CC_Minutes_2014_0220 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special City Council Meeting Thursday, February 20,2014 Page 13 Councilmember McGehee noted the problems with the land in Twin Lakes pollution, noting that the rationale provided by CSI was that the City's land option was not "shovel ready" since the land hadn't been cleansed up et and was not owned by the City, Councilmember McGehee questioned s p Y . Since the land whether it made sense to be more proactive in collaborating with property r Regan on as owners to and assisting them with clean up for the types of projects he referenced. wners Mr. Regan responded that it always paid to be as ready as possible to respond opportunities, making sites where due diligence had been done much more inter- esting (e.g. buildings demolished, MPCA clean-up programs, As an example, Mr. Regan noted that collaborative efforts by the City and proper- ty P p grams, etc.), all beneficial. ty owner on the PIK site; and while some seemed baby steps, they all represented progress in the right p per- ght direction. From their personal perspective on their property, Mr. Regan noted that.Roseville was always in high demand from trucking com- panies and "dirty" industrial users, keeping all of their buildings full. Therefore, Mr. Regan advised that they would not consider taking steps now to coed clean-up until an application was completed submitted and formally d demolish and with a redevelopment plan in place and signed Y appregen noted the reality of needing the income to g ed leases with tenants. Mr. Regan until the right opportunity became apparent pay o move forward d with redevelopment, velo expenses which they were anxious to see. p nt, City Council Discussion followin Public Comment At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke outlined the message received from attorney representing the AirMark parcel, responding that they were very ha with and accepting of the flexibility being an with a similar response received from the property to the the managed happy Traveler's Insurance or Transwestern) including support and managed by current HDR-1 as now guided to allow other opportunities that emay bversus the ap- propriate and applicable to the former Aramark building, which was currently Y Mr. Paschke further reported his phone conversation with Ms. Nanette Pikofsky her property in this area; and while not having all the information being presented tonight, her concern was that she not lose anything she already Y the location in the current CMU District allowing multiple uses with few had with non Y h- non- permitted uses. From her perspective, Mr. Paschke advised that she was very in- terested in retaining that flexibility; and while she was unable to attend tonight's meeting, Mr. Paschke indicated that this involved not restricting retail or o her more impactful or less desirable uses adjacent to the park. Mr. Trudgeon spoke in support of seeking input from market experts, either bro- kers or market research groups, in addition to community and property owner in- put. Mr. Trudgeon opined that such information was probably missing in the dis-