2015-03-31_HRA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 Mr. Bilotta noted that GMHC could use as a strong argument on their part, that they had 2 produced similar projects elsewhere and had a track record on which they were relying. 3 4 Based on his comments this evening, Member Wall questioned if Mr. Bilotta was supporting a 5 hybrid of Options 1 and 2. 6 7 Mr. Bilotta responded that he liked getting the project going quickly on the site, rather than 8 deferring it out to 2017, opining that getting activity going on the site was a good thing. 9 However, Mr. Bilotta reiterated that there remained a lot of unanswered questions on Phases II 10 and III; and he understood that seeking to go a different way on those phases may get things 11 moving more quickly. 12 13 At the request of Member Wall, Mr. Bilotta suggested language for a motion that incorporated 14 his recommendations: 15 “Direct staff to begin negotiations for Phase I with GMHC, with the understanding that Phases 16 II and III may be open; and directing staff to return to the next HRA meeting with a process to 17 pursue Phases II and III, with the understanding that GMHC was not necessarily precluded 18 from being involved with Phases II and III. 19 20 Member Etten provided a counter argument for that options, opining that this provides many 21 risks for the City and HRA that are hard to ignore, even with Phase I providing a potential way 22 to get long-term money. Member Etten further opined that involving several stages in the 23 project provided risk, including potential changes in the economic climate during this possible 24 four-year span, which represented a significant amount of time, and under many things not 25 under the City, HRA or GMHC control. Member Etten noted that this would also involve four 26 construction seasons for the neighborhood to endure, which was very significant also. 27 Member Etten furthernoted that, using this proposed recommendation, if the project ended 28 after Phase II, it would leave only two acres left to sell, and a developer may need more 29 acreage than that for a project to work, serving to limit developer creativity or their financial 30 picture compared to what the neighborhood had supported. Member Etten noted that this took 31 away potential options and he could not support such a “hybrid” model. Member Etten spoke 32 in support of Option 3 as outlined by staff in their report; but he found too many risks in this 33 recommendation or a hybrid model of Options 1 and 2. 34 35 Member Majerus questioned what would be lost for the neighborhood and the amenities 36 provided by the original proposal. 37 38 Chair Maschka opined that not much would be lost from his perspective. 39 40 Member Etten opined that the same information would be produced for any other interested 41 developers, and what the neighborhood supported and GMHC provided as an example. 42 Member Etten clarified that the neighborhood did not vote in support of the GMHC plan, but 43 their concept and the community’s aspirations would be part of any new request. 44 45 46 47 Ms. Hartman advised that she and her husband would be most impacted by the project on both 48 sides. Ms. Hartman noted that they had built their home thirty years ago be part of the 49 community; and while understanding that times change, it was still a difficult change to accept. 50 Ms. Hartman further stated that to face another delay, or to continue prolonging this project, 51 was even tougher; and they probably would end up selling their home due to the continued 52 delay. Ms. Hartman opined that no one wanted to live in a construction zone for four years 53 and continuously be put on hold with ongoing modified plans. Ms. Hartman thanked the HRA 54 and City for taking time to meet with the community, and she and their neighbors remained 55 thankful for the process used. Ms. Hartman spoke in support of single-family homes and