pf_03552 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Sent: To: Cc: Subject: July 2004 city. councH@ci.roseville.mn.us dennis.welsch@ci,roseville.mn.us Tim Kotecki's e-mail to Mayor Klausing Dear and Council Members: Dennis Welsch was kind forward me a copy of Tim Kotecki's e-mail to Mayor . The Twin Lakes ect has been and I knew that when I to accept your invitation to facilitate the Stakeholders Panel process. I also know from experience that it is sible to and a certain amount of criticism is unavoidable. I am comfortable it to you to make up your own minds there was such a disparity between the assessments of the process from different members of the Panel. I also encourage you to review the evaluation forms completed all the Panel members. I don't believe that it is in the city's best interest for me to engage in a protracted debate with Al Sands, or Tim Kotecki. Unlike some of the critics, I trust the process and believe that most of these issues and allegations will be sorted out as the proceeds through the next stages. It is, however, my responsibil for correct inaccuracies included in their statements and to make certain that I have done I can to deliver the maximum value from the Stakeholder's process. Let me try to do that as succinct as possible. THE DESIGN OF THE PROCESS: Prior to my involvement with the project, you had already made the decision to select and work with a Master Developer and a group of "Specialized ". You members of the Development Team and representatives of the property owners to the Advisory Panel, along with neighborhood representatives, "At-Large" representatives and the chairs of commissions. The process I des took this group of s in~o account and carefully identified the roles and responsibilities of all of the part s, including the Development Team. The process design, the make up of the panel and the role of the Master was not only very spelled out when prospective members were invited to part , but also very clearly explained at the first workshop, and repeated several times the process. All of the members agreed to participate, based on the process that the council approved. To go through the entire process and then that its des was fatally flawed strikes me as an unreasonable criticism. The argument contained in the "Minority Report" is that the city should create the and then seek developers who will agree to commit to build it. There are a number of communities who have taken that approach. Notably, St. Anthony took that approach, although they hired professional land planners, urban designers, market research and environmental consultants to help them and did not rely solely on the services of members (as suggested in the report). St. Anthony approved the plan and then asked for requests for qualifications and selected a developer who aggreed to develop that plan. They then attempted to leases the community's plan. Eighteen months later, the Master Developer had to come back to the community and tell them that the plan was not workable. They brought in a retail development specialist, who insisted on the inclusion of "an economic engine", revised the plan and it is now under construction. The point is that despite all of the clear and often repeated statements to the contrary, some members of the Advisory Panel thought they were going to be able to prepare and propose the plan. The whole point of the process was to see how far we could progress toward a plan that the Master Developer could commit to build, that would address as many of the comments and concerns of the Panel members as possible. I did not see any value in having my firm generate plans and renderings that the Panel would fall in love with, if the Master Developer believed that they were not marketable. The City can still decide to reject the best plan that the Master Developer can propose, but those decisions should 1