My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-04-21_HRA_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Housing Redevelopment Authority
>
Minutes
>
2015
>
2015-04-21_HRA_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/20/2015 7:47:08 AM
Creation date
5/20/2015 7:47:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Housing Redevelopment Authority
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
4/21/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
HRA Meeting <br />Minutes – Tuesday, April 21, 2015 <br />Page 2 <br />1 <br />and deck overlook area. Ms. Mix stated that past attempts by the townhome association to <br />2 <br />purchase the property to ensure protection of those areas of concern had not been successful. <br />3 <br />4 <br />Ms. Mix encouraged the HRA to become involved in the purchase and/or oversight of <br />5 <br />development on this site that would provide additional housing while preserving the wetlands <br />6 <br />and views for their property as well. Ms. Mix offered several ideas for that development. Ms. <br />7 <br />Mix assured the HRA that they were not opposed to low- or moderate-income housing, but <br />8 <br />only with the need to preserve privacy or both properties; with their townhome association still <br />9 <br />willing to purchase all or a portion of the property to preserve it, and address any issues with <br />10 <br />traffic and/or access points. <br />11 <br />12 <br />At the request of Chair Maschka, City Manager Trudgeon advised that no applications for a <br />13 <br />development had yet been filed, nor had an application for a building permit been requested. <br />14 <br />Mr. Trudgeon clarified that, since the first of the year when the developer had presented a plat, <br />15 <br />nothing else had been processed. Mr. Trudgeon advised that any development on the site <br />16 <br />would create an encroachment issue for townhome decks, causing the need for property lines <br />17 <br />to be sorted out; and until any development could take place, a developer would need to sort <br />18 <br />those lines out with the townhome association and resolve the issue prior to proceeding. At the <br />19 <br />time the plat had first been presented to City staff by the developer, Mr. Trudgeon advised that <br />20 <br />they had been encouraged to sit down with the neighborhood to review any current or past <br />21 <br />development proposals and address concerns. Mr. Trudgeon reiterated that he had heard no <br />22 <br />conversations over the last month or so, nor had he heard of any direct contact by a developer <br />23 <br />with staff at this point. <br />24 <br />25 <br />Chair Maschka noted that this was a classic parcel similar to the Dale Street Fire Station <br />26 <br />property that could be interesting for HRA development. However, Chair Maschka noted that <br />27 <br />the City and/or HRA would need to own the property prior to considering any development. <br />28 <br />29 <br />At the request of Chair Maschka, Mr. Trudgeon stated that he was not familiar enough with the <br />30 <br />property details at this meeting to address the wetland area; but typically the wetlands would <br />31 <br />need to be retained, or measures put in place as part of any development project to replace <br />32 <br />them or mitigate impacts to them, as required by the area watershed district and other <br />33 <br />appropriate agencies. <br />34 <br />35 <br />To clarify, Member Majerus asked for confirmation that the Planning Commission did not <br />36 <br />know about, nor were they processing any application at this time, nor was the watershed <br />37 <br />district, or Department of Natural Resources (DNR) involved at this point. <br />38 <br />39 <br />Mr. Trudgeon confirmed that perception and that the property had previously been zoned <br />40 <br />single-family residential prior to its current HDR zoning (as of 2010 and as part of the <br />41 <br />Comprehensive Plan update completed in 2008/2009). Mr. Trudgeon did advise that, if the <br />42 <br />development met all the City Code standards for development under that zoning designation, <br />43 <br />they may not need further Planning Commission and/or City Council review. However, Mr. <br />44 <br />Trudgeon noted that there would still need to be watershed district approvals; and even if a <br />45 <br />development met City Code, there were other safeguards in place as part of the building permit <br />46 <br />review process that would address the concerns of the townhome association. <br />47 <br />48 <br />Based on his familiarity with this site, Chair Masche complimented Ms. Mix on her <br />49 <br />description of the property and situation; opining that the property located at 3261 south of the <br />50 <br />townhomes as shown on the displayed map was certainly not compatible with the <br />51 <br />neighborhood, and desperately in need of redevelopment due to his perception of its severe <br />52 <br />blight. However, Chair Maschka noted the beautifully maintained Executive Manor <br />53 <br />development. <br />54 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.