2012_0709_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

AttachmentH Mr. Trudgeon clarified that it was not the City of Roseville nor Wal-Mart, but State Statute that dictated 44 the two-year rule once the Development Agreement and Plat were approved. Mr. Trudgeon advised that 45 while the City may not appreciate the two-year clause, there was some protection or assurances based on 46 the newer office/warehouse building directly to the east of the proposed Wal-Mart site that he didn’t 47 anticipate for any immediate redevelopment at least within that two-year window. Mr. Trudgeon also 48 noted that the PIK property directly to the north could potentially have residential development; 49 however, since it was located closer to the park, that property had been identified for office/campus 50 activity. Mr. Trudgeon opined that any future residential developers would certainly take into account 51 the location of a retail store in the vicinity; however, at this time, Mr. Trudgeon advised that a CMU 52 zoning designation did not guarantee future redevelopment as residential. Without that knowledge, Mr. 53 Trudgeon advised that it was difficult for the City to regulate. 54 Regarding the two-year rule, Mayor Roe questioned if the Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan 55 guidance could be changed for that area once approved. While not meaning that existing zoning and 56 Comprehensive Plan provisions wouldn’t remain in effect, Mayor Roe questioned if residential 57 development adjacent to commercial or retail properties wouldn’t still be subject to City regulations. 58 Mr. Trudgeon advised that, prior to responding, he would like to study that question further with the 59 City Attorney to determine how to apply those restrictions. Of course, Mr. Trudgeon advised that it 60 would be staff’s intent to work with any retail and/or residential development to ensure compatibility. 61 However, he was not sure of the enforcement capabilities available to the City without consultation with 62 legal counsel. 63 Mayor Roe encouraged staff to review that issue with legal counsel in more detail. 64 Infrastructure Cost Allocation 65 Councilmember McGehee questioned why Wal-Mart was only paying $400,000 for I-35W ramp 66 improvements that are estimated to cost approximately $1.6 million; and why it appears that the City is 67 subsidizing the Wal-Mart Corporation with $10 million of completed infrastructure. Councilmember 68 McGehee further questioned traffic projects; triggers for additional improvements and various 69 interpretations by MnDOT and other traffic engineers; and questioned the accuracy of models and 70 projected calculations. 71 Mr. Trudgeon advised that Wal-Mart’s cost allocation had been determined, through significant analysis 72 of various components and expert consultation, at twenty-five percent (25%) of the total interchange 73 costs. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this was not a small, but rather significant, investment on their part, 74 especially when drawing a nexus to this specific development and other occurrences that may make the 75 interchange inadequate. Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff had performed substantial due diligence and 76 negotiations with Wal-Mart to reach this agreed-upon $400,000 amount, and staff was unable to justify 77 any additional cost to this developer above that amount. Mr. Trudgeon noted that this figure represented 78 more to the City than a typical assessment from the Chapter 429 process. 79 Councilmember McGehee opined that there would be additional traffic impacts and mitigation that the 80 citizens of Roseville would be required to pay; and further opined that citizens have already done their 81 share. 82 Mr. Trudgeon advised that there were also other options available to the City for reimbursement of costs 83 from other future property owners and/or developers, as well as the Chapter 429 assessment process. 84 Park Dedication 85 Councilmember McGehee questioned the rationale for accepting $411,115 in park dedication fees as 86 opposed to land owned by Roseville Properties along County Road C and targeted for an addition to 87 Langton Lake Park, including the Oak Forest identified in the 2002 Natural Resources Plan. 88 Page2of14