Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(iii) All of the 36 occupied parcels (97% of <br />Redevelopment District No. 1 District) are found <br />to be inconsistent with the Rosevil1e Comprehen- <br />sive Plan, incompatible with existing and proposed <br />surrounding land uses (at least 30% required by <br />the Act), and the majority of said parcels are <br />exposed to adverse freeway noise conditions, which <br />far exceed the state noise standard. <br /> <br />(b) Redevelopment District No. 2 is a redevelopment <br />district as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, the <br />specific basis for such determination being: <br /> <br />(i) Redevelopment District No. 2 consists <br />of 22 parcels, the geographic area of which is <br />legally described in Exhibit C. Sixteen of the 22 <br />parcels (73%) are vacant, unoccupied by buildings, <br />streets, utilities, or other improvements (70% <br />required by the Act); and <br /> <br />(ii) 39.14 of the 47.90 total vacant <br />acreage (82%) is found to have serious terrain, <br />soil, and drainage deficiencies (80% required by <br />the Act). <br /> <br />(c) The proposed development in Redevelopment <br />Districts Nos. 1 and No. 2 in the opinion of the City Council, <br />would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through <br />__private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and <br />therefore the use of tax increment financing is deemed <br />necessary. The Roseville Planning Commission and City Council <br />reviewed the specific locationa1 criteria associated with many <br />areas throughout the metropolitan area, similar to those pro- <br />posed in the Plan which have been developed with high valued <br />business uses. Particular emphasis was placed on reviewing the <br />type and level which have been developed with high valued <br />business uses of access which the similar areas enjoy. The <br />City has also been in contact with numerous representatives of <br />the development community throughout the process of preparing <br />the Plan. Based on the findings of the research noted above, <br />and the concensus of opinion of the development community, the <br />area within Redevelopment Districts Nos. 1 and 2 could not <br />reasonably be expected to develOp with either the quality, or <br />the scope, which has been provided for in the Plan without <br />governmental assistance and in particular without the improved <br />access and direct linkage with the Rosedale Center Area, <br />created by the construction of the County Road B-2 bridge. The <br />