2012-02-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 1, 2012 Page 11 Member Strohmeier, based on his interest and background in public safety, and during 508 his review of this proposal, referenced and quoted recent written comments provided by 509 City of Roseville Police Chief Rick Mathwig in preparing for strategic planning discussions 510 with the City Council for a long-term goal to “…Add tow (2) commercial patrol officers to 511 enhance the Police Department’s ongoing efforts with the retail community. Retail and 512 commercial development, especially a big box store, in the Twin Lakes area will increase 513 theft-related incidents. One big box store is anticipated to bring 700 – 900 extra calls for 514 police services each year. The Police Department’s resources will be taxed by the 515 development, and the resources currently in place at Rosedale will be stretched.” From a 516 common sense standpoint, Member Strohmeier opined that a big box retailer would have 517 considerable fiscal impacts to the City’s Police Department. 518 Member Wozniak, from a historical standpoint, asked staff how long this property had 519 been vacant or under-utilized; with Mr. Paschke advising that he had been with the City 520 for thirteen (13) years with the property remaining vacant; and he was aware that the City 521 had been attempting to develop the Twin Lakes Area since the 1980’s. 522 Member Wozniak questioned how many, if any, developments had previously come 523 forward for this specific parcel; with Mr. Paschke advising that, to his knowledge, there 524 had been one other proposal, which was ultimately unsuccessful. 525 Member Wozniak asked Mr. Paschke what impacts he would see for this development on 526 other parcels and further development in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. 527 Mr. Paschke responded by opining that any development in the Twin Lakes area will spur 528 other development, a historically proven occurrence. Mr. Paschke noted the enticement 529 for that development based on the funds invested by the City to-date for infrastructure 530 development in the area. However, how long that development would take Mr. Paschke 531 refused to predict due to market conditions; however, he noted that many parcels in the 532 Twin Lakes area were considered currently “development ready.” Mr. Paschke noted 533 further development would be based on clean up costs and the willingness of potential 534 developers’ willingness to build consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Twin 535 Lakes Regulating Plan, and couldn’t predict if it would take this one proposed 536 development or more to spur associated uses. 537 Member Boguszewski, from his career in health services and strategy in determining 538 additional potential growth areas in which to place facilities, advised that they often 539 looked for such developments as an indicator of a strong population and strong economic 540 growth; opining that this supported Mr. Paschke comments. 541 Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at 8:08 p.m., with no one appearing for or 542 against. 543 Member Wozniak asked Mr. Paschke to comment on the proposed park dedication fee 544 associated with this parcel and its use; and asked how that fee would be allocated. 545 While recognizing that it was not related to land use considerations under discussion at 546 this venue, Mr. Paschke advised that park dedication fees paid to the City of Roseville 547 were based on 5% of the property’s fair market value as determined by the Ramsey 548 County Assessor; and based on that calculation, he estimated that if the development 549 proceeded they would pay the City in excess of $400,000 for this land division. Mr. 550 Paschke advised that the fees were specifically designated for park enhancements and 551 improvements in and around the City; but was unsure of the exact language as per State 552 Statute. 553 Member Wozniak duly noted that, if this parcel was to be developed, the developer would 554 be contributing a significant amount in fees toward the City’s park system. 555 Planning Commission Discussion/Position Statements 556 Member Boguszewski noted the many layers in tonight’s discussion; even though the 557 Commission’s decision-making was focused on the Preliminary Plat itself and parcel 558 transfer. While other areas of discussion as to use or development of the parcel and how 559