2017-04-18_EDA_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville REDA Workshop Tuesday, January 17, 2017 Page4 1 by having a tool kit well equipped to deal with today’s challenges. This includes not 2 only financial possibilities, but whether or not the city is easy to work with and ready 3 to solve problemswith a more creative approach in resolving challenges to a devel- 4 opment creating a confident atmosphere for a developer to work in. 5 The potential of accessory dwelling units as a housing type becoming more popular 6 and addressing affordable housing for intergenerational living as well as reducing 7 community and family health care costs for caregivers in a close proximity. Consid- 8 eration of what current restrictions may need to be reviewed to provide more flexibil- 9 ity (e.g. lot size, setbacks, impervious surface coverage requirements) and make them 10 allowable. 11 12 Additional discussion included how to approach walkability for the next generation by 13 using existing destinations as social spaces being sought by people used to their electron- 14 ic lifestyles and nowseeking that social interaction. This could include attending events 15 and activities, working with existing shopping centers to make them more social (e.g. 16 Vadnais Height strip mall where a comfortable and walkable environment was created at 17 an existing strip mall creating a traditional main street feel with storefronts and amenities. 18 Costs for such a venture would be less than a major redevelopment; and could operate 19 from a place of strength for developers and users. The city could prime the pump and 20 risk something, or find an early adopter to get things started; and if successful, could then 21 use that test data and results as a case study to show other property owners what could 22 happen. It was noted that grants were available for façade or place improvements, and 23 the city could consider matching programs as it demonstrated results and communicate 24 that data to other interested business and/or property owners. 25 26 Discussion included the evolution of how the city could encourage property owners plan- 27 ning façade or parking lot improvements to consider other enhancements versus simply 28 replacement; adding property values as well as redeveloping for the community’s benefit. 29 30 Further discussion included political capital expenditures as a consideration and how 31 willing local elected officials were to take steps to address and change how Roseville is 32 perceived in the development community through incremental changes and the rationale 33 to support it; misconceptions with some past developments and the reality of why they 34 didn’t work (e.g. Costcoor Sherman project); and how to move toward responsible in- 35 vestment moving forward. 36 37 Additional discussion included how to change the message being presented by the City of 38 Roseville to the world and frame opportunities to develop the values of the community 39 and what it cared about; with those values and aspirations continually reviewed and part 40 of each consideration moving forward; and creating venues for the silent majority to 41 champion efforts within the context. 42 43 Positive assetsof the community were identified as strong retail; sizable and good quality 44 parks; proximity to both downtowns for jobs; with discussion on how best to connect all 45 of those values for the betterment of Roseville in the future. 46