2016-05-25_EDA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

6b. Attachment A Regular City Council Meeting Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 22 Ms. King responded that while initially the concept had met with some resistance based on the initial prototype model, many communities have now adopted that urban design concept as a new prototype had been developed. Ms. King admitted that sometimes it required developers or property owners to work harder; and not- ed that there were some situations with access or sight lines that proved too tricky and needed revision. However, Ms. King noted that the result wasn’t either/or, but somewhere in between. Mayor Roe noted that the concept wasn’t a one-size-fits-all, since that urban de- sign made some sense in some areas and didn’t make sense in others within a community. Councilmember Willmus recognized that there were unique situations where building forward may not work, or if a code is proven too restrictive causing a de- veloper to look at another community if it became an issue for that business. If forced to go through a Variance Board, or Planning Commission and City Council process, Councilmember Willmus noted that it may simply be easier for that de- veloper to move down the road to another community with their project. Coun- cilmember Willmus stated his interest in identifying beforehand those particular challenges or restrictive areas that the city was creating for itself. Ms. King agreed that was a good point, and with the building forward initiative if the community attempted that uniformly throughout the community it could be a mistake. Ms. King noted there were two differing viewpoints of how that urban design standard addressed crime and safety, as well as other considerations, and depending on particular situations, suggested a more nuanced approach may prove more beneficial/ Mayor Roe recognized the two differing viewpoints as well, and the need for flex- ibility and thinking smart as a city to determine in which areas that design would best work and how to work with developers and facilitate discussions versus hav- ing them locate or relocate elsewhere. Councilmember McGehee raised another issue from the perspective of a person who wants to build in Roseville but the community doesn’t accept their project, creating the need for a more nuanced approach but still be mindful that many con- sider Roseville to still be a suburb and expect a green space amenity rather than a situation like that of Washington Avenue in Minneapolis. Councilmember McGehee stated the importance to her that the city view itself as a complete unit, not just a complete streets situation, and recognize that while Roseville needs a viable tax base, it already has some large industries and retail (e.g. Rosedale) and needed to provide its residents smaller scale businesses as well for user- friendliness and access for its elderly population. Councilmember McGehee not- ed the need for the City Council and community to plan strategically and carefully to remain inviting and not simply as the place you drive through on your way to