My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2014_0220
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2014
>
CC_Minutes_2014_0220
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/24/2014 1:22:23 PM
Creation date
3/26/2014 1:35:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
3/24/2014
Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Special City Council Meeting <br /> Thursday, February 20, 2014 <br /> Page 15 <br /> Councilmember Willmus questioned whether a discussion should be pursued for <br /> those parcels the City wished to acquire and when and how to enter into a more <br /> detailed planning process, when there was no other issue to work around or any <br /> need to satisfy a private property owner. Councilmember Willmus suggested a <br /> broader discussion focused more on resident expectations for some of these areas. <br /> Even though something we avoid talking about, Councilmember Willmus refer- <br /> enced the recent Dale Street Fire Station Redevelopment project as an example of <br /> how it could work, even though that was on a much smaller scale. <br /> Eliminating economics from the picture, Mr. Trudgeon agreed that when you con- <br /> trol the land, you could control the use and developer choice. However, Mr. <br /> Trudgeon noted that the holding costs and time could prove significant, even <br /> though the end goal was to develop the right product and use at a certain location. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon opined that developers could be found who were eager to sell at <br /> which time the City could accomplish whatever the desired goal and ensure use <br /> for what was wanted by citizens and the City. <br /> Mr. Paschke opined that he wasn't sure if staff had yet identified the particular <br /> properties for acquisition due to a lack of funding sources as well as the market. <br /> Mr. Paschke concurred that holding costs were the biggest issue, and how long <br /> was necessary to wait for a project to come forward. <br /> Mayor Roe recognized that staffs delay was also due to not having received di- <br /> rection from the City Council to identify properties. <br /> Councilmember Willmus suggested that, based on CSI selecting the property in <br /> New Brighton for development, it may be time for Roseville to have those discus- <br /> sions. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of having the discussion; however, she <br /> noted that it still wouldn't work whether the City or developer owned the property <br /> if the market didn't' want to build it. <br /> Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of how to incentivize development <br /> (e.g. TIF funding, city ownership of property as part of the package) and other ar- <br /> eas of discussion and based on things occurring in surrounding communities. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte opined that the discussion could be held regarding <br /> property acquisition; however, based on the repeated comments she heard while <br /> campaigning for office, the perception was that Roseville was difficult to do busi- <br /> ness with; further opining that perception could not be changed overnight. <br /> Councilmember McGehee referenced the Dorso site and previous active inquiry <br /> for FBI headquarters that eventually went to the City of Brooklyn Center by the <br /> City's removal of a less-than-desirable hotel use making that land available. She <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.