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