My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
EDA_Minutes_2016_05_25
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Economic Development Authority
>
Minutes
>
2016
>
EDA_Minutes_2016_05_25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/27/2016 4:16:34 PM
Creation date
6/27/2016 4:16:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Economic Development Authority
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
RHRA Meeting <br />Minutes – Monday, May 25, 2016 <br />Page 7 <br />1 President Roe suggested knowing who in Roseville already used some of <br />2 those resources could also be helpful, to have that information or those <br />3 testimonials readily available. <br />4 <br />5 Ms. King concurred, noting that information could be included in city <br />6 newsletters (e.g. success stories), promoting that Roseville is helping make <br />7 those connections. <br />8 <br />Redevelopment Areas <br />9 <br />10 Ms. King reviewed redevelopment strategies identified and for each compared <br />11 the current status, possible next steps, and possible enhancements to achieve a <br />12 higher level. Those areas included: <br />13 Brownfield Redevelopment <br />14 Ms. King noted this area addressed Member Willmus’ previous question on <br />15 site acquisition/assembly on a more sophisticated level; and may be part of <br />16 the long-term consideration for Roseville’s future. <br />17 <br />18 Resident Oriented/Neighborhood Commercial <br />19 Member McGehee noted this was a recurring and frequent comment she <br />20 heard from older Roseville residents: the scale of retail options in Roseville <br />21 (e.g. Rosedale Center. Member McGehee noted that while the elderly may <br />22 find Rosedale nice, it wasn’t shopper-friendly for a significant segment of <br />23 the city’s current population. Member McGehee asked if there were other <br />24 communities looking at smaller retail areas within larger suburban areas. <br />25 Member McGehee noted this was especially important for those no longer <br />26 driving or having cars and dependent on public transportation. Member <br />27 McGehee referenced previous discussions that Roseville didn’t have much <br />28 east/west connectivity for public transportation making it hard to get near <br />29 those more modest amenities. <br />30 <br />31 Ms. King noted this was part of identifying areas in the community where <br />32 support was needed in declining areas or areas of opportunity, including <br />33 perhaps SE Roseville, the city’s current poster child. Regarding other <br />34 communities, Ms. King stated that she had seen small area plans or <br />35 corridor plans, such as done by the City of Shoreview in various areas of <br />36 the community (e.g. Hodgson Road, Highway 96, Rice Street, etc.). <br />37 <br />38 Ms. King referenced other efforts in the metropolitan area, including her <br />39 work with Minneapolis/St. Paul on Central Avenue, Broadway and the <br />40 node on the west side of St. Paul (Concord Street, Robert Street, Payne <br />41 Avenue). In those settings, Ms. King noted the use of an adaptation of the <br />42 Main Street model, with an organization primarily made up of business and <br />43 property owners, and perhaps some residents, working together on a plan <br />44 specific to them from a financial perspective. Ms. King noted that <br />45 residents often know what they want, but business owners know what will <br />46 or will not work economically or from a financial and market perspective. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.