From: Amy Ihlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Roseville city council]
Subject: Twin Lakes/Roseville 01.10 7pm
The Rottlund Twin Lakes proposal is on the agenda for land use approval
this Monday January 10. This may be one of the most significant decisions
by council in years. I hope you will find the time to attend this meeting
and make your views known. Recent editorials and letters to the editor in
the Minneapolis and St. Paul papers have claimed overwhelming public
support for this project, even in the Twin Lakes neighborhood. The only
way to prove this wrong is to have a strong public turnout at the meeting.
The meeting starts at 6pm, in the Council Chambers at Roseville City Hall,
and the Twin Lakes discussion will probably begin at around 7pm. I hope
to see you there! Also please spread the word to your friends and
neighbors about this important meeting.
Reasons Why Rottlund's Twin Lakes Proposal Should Be Rejected
Here is a summary of some of my reasons for opposing Rottlund's proposed
redevelopment for the Twin Lakes area. Again, I hope you can come to the
council meeting Monday night, January 10, at the Roseville City Hall --
it's important! The meeting starts at 6:00 p.m., and the Twin Lakes
proceedings will start around 7:00 p.m.
--- Rottlund's Twin Lakes development proposal includes 30 acres of new
retail (including a big-box and other large stores), 740 units of high
density housing, and 10 acres of office space. It also includes a
significant amount of new roadway (Twin Lakes Parkway and an extension of
Mount Ridge Road on the west side of Langton Lake Park).
As you all know, I favor redevelopment in the Twin Lakes area, but remain
firmly opposed to this proposal. Here are some of my reasons.
1. Rottlund's plan will bring a huge increase of retail and commuter
traffic into the neighborhoods around Fairview, County Rd D and Lydia. For
example, daily traffic on Fairview north of C2 is projected to increase by
61% (from 9700 to 15,600 cars per day). These traffic estimates may well
be too low, because the big box retail "engine" is intended to draw in
traffic from a 30 mile radius or more. Such large traffic increases can't
be supported, and will have a significant negative effect on the
livability of our neighborhoods and on our property values.
2. Roseville does not need another regional shopping center. We already
have more retail per capita than any other city in Minnesota. The
economic impact of the new big box center on Roseville's existing retail
community (and especially our small local retailers) has not been studied
or considered.
3. The proposal puts a new four-lane roadway very near the south shore of
Langton Lake, as well as 3-4 story condos along the south and west sides
of the park. The developers have consistently refused to provide a land
buffer between the lake and the development. Instead, the say they want to
'open-up' Langton Lake Park and turn it into a Minneapolis-style 'urban
park'. I believe these changes will threaten the natural wildlife habitats
around the lake and destroy the secluded character of the park, to no
one's benefit except the developers.
4. A known carcinogen (TCE) was recently discovered in area ground water,
but the extent and source of the contaminant is unknown. No redevelopment
plan should be authorized until all threats to public health have been
fully evaluated. Although redevelopment does present a good opportunity
to clean up pollution in the area, any redevelopment would provide that
opportunity - this redevelopment is not the only way to do it. In fact,
Rottlund's plan would result in less thorough environmental clean-up than
alternatives with more housing, since the clean-up standards for retail
and commercial properties are lower than for housing. It is also
important to remember that Rottlund is demanding that the city pay for the
environmental clean-up costs. We should not agree to do this, or to go
forward with any land use approvals, until the costs of clean-up are
known.
5. The proposal violates the city's comprehensive plan, as well as zoning
ordinances (including our city shoreland ordinance) and other planning
documents (like Roseville's Vista 2000 plan).
6. The proposal will not increase or diversify the city's tax base since
the developers have demanded that all additional taxes generated by the
development are given away to the developers in the form of 'tax increment
financing (TIF). Unfortunately, even if all of the available tax
increment is given to the developers for this project, it will only cover
about half of what they want the city to pay. The total amount of public
subsidy demanded is 40 - 50 million dollars. I do not believe this
proposal provides any public good which would justify the use of public
money.
7. No attempt has been made study the effects of the development on
neighborhood property values or on the city's existing retail businesses,
even though hundreds of thousands of dollars of city money has been spent
on the consultants and attorneys hired to frame the exclusive bargaining
agreement and the subsidy package. Repeated calls for an economic impacts
study have been rebuffed by three members of the council.
8. The proposal calls for the use of eminent domain to force existing
land-owners off their property. I believe that eminent domain should be
used only when there is a clear 'public purpose' that would not be
otherwise be achievable. This condition is not met.
9. New infrastructure and support costs (roads, sewers, police and fire
service) will need to be shouldered by all Roseville taxpayers since new
taxes from the development itself will go to the developer in the form of
TIF. City staff has not quantified these additional costs despite repeated
calls to do so.
10. Rottlund's plan is nothing but another suburban sprawl development,
with giant parking lots, no green space or public space, and no public
transit facilities.
I have also recently submitted answers to the 77 Twin Lakes Questions
posted on the Roseville Citizen's League website( www.rosevillecl.com ).
Here is a link to my recent Star Tribune editorial on Langton Lake Park:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/142/5119553.html
Finally, here are a few suggestions for how the city could do better:
Many of the problems with the Rottlund proposal are connected to the big
box retail component of the development. I believe that there is (or
could be) widespread support for a redevelopment plan that emphasizes
housing, with some smaller scale, neighborhood friendly support retail.
There are many examples of this type of development going on all around
the Twin Cities. Rottlund's claim that a big-box shopping center is a
necessary amenity for a successful housing development does not ring true.
The council should say no to Rottlund's proposal, and call for alternative
proposals from other developers. Instead of locking ourselves into
exclusive negotiations with one set of developers who are determined to
offer us nothing but another regional shopping center we don't need and
can't support (and at the same time demanding millions of dollars of
public money as part of the deal), the city needs to enter the market for
some genuinely beneficial community development. This is an incredibly
valuable development site, with great potential.
At the very least, the city council needs to be committed to enforcing our
own ordinances and policies to protect our neighborhoods, Langton Lake,
and the park - and to making all of these community assets better, not
worse.
Please feel free to contact me over the weekend at 651-635-9152 if you
have questions.
Thanks for the amazing amount of hard work and dedication you have shown
on this issue -- we all need to keep fighting a little bit longer!
--end Ihlan---
The Green Party of StPaul/4CD will sponsor a Green Forum on the Roseville
bigbox: Feb 15, 7-9pm Roseville Public Library. Hamline & B2, Roseville
The Green Party of StPaul Small Is beautiful land-use committee meets
every Thursday 5pm at Cahoots coffeehouse, Selby 1/2 block E of Snelling,
StP.
--David Shove
Roseville
_____________________________________________
To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________
NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [email protected]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
