EDA_Minutes_2016_08_29 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RHRA Meeting Minutes – Monday, August 29, 2016 Page 14 Without objection, President Roe noted that, the REDA agreed with the list, excluding the charrette process in circumstances as clarified and noting other city standards related to the process.. Open Comment – Areas the City DOES want to Provide Assistance Ms. Kvilvang reviewed the preferences outlined in the survey, noting they were typical in most communities (e.g. underground or ramp parking to address reduced surface parking; green enhancements, etc.). Ms. Kvilvang noted others included public infrastructure; affordable housing at 20% of luxury product; pedestrian or transit amenities; and increased green space. Member Etten spoke in support of the highlighted items, but questioned the need to highlight them specifically; with consensus by the REDA. President Roe noted underground parking was addressed in the last comprehensive plan update; and suggested the other items could be included a part of staff’s review. President Roe stated his willingness to look at city assistance for additional amenities in line with city preferences and goals, and in lieu of other amenities or items that may be lacking as staff reviewed a particular project. Without objection, President Roe noted the REDA agreed to make the top two items part of the policy, with other items falling under staff consideration. What City Fees Would the City or REDA be willing to Waive Ms. Kvilvang noted this included building permits, park dedication fees, water access or sewer access charges (WAC) or (SAC). Ms. Kvilvang advised that most communities were not willing to waive building permit fees, since they considered it part of doing business, but seemed more willing to consider waiving park dedication fees, often for senior assisted products since they weren’t deemed a burden on parks, while some say the park system has to be covered in any situation. Members Willmus, McGehee and Laliberte stated they were not in favor of waiving any fees. President Roe reminded members of the possibility that always exists to focus more on land in lieu of cash for park dedications. Member Etten concurred. However, he noted sometimes there were SAC credits available from the Metropolitan Council, not just the city, that he would not be opposed to using. Member consensus was that they would not be opposed to using those SAC credits.