2005_0711_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The properties owned by MIV in Area S are suhstantially leased, viable office/industrial properties, and are not "blighted" properties in any respect. They are nat heavy industrial ar"truck terminal" properties, and current uses of the properties are not inconsistent with a nearby residential development in any respect. Two low-level oiiice buildings, together with a topographic and vegetati�e buffer, facilitate compatibility with the abutting residential praperties to the north of Area $. MIV has had no complaints frozn its resid�ntial neighbors whil� it has awned these buildings. The buildings within Area 8 house approximately 81 well-payi�g jobs which would be eliminated upan redevelopment of the praperties as housing. The sarne is true in varying degrees, for all of MIV prop�rties in Twin Lakes. The current uses are consistent with existing zaning. Although the comprehensive pIan calls �Q?' PVelltl.ial 1'�Z^Rl;la O�.t�':?S L1F��L1'tV, ��18 �'1�V r"€`�S �JieV1C'.':'S1V c`!�:'L'0C� V4'it}1 �jle 0�.�'i1°iS C`� MN that tne properties shoulci not be rezaned in accordance with the com�rehensive plan unless and until market forces drive redevelopment of the property. Any prior rezaning would result in significant economic deirimeni to the property owners by reason of inability to attract long-term tenants and compeEitive financing. Further, in t�e request for City Council action presented to the Council on January 10, 2pOS, staff recagnized that "The cost af creating or acquiring new industrial and truck terminal sites that meet all current operationai and regulatory requirements is [zz�ore� expensive than mai�tainrng existi:ng "grandfat�ered" industriaI sites. Th�refor�, th� existing sites are valuable for trucking." Staff also noted that, "The City nf RosevilIe (by policy) owns no land within the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area and must rely on the market and private sectar development companies and land owners to reclaim and construct the new Twin Lakes neighborhood." Spending public dollars to acqt�ire viable existing office and industrial properties, thereby eliminating substantial numbers of jobs, prior to those properties becoming obsoIete by reason o� market forc�s is nnt an eff�ctive use af public dollars. The prapnsed redeveloper, Rottlund, cancedes that the price of acc�uiring the MIV properties, and redeveloping them as housing, puts a financial st��ain on the proposed Twin Lakes project. Sarely-needed public dallars would be spent to eIimir�ate 81 jobs, while leaving the existing uses in place is nat detrimental to the success af the rest of the praject. Aside from being highIy-questionable publac policy, a taking of the MIV properties likely would nnt pass cnnstitutional muster, and MIV would vigor�usly defend any atternpted talcing on constitutional grounds. As your City Attarney is aware, judicial Iaw is s�ifting to provide significantly mare prateetion ta private property owners when public bodies are taking private praperty for redevelapment by other private parties. T�erefore, the owners respectfully request that the current plan and pe�ding r�development agreement for Twin Lakes P�ase I and for future Phases be modified to eIiminate any refer�nce to candemnation of the MIV properties. As you are aware, the mere reference in the plan to condemnation of these properties wilI result in significant econamic loss to MIV, by rea�on of inability to attract long-term tenants and competitive Northco Rea[ Lstate- Se��i�ices 2 �� Grui�b&Ellis �. '190� Viki��7 Drir•�e Mim�capoiis. MN 55435-53I� 9i?.820.1606 95?.821}.].G20 f�ax I�ttp:llw°�v�v.nor€h�o.�;o�� Kni�t�Fram� ` �ioea� : >. Inrlepc�nrlrnlh� Un�rred rnrd Opernred � -. -. . .