CC_Minutes_2004_0712 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

. My natural inclination is to not have more retail. I don't like seeing store after store, but I'm putting my personal prejudice aside. . I was not convinced by stakeholders' objections that there is "too much retail". I don't think we have enough retail density expertise to make such judgments. I don't think we in the panel could make fair assessments of how additional retail could impact Rosedale or other areas and/or understand threats of other regional areas outside of Roseville, most notably north of it, which are developing "critical mass" areas for shopping that threaten Roseville overall. . If worthwhile - would be great to get an independent consultants perspective of retail impact. . Caveat - I don't live that close to the development where it could affect me every day, so it might be easy for me to be neutral. . I felt that the development team did listen to the panel and made changes from original plans presented, albeit with the "constraints" discussed all along -- having a big box retailer and high density housing. o For retail, the plan calls for "four-sided" architecture than having conventional stores with large parking lot in front and ugly store side in rear. The big box would be located at the "hardest edge" - County C & Cleveland - the most challenged area in terms of redevelopment appeal. o The development team made a compelling case for the need of a big box retailer; having high density housing; and having a mix of retail, office and housing . Retail - Big boxes are where people shop today. Boutique shops are what people want to see, but won't purchase items there, unless in well known areas like Grand Avenue or Uptown. Small retailers won't come unless a big box is nearby to generate traffic. . High Density Housing - demographic trends show more childless (empty nesters, seniors, young people not having kids) families who want convenience that high density housing provides. Single family homes will not cover projected redevelopment costs. . Having a mix - Given "hard" and "soft" edges of Twin Lakes; traffic patterns; location of Langton Lake, need for flexibility in planning, etc - mix of uses makes sense. . I considered the financial aspect of the project the most daunting and as a potential show stopper. o We did have one meeting devoted to financing, but most of it taken up in (much needed) education process of how TIF works, what goes into environmental remediation, how the city has been obtaining grant money for environmental clean up etc. o I attended all meetings with the notion of suspending the financing portion, wanting to hear and understand all facets Twin Lakes entails, independent of financing. But at session's end, the question of who pays and how much overshadows everything. . I would characterize the Development Team's plans presented as dramatically underwhelming o Encouraged by the four-sided architecture and planned location of big box retailer at the "hardest edge" o Encouraged with how the density of housing is high near the retail side, but trails off as it approaches Langton Lake Park. o Encouraged that housing design would be unique to development area and not another McHousing project typically seen aligning our US freeways. o But . There is no vision for retail beyond the big box.