My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
EDA_Minutes_2016_08_29
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Economic Development Authority
>
Minutes
>
2016
>
EDA_Minutes_2016_08_29
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2016 3:23:21 PM
Creation date
9/20/2016 3:23:17 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.
/
35
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, August 29, 2016 <br />Page 13 <br /> <br /> <br />Member McGehee agreed, but reiterated her interest in parity in a building for <br />affordable and market rates, with the same building quality and amenities. <br /> <br />President Roe stated his support of that as well, but based on reality, opined <br />there was a need to consider projects with multiple buildings to ensure they <br />offered the same amenities and not two different levels of housing. <br /> <br />Member Etten concurred with President Roe. <br /> <br />Targeted Sectors (per displayed slide) <br />Ms. Kvilvang outlined areas to include in the policy based on survey <br />information: clean-up of polluted areas, clean-up of blighted areas; special <br />purpose projects (e.g. SE Roseville); retaining a major employer; <br />demonstration of extraordinary efficiency practices; significant rehabilitation <br />of existing properties; provided housing options not currently available; and <br />preservation or stabilization of malls and/or major commercial nodes. <br /> <br />Without objection, President Roe noted these areas articulated the goals of the <br />REDA as laid out by Ehlers. <br /> <br />President Roe clarified that he didn’t want bonus factors or categories <br />outweighing the general policy; duly noted by Ms. Kvilvang. <br /> <br />Open Comment – Areas the City DOESN’T want to Provide Assistance <br />Ms. Kvilvang reviewed the displayed list of those areas, including: retail <br />establishments unless smaller stores (e.g. not strip malls); most multi-family <br />housing, LDR, projects that pollute with noise or contaminate the air, ground, <br />or water; any project from staff or the City Council not vetted in the charrette <br />process within the community; anything not providing good jobs and benefits; <br />no big box stores; no adult entertainment, no pawn shops, and no trucking <br />terminals. <br /> <br />Member Willmus suggested additional discussion on the charrette process and <br />noting the expense of such a process, questioned if it would be required if the <br />REDA was looking to financially assist a corporate headquarters use, for <br />example, in an area properly zoned as such and not directly adjacent to less <br />intense uses. <br /> <br />President Roe opined it sounded like the intent was for any city-initiated <br />projects to ensure sufficient public participation. <br /> <br />REDA Executive Director Trudgeon stated it was addressing if staff came <br />forward with a multi-million dollar project without public input versus a <br />developer using a vetting process with the public. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.