pf_03552 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

From: ESANDS261 Sent: Tuesday, 27, 2004 1 :23 PM To: dmaschka@qwest.net Cc: city.council@ci.roseville.mn.us Subject: Twin Lakes Thank you for finally responding. I tried 3 times to call you last week, and you didn't respond. Also, I didn't get to read your email until after last night's meeting, or I would have responded. The 1400 units of housing you refer to as seeming too dense, is about what the proposed development team is planning on in the 32 acres of the 74 acres they have in housing. (595 units / 32 acres = 18.6 units per acre). 1400 units on 74 acres =18.9, or similar. The attachment enclosed shows how much more tif could be generated by housing over retail and office (13.3 million) which would go a long way toward closing the financial gap. In addition, an expensive parkway ( $6million?) would not be necessary or desirable in a residential setting. The project could be financed within the district. I would not advocate 100% housing. I think the 11 acres of office should stay, or perhaps be increased. The retail needs to be eliminated or come down to what's in our current master plan, or about 10 acres, as service type retail. Even if we only trade 20 acres of retail for housing, we would generate another $7.5 million of TIF. would very much like see this development carry itself financially, within the tif district, without "hitting" on our general taxpayers. The argument of the developers that they need a big box Costco and 200,000 sq. ft of boutique retail (about 100 more retailers?) strikes me as self serving. Don't kid yourself that some of these 100 "new" retailers would not be "transplants" from retailers currently located in Rosedale or elswhere in Roseville. Ask yourself: If you were a well paid hard working upper level professional wanting a residence close to Mpls or St. Paul, would you turn down this location merely because you couldn't walk over to a big box Costco? I think the opposite is the case: I would not want to look out my window onto the backside of Costco and its parking lot. Somehow, somewhere, these developers have gotten locked into the idea they want to put a Costco in here. We are getting conned. The facts are now in. We have Casserly's calculations. Housing as a land use is 3-4 times better in generating tif with which to pay for the project than is retail. Many of us that live in the area don't want more retail and more traffic. I also want to protect our "golden goose", as you describe Rosedale. We need Rosedale to stay vibrant and the star of our tax base. Please do not claim that we need more retail anymore. It's just not true-- financially or otherwise. j\{ SandS 8/4/2004