2013-08-13_HRA_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 13, 2013 Page 6 1 2 Member Lee concurred with Chair Maschka; opining that the assessment of any and all 3 proposals would be a very complicated process and consisted of many variable that went 4 beyond the financial focus. 5 6 Ms. Kels, Applewood Pointe at the 7 8 Ms. Kelsey noted that the City did not choose the highest bidder for the site as their product 9 did not serve to provide a product to fill a pre-existing market demand in Roseville. Ms. 10 Kelsey noted that the resulting project included cooperative, single-family and townhome 11 units. Using this as an example, Ms. Kelsey noted that while the financial aspects were a 12 factor for consideration, they were not 10% of the driving factors, but only a portion of all of 13 the items addressed during the CDI process. Ms. Kelsey assured the public that this remained 14 a public process and would continue to be, similar to the process used by the City Council 15 during development of the former Ralph Reeder site. 16 17 Mr. Schlueter advised that his rationale for the question was in presentation to the 18 neighborhood of sample developments that went from single-family homes to multi-family 19 buildings, representing two completely different designs that may ultimately cost the same and 20 require the same City funding subsidy. Mr. Schlueter opined that it was reassuring to 21 understand that there would be other factors going into the decision-making, since the 22 variables of potential developments and impacts were significant for neighbors. 23 24 Chair Maschka recognized and concurred with Mr. Schlueter 25 concerns. 26 27 Member Lee referenced the list of priorities included in the draft RFP that would serve to 28 weigh in on consideration and ultimate decision-making. 29 30 Mr. Schlueter 31 Mr. Schlueter suggested the 32 33 As brought up during community involvement meetings, Mr. Schlueter opined that such 34 information could prove of value. 35 36 Ms. Kelsey advised that that point had been intentionally removed from the on-line RFP 37 document, and reviewed the rationale for that removal, based on 38 y. 39 Ms. Kelsey advised that the more proposals received the better, and the intent was that on 40 interested developers be short-circuited from providing a proposal or being considered. 41 42 Chair Maschka assured the public that it would be obvious if a developer 43 44 45 and offered 46 to - 47 48 49 Schlueter questioned the intent of and specifics for rental agreements, such as the disorderly 50 lease addendum. 51 52 Ms. Kelsey clarified that this particular discussion was related to the RFP only, with the rental 53 licensing discussion coming next on the agenda; and that such addendums would be addressed 54 as part of rental property licensing requirements in Roseville, but not specifically addressed in 55 the RFP at this time.