2012-04-21_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes Saturday, April 21, 2012 Page 10 1 choices based on realistic economics; referencing comments made by AEON in their interview; entry 2 level housing versus integrated housing in pocket neighborhoods. 3 4 Additional discussion included recognizing communities with the Roseville community; advantages of 5 pocket neighborhoods as well as disadvantages of the older ramblers in the community and their 6 challenges space-wise; closeness of community amenities to these smaller neighborhoods within larger 7 neighborhoods; strong social commitments of pocket neighborhoods; and further enhancing the Living 8 Smarter campaign to address living smarter, living green, but much more and having great appeal to the 9 10 the Living Smarter marketing to ensure nothing is being missed. 11 12 Consensus was that the Living Smarter concept should be run by all advisory committees and 13 department staff for their input. 14 15 Discussion ensued regarding whether to encourage neighborhoods have their own identity such as used 16 by St. Paul for their various neighborhoods; reference to the NextDoor.com website; the need to avoid 17 small neighborhoods becoming so provisional in their thinking that they were unsuccessful; providing 18 information to neighborhoods socially based on a broad square footage delineation, but not 19 neighborhood-driven; whether the Neighborhood Watch program was facilitating those efforts; and 20 benefit of basing neighborhoods geographically on the Park Master Plan and Constellation concept. 21 22 Further discussion included the NEP providing solutions to a number of single-family homes that have 23 been deteriorating in the past, eliminating or significantly reducing the need for the City to consider 24 purchasing derelict properties for demolition; and reference to a Macalester College study by students 25 for the City of Richfield in tracking 140 homes and their demolition, allowing that land to be 26 redeveloped with a new single-family home; and the improvements in the value of those homes to the 27 community overall, but the neighborhood as well, and increasing the rehabilitation of adjacent homes 28 and triggering increases in overall home values, creating a synergy in the market place and creating a 29 better investment in the overall community. 30 31 Regarding remaining blighted properties in the community, there was consensus that condemnation 32 should be a tool considered. 33 34 Additional discussion included the private market addressing single-family housing rehabilitation, 35 specifically for a number of foreclosed homes, and providing for one positive from the negative 36 foreclosure picture; and whether providing forgivable loans for upgrading homes would be amenable to 37 38 be expanded beyond low-to moderate income issues, and whether blight was an affordability or a 39 neighborhood issue. 40 41 42 43 Chair Maschka clarified that the mission should be GOOD and affordable housing. 44 45 46 hat that the HRA wore; how to understand past rationale in the HRA not delving into redevelopment 47 issues, probably based on the late creation - 48 the way compared with other communities; and time spent to-date building trust and an infrastructure, 49 bringing the HRA and City Council to this current state with the foundation in place and now ready to 50 step up efforts. 51 52 53 perspective on redevelopment efforts that could be undertaken by the HRA. Member Willmus advised 54 that he was not aware that the City Council had yet been approached about redevelopment; however, his 55 personal perspective was that the HRA provided for redevelopment efforts rather than needing to create