2016-05-25_EDA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

6b. Attachment A Regular City Council Meeting Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 21 tial discussions with developers and those parameters. By having those policies in place, and preapproved by the City Council, Ms. King noted it ended up bene- fiting the city’s balance sheet versus that of a company/developer. Mayor Roe used the recent Sherman Project as an example in talking about a pol- icy in place compared to the Sherman process and piecemeal approach to facili- tate grant application deadlines before knowing the whole picture. Mayor Roe noted that the sooner that could be put in writing, the better, putting staff in a bet- ter position as well. Councilmember Laliberte thanked Ms. King for offering that list of tools and to provide that synopsis, opining it would prove very helpful. If SE Roseville is redeveloped, Councilmember McGehee referenced several in- teresting programs she’d learned about, similar to that used for University Avenue businesses as the Green Line developed and funding facelifts as part of a new community to avoid damages to those businesses because of that new construc- tion, and also addressing environmental issues. Ms. King referenced other programs used on a limited basis in the metropolitan area, such as Twin Cities Lift that funded several areas. Ms. King advised that she had been involved in a three-year evaluation of those areas and served as a coach to keep the program moving. Ms. King noted that there may be some real principles for the City of Roseville to consider based on that program especially as it looked at that SE Roseville node. Ms. King noted that much of the program involved the Main Street Program retooled for urban commercial areas. If the foundation for Roseville is to address safety and crime, or a perception of both or either, Ms. King noted the need for business and property owners to organize and communicate with each other to allow them to understand their economic niche. Ms. King opined that it could be a challenge to define a market for a particular corridor that was realistic and could be maintained long-term to be sustainable, and provide realistic rents and expectations based on market realities. Ms. King noted the potential successes when everyone understood that reality and an area developed as a neighborhood or destination servicing a certain clientele, and re- flecting an area’s heritage as well. Once that economic niche is better understood, Ms. King noted it then provided an opportunity and made it easier for that image to be reflected in the area and actually provides more impact to market and pro- mote an area consistently beyond just aesthetics along the corridor. With the city’s implementation several years ago of a “build forward” urban de- sign concept, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the design standards were found to not necessarily work across the board, and questioned if Ms. King found that to be true in other communities.