pf_03552 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Put off VISion lack . In our tour we visited communities with in Arbor S1. Louis Burnsville, etc. Whether you agreed or not with these projects - at least they had a vision of what they wanted to achieve with some sort of proposed common good benefit for their respective cities. Twin Lakes doesn't have that. o Vision of Twin Lakes Retail as I see it - Let's have a nice looking Costco, and oh, we'll through some other stores around it somehow, and then put some grass and trees along the streets. And then we'll have some different looking high density housing unseen elsewhere. And if office space picks up, we'll sprinkle some of those around. This is not a vision I understand developers saying it's premature to get into specifics of development. But feel I'm being asked to make financing available and then trusting developers to work toward a development benefiting the common good of Roseville. I trust they have integrity, I don't question that. But I don't trust an approach that provides no incentives for developers to work toward benefiting the common good of Roseville. In fact, developers would be doing their investors a disservice if they provided amenities at an expense of profit. How can you put incentives in for the developers? Seems that now we're faced with constructing highly- detailed legal contracts, covenants, etc., and high levels of vigilant enforcement and endurance to achieve resolve (which gets harder to do as cutting back city admin fees is a proposed gap strategy). Is the city prepared to do this? Have we been successful in past with enforcement of contract specifications? Clone the Community Development Department? Some Considerations: Consider Twin Lakes proposal as only one item in a portfolio of options and opportunities . Does it make sense to pursue this project while cutting back city services to meet current budget needs? . Assume that the city would commit to cost and resources for the "Gap" - are there better projects for the betterment of Roseville than this one? . Are there other ideas to redevelop Twin Lakes that are not surfacing, given the structure of having designated developers wired from the process early on? . I'd like to see Roseville be revitalized and not become "drive over" land, so I don't want to give up re- development possibilities - but you have to make the numbers work. What I want from City Council: Leadership More than a "Yes" or "No" to the proposed development, though that decision must be made. I want an idea of what the council envisions for the Twin Lakes area or for any other areas where redevelopment possibilities exist. . Provide citizens and developers, some guidelines on what projects would be worth pursuing. Final Thought In the Panel Discussion Meetings, John Shardlow periodically and eloquently mentioned the major challenge of getting all the project aspects in synch -- the development; the financing, the purchase of land; the environmental remediation, etc. All of these aspects are mutually dependent on each other, with no clear cut order to tackle one first, solution for it, and move to the next. Have all these come together now? No. It remains a major challenge. p.s. - I've been disturbed over critical comments made over John Shardlow's facilitation. Panel members critical of John are unfairly mixing process with the outcomes or the charter premises which the Panel operated under. John and his team did an excellent job with the process - educable for us unfamiliar with such projects; moving at a good pace, and fair as one can realistically be. The investment in time and expense for John's services was a wise one given what's at stake.