 miles away. A functional airport will benefit business, industry, the university a lot, and other nearyby communities. A mall will make student life much better. I am a student at MS&T and these are the biggest problems for me.
To me, Alternative 3 looks like the best plan for several reasons. I like the amount of green space that is incorporated as well as the golf course. For anybody who doesn't know, the university golf course is going to be shut down, so it would not be a second golf course in the alternative, it would be the only golf course. My only issue with all these plans is what was pointed out in several other posts - the housing areas to the west of 44 is completely surrounded by commerce. If the residential area wasn't such an island, it wouldn't bother me so much. All of these plans need some revision which accounts for public services fire/police/education/etc.
Alternative 1 seems a bit focused on big box retail with the residential area seemingly out of place. I just don't see the need for so much retail. Alternative 2 would work wonders for traffic flow, but there doesn't seem to be much green space.
Alternative 3 would be my top pick. Green space improves the look of the city while providing residents opportunities for health and recreation. The university golf course is to be replaced by the technology park, so a new golf course would be well appreciated.
The only thing I do not like about #3 is the RV park. The space could be better utilized for either entertainment, professional offices, a school, or fire/police stations. I have heard other concerns regarding lack of industrial space, consider replacing the retail pads just southwest of the proposed 5th interchange with light industrial/distribution. At this point, industrial could be expanded further west between Bridge School Rd. and Martin Springs Drive.
I hate Alternative 3. Hate it. Why? Because it takes the experimental mine property and cuts it by two thirds at least. Some of you probably don't care, but MST's mining students are some of the best in the country and I think a lot of that can be contributed to having our own mine. How many Discovery Channel crews have come in to film Dr. Worsey and the other professors and the things they doe at the mine? Do you think they don't bring some outside money in? Cutting down the mine will dramatically affect every mining student the goes here, present and future.
We really need a new golf course for the community. Even if it is just another 9-hole course, it would be sufficient. A golf course is essential in bringing in new students who are worried about what there is to do in Rolla. I have spent countless hours the university course. If we're going to have all of these new businesses, the course would be an ideal place for business meetings, fundraisers, etc. Alternative 3's golf course is a necessity, though it appears that you can add a course on to any of the other alternatives.
We live in University Park subdivision, the only neighborhood currently in the area on the north side of exit 184. We live behind Comfort Suites hotel. With alternatives 1 and 2, our subdivision would be surronded by retail buildings. This would not be the neighborhood that any of us moved into. I am not against the 5th exit but I am not for surrounding my neighborhood with retail space.
Whatever plans are used, the city needs to make sure there are ordinances already in place that requires new businesses to landscape around buildings and throughout parking lots. Such laws shows support for greening of communities and make the business themselves and the community as a whole look and feel better.
No matter which plan is chose, our home will be affected. From what we understand, MODOT and the City of Rolla have decided to cut across our front yard, take half of our property and leave us with a road that runs 10 feet in front of our front door.
We were told previously by MODOT and the City that if they decided to go through with this plan, they would purchase our entire property. Now, without even letting us know, they propose to place a road in our front yard. We relocated to this exact residence to make certain we would never again have traffic running that close to our home. We will fight this to the end. Either take it all, as promised, or take nothing. We've written to the City about this and have received zero response, so wonder why???? Needless to say, we are very unhappy campers and refuse to let our land go. We lived for years with a major roadway in front of our home and relocated to Rolla, selecting a spot where this would never happen again. Silly us. How about sticking to your word; thought that meant something.
Thank you for the continued interest in this important project. The City is still months away from doing final design on the Hwy 72 extension so it is difficult to be exact on right-of-way acquisition needs at this time. However, the City will not build a new collector road within 10' of an existing residence. For specific properties please contact City Hall and we would be happy to share our latest plans.
I would like to see more affordable homes. I also would like to see more stores come in for people who are out of work. Stores that are a big boxed stores etc. Kohl's, TJ Max's, Marshall's, Old Navy ,Barnes and Noble, Best Buy, or a Schnucks. We can also get some restaurants like Starbucks, Red Robin, Ihop, Outback, and a Olive Garden. These place will help us grow and they will bring more people to live in Rolla. Isn't that what all city's want is more consumers or more people moving into there town? If Rolla would go for Big boxed stores I think it would draw more people to the city. Is that a bad thing for people to come here and want to shop and to live?
Post a Comment