Laserfiche WebLink
<br />to act on <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />TwinCitiesec:om <br /> <br />Posted on Mon, Jul. 26, 2004 <br /> <br />PIONEER PRESS <br /> <br />Time to act on <br /> <br />n <br /> <br />kes development <br /> <br />Roseville seems poised to turn a corner on its long, twisting road toward redevelopment of the Twin Lakes industrial site in the <br />northwest part of the city. But there's still cost to consider and lingering controversy as the Roseville City Council approaches a <br />Sept. 30 deadline to decide whether to proceed with the first phase of the major project. <br /> <br />The city has done this right, working deliberately and with a wealth of citizen input. It's time to push from vision to action. <br /> <br />The biggest cost question is how the city will pay to clean up about 100 acres of brownfields created by trucking businesses <br />whose waste solvents, petroleum products and organic leavings in landfills have seeped into the soil at the site. The council is <br />expected to decide on Aug. 9 what economic tools the developer can use to pay for site cleaning. The decision is pivotal and <br />complex. Roseville has been slogging through on Twin Lakes redevelopment since 1988 or before. Choosing how to pay for <br />reclaiming the land puts the last vital numbers into the equation of whether to proceed with the first phase of an economic <br />renaissance in the area between Cleveland and Snelling avenues and county roads C and C2. <br /> <br />The most potentially controversial aspect of this first phase involves whether it should have a big-box store, such as Costco. <br />That's the recommendation of project developer Rottlund Homes and the majority of a stakeholders panel that presented its <br />report to the council this month. The recommendations are for a $220 million project with multifamily housing and an office <br />and retail mix that includes a big-box store on a parcel at County Road C and Cleveland Avenue. The majority of stakeholders, <br />in their report to the City Council, agreed with the argument that a large anchor store is necessary in the project mix. Five <br />members of this citizen panel expressed concerns about various aspects of this plan for the first phase of the Twin Lakes <br />redevelopment. <br /> <br />Others in the city oppose the big-box, saying small shops and corporate offices are better as a generator of good jobs and <br />would make traffic more manageable than if there were a big retailer at a corner. <br /> <br />We agree with the economic evidence behind the inclusion of a big-box. Modern shopping preferences make convenience and <br />lower prices a driver of business to a new area. Big-box stores fulfill those customer desires. Quaint and small businesses are <br />lovely, but only as a part of a commercial mix in contemporary suburban economic strategies. <br /> <br />Roseville and an active citizen base have come to a reasonable proposal to reclaim Twin Lakes, beginning with this first phase <br />to provide much-needed multifamily housing and a commercial mix to boost economic life in this part of the city. The City <br />Council now has what it needs - a well-informed proposal with extensive buy-in through the stakeholder process. <br /> <br /> <br />200,! Sl. Paul Pioneer Press and wire serVIce sourees. All Rights Reserved <br />htlp:!!w\vw. twincities .com <br /> <br />http://www.twincities.comJmld/pioneerpress/news/editorial/9228319.htm ?template=contentModul... 7/26/2004 <br />