|
Regular Planning Commission Meeting
<br />Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2012
<br />Page 8
<br />Continuing his review of the history of attempting to develop this property, Mr. Rancone noted that,
<br />358
<br />in 2001 and initial development of a Costco use at this site, the map called for service use on that
<br />359
<br />th
<br />corner. With the 2004 Stakeholder’s Panel, and an 11 hour Court of Appeals by The Friends of
<br />360
<br />Twin Lakes, and another court case fighting development, Mr. Rancone noted that the Court of
<br />361
<br />Appeals had clearly stated that they were not throwing the case out due to the proposed “big box
<br />362
<br />retailer,” since, while not recommended in the Plan, it was not precluded; but had made their
<br />363
<br />decision based on the City’s practice of attaching Master Plans to its Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
<br />364
<br />Rancone noted, therefore, that based on that taking a super majority vote, and the Plan requiring
<br />365
<br />four (4) votes to move forward, it was lacking that super majority. Mr. Rancone reiterated that their
<br />366
<br />decision was not based on Costco as a proposed use, but the decision-making process itself. Mr.
<br />367
<br />Rancone noted that Roseville had subsequently taken that system out of play to avoid a repeat.
<br />368
<br />With that Court ruling, Mr. Rancone noted that a five (5) year project in the making went down the
<br />369
<br />tubes, as well as residential uses proposed for the development; and ultimately another Roseville
<br />370
<br />business, Rottlund Homes, going out of business as a result. Since then, Mr. Rancone noted that
<br />371
<br />there had been no interest in the market place for an office building, no hospital, or any other
<br />372
<br />pieces or uses.
<br />373
<br />Then, Mr. Rancone advised that another delay for all Twin Lakes land owners was put in place in
<br />374
<br />2007 through updating the AUAR, with land owners awaiting the next level of zoning ordinances
<br />375
<br />mandating uses. Mr. Rancone noted that the update provided a very comprehensive analysis of
<br />376
<br />environmental and traffic issues, and provided three (3) different development scenarios, one of
<br />377
<br />which called for substantially more retail for that area as a possibility.
<br />378
<br />Another delay in 2009, with a mandated update to the Comprehensive Plan, another exhaustive
<br />379
<br />process, allowing citizens to weigh in for various types of business uses, but Mr. Rancone noted
<br />380
<br />essentially creating yet another delay in marketing the land until that was resolved. Mr. Rancone
<br />381
<br />noted that this was then followed by a mandated update to the City’s Zoning Code, another delay
<br />382
<br />in marketing the property.
<br />383
<br />Mr. Rancone noted that Roseville Properties, unlike some of the land owners disputing the
<br />384
<br />proposed allocation formulas and suing the City, had chosen to take the high road and wait the
<br />385
<br />process out yet again. Mr. Rancone reiterated that the process allowed an opportunity for
<br />386
<br />residents, some in tonight’s audience as well, to weigh in on that zoning. Meanwhile, Mr. Rancone
<br />387
<br />noted that once again, marketing the property was delayed for that process, while another layer of
<br />388
<br />regulations was added. Then, Mr. Rancone noted, the Regulating Plan defining design standards
<br />389
<br />for Twin Lakes, created yet another delay and another hurdle to development of the land.
<br />390
<br />Basically, Mr. Rancone noted that, from 2006 – 2011, land owners had been stymied from doing
<br />391
<br />anything. Upon yet another potential delay with the allocation formula and subsequent court case,
<br />392
<br />Mr. Rancone noted this proved problematic and was eventually overturned in the courts.
<br />393
<br />Mr. Rancone opined that it was disingenuous for speakers to imply that they had not had an
<br />394
<br />opportunity to weigh in during the legal process. With the ruling from the Court of Appeals, Mr.
<br />395
<br />Rancone noted that this provided an opportunity to tighten the rules for the size of buildings and
<br />396
<br />uses, with the Planning Commission and City Council determining to not make it so restrictive in
<br />397
<br />order to address the realities of the marketplace. Mr. Rancone opined that in an ideal world, it
<br />398
<br />would be wonderful to have smaller, community businesses; however, as a practical matter, those
<br />399
<br />smaller businesses could not afford to open as the first person on the block and proved to be
<br />400
<br />unrealistic in today’s world and market.
<br />401
<br />Mr. Rancone asked that citizens look at the mixed use concept for the entire Twin Lakes
<br />402
<br />Redevelopment Area, not just the Wal-Mart proposal, which simply served as the first piece of the
<br />403
<br />puzzle, along with the Park and Ride facility. Mr. Rancone opined that this would determine the
<br />404
<br />next pieces of the puzzle. Mr. Rancone assured citizens that people would utilize Wal-Mart,
<br />405
<br />particularly the senior population on a tighter budget.
<br />406
<br />Contrary to Ms. Schaffer’s allegations that retail properties pay less in taxes, Mr. Rancone clarified
<br />407
<br />that this is certainly not the case from their perspective, with their property taxes higher than some
<br />408
<br />other commercial properties in Roseville, opining that someone needed to vet that out. Mr.
<br />409
<br />Rancone noted that retailers pay higher taxes per square foot than commercial businesses, at
<br />410
<br />least from their perspective dictated by the marketplace. Mr. Rancone noted that development
<br />411
<br />
<br />
|