My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007_0910_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2007
>
2007_0910_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2012 12:41:30 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 2:56:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
174
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
Margaret Driscol� <br />From: Mark Rancor�e� [rr�rancone@ros�prop.corr�� <br />Sent: Monday, August 27,2007 3;44 PM <br />To: *RVCouncii <br />Subject: FW: Proposed Twin Lakes Moratorium <br />Page 1 o f 2 <br />�r �- <br />1�S'Y'� . `� �,�• c'' r��' <br />• �;5 � � � � - <br />`� i�� � � �i <br />i <br />From: Mark Raneone <br />Sent: Monday, August 27,2007 3:37 RVl <br />To: 'Craig Klausing'; 'criag.klausing@ci.roseville.mn.us`; `t�mmy.pust@c[.raseville.rr�n.us'; <br />'amy.ihlan@ci.rase�ille.mn.us'; 'dan.roe@ci.roseville.rr�n.us`; '�nm.kough@ci.roseville.mn.GS� <br />Cc: 'bill.maEiner�@ci.rnseville.mn.us'; "rnike.darrnw@ci.rnseville.rrin.tas' <br />Sub�ect: Proposed Twin Lakes Moratorium <br />h1�y�r� ���ir� �il�,,�r�,b�r� <br />Among other issues relating to the Twin Lakes redevelopment area, we note that you have on tonight's Council <br />Meeting agenda a discussion of an Interim Development Ordinance (Twin Lakes Moratorium) as put forth by <br />Councilmember Ihlan. As a significant property owner of land parcels within the area, Roseville Properties, we <br />are opposed to any further delay in our ability to redevelop our land. <br />As your packet of information reminds you, there was a moratorium in place that specifically addressed points "a, <br />b& e'" of the "Potential Findings" points as recently as two years ago. While the specific project has been <br />abandoned, there was significant public input - from the nine month Stakeholder's Panel to years of public <br />comment from a variety of citizens - during the six years of developmentof our Twin Lakes project. <br />What continues to be irritating is the continued call by Councilmember Ihlan as outlined in point"d", suggesting <br />that the City request development proposals for land that they do not own. What would give a City that right? <br />Ryan Companies had the ability to put togethera master plan for the remaining redevelopment area for many <br />years and did not. When two Roseville based companies, Roseville Properties and Rottlund Companies took the <br />initiative, millions of their own dollars, and six years of development time - the timeframe it takes to assemble the <br />number of parcels for a large plan such as Twin Lakes -th e delays resulting from the flawed approval process of <br />the City of Roseville - not the substance of the plan (see the Court of Appeals decision) rendered a viable mixed- <br />use redevelopmentunfeasible. <br />At this point, there are two pending applications, along with the potential FBI building on the Dorso <br />parcel (consistentwith the use planned for in our Twin Lakes proposal, by the way). We have also been diligently <br />pursuing optionson our land, consistentwith land uses allowed by the 2001 ComprehensivePlan thatgoverns <br />the area. A new moratorium could jeopardize the feasibility of these projects and increase the burden of all <br />existing landowners for another indefinite period. <br />Unless the City proposes a near-term purchaseof all the parcels at market prices, which would give the City the <br />legal ability to "create an open market call for qualified master developers", or if the City is prepared to use its <br />condemnation powers to acquire private property, the reality is that you may not have any choices other than to <br />allow current landowners to pursue their individual opportunities. Roseville Properties would be a willing seller to <br />the City or any other party at an acceptable market valu� if that buyer can provide a bonafide purchase offer in <br />the next 60 days. <br />Counciimember ihlan`s suggested moratorium is yet another example of her attempt to delay the redevelopment <br />of the Twin Lakes area in any way that may benefit the City long term if it is not consistent with her personal vision <br />for the area. At times, good governancefor all requires compromise from personal agendas. It is time to move <br />that area of Roseville, the City's gateway from the west, into tax producing land consistentwith the realities of the <br />$ f?�l�k��� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.