2013-10-15_HRA_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes –Tuesday, October 15, 2013 Page 7 1 2 Member Quam questioned if there was a failure to develop on the established timeframe with the 3 general idea if something should go wrong in the process and to ensure that the City didn’t lose the site 4 through foreclosure, she wanted to make sure the City could recapture control of the site, and sought 5 assurances that the developer was aware of that intent. 6 7 Mr. Thelan responded that the only challenge would be if it happened when the units were still under 8 construction with no bank financing until then; but recognized that such a provision made sense and 9 that the City wouldn’t want to select a developer who won’t accomplish the project; and expressed his 10 firm’s willingness to work out language accordingly to protect all interests.Mr. Thelan noted that they 11 needed to be sensitive to the needs of their first mortgage lender in the process. 12 13 At the request of Member Quam, distinctions in storm water ponds and rain gardens were reviewed; 14 with preliminary sizes, depths and their actual function remaining an unknown until a more refined site 15 plan was developed from this concept stage and based on requirements of the City, State and Watershed 16 Districts. 17 Public Comment 18 Ken Erdman, 66 West Lovell 19 Mr. Erdman noted that there had not been any discussion on parking with this proposal; but noted in the 20 proposal that they were averaging 2 cars/per unit or a total of 96 underground spaces; and questioned if 21 those costs were borne by each unit or if there was an extra fee involved for renters, who may choose to 22 park on the street and create parking issues for the City to address. Mr. Erdman noted that there was 23 only available on-street parking on Lovell and Cope. 24 25 Mr.Thelan advised that, similar to their other current developments, this would include 1 underground 26 space per unit, and be included in their rent, opining that depending on the market and underground 27 parking being at a premium, they would be used significantly. While unable to guarantee anything at 28 this point, Mr. Thelan advised that the cost for those spaces would depend on the number of bedrooms 29 and units in the final design. 30 31 Mr. Bork advised that their firm had addressed current Roseville ordinance onparking and, from their 32 point of view, their attempt was to save as green space as possible and avoid a massive parking lot on 33 Cope Avenue. 34 35 At the request of Mr. Erdman, Chair Maschka advised that any parking stipulations would be part of the 36 DevelopmentAgreement. Mr. Erdman noted that this was a vital consideration to avoid a shortage of 37 parking on Lovell or boats/trailers being parked where vehicles should be parked. 38 39 Chair Maschka noted that boats and trailers would be addressed in tenant agreements as well. 40 41 At the request of Ms. Kelsey, Chair Maschka reviewed the upcoming timetable for additional 42 information from developers, creation of a matrix for comparison purposes, and subsequent decision- 43 making and recommendations to the City Council. 44 45 With applause from the audience, Chair Maschka thanked presenters for their nice presentation and 46 concepts. 47 48 CommonBond Communities 49 328 Kellogg Blvd. W;St. Paul, MN 55102 50 Phone: 651/291-1750 51 www.commonbond.org 52 53 Justin Eilers, Housing Development Associate, CommonBond Communities 54 Ms. Eilers provided information on similar developments to-date; highlighting their four core areas of 55 service: real estate development, property management, advantage services, and resource development;