Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page# 2 <br /> <br />Wednesday, September 7, 1988 <br /> <br />Arnie Gregory summarized the previous plan, previous city <br />actions, and the issues which have been identified. Gregory <br />highlighted the revised plan and the changes that have been made <br />to address the issues and concerns previously outlined. <br /> <br />Waldron discussed the new tax increment financing figures for the <br />revised project. <br /> <br />Maschka asked how many three bedroom units were in the <br />development. Gregory responded by pointing out the numbers of <br />the various types of units in the development. <br /> <br />Maschka questioned whether the numbers were too small to justify <br />such a heavy reliance on the findings that there was an <br />undersupply of three bedroom units. Coppersmi th replied that <br />there is an undersupply and that the number is low but that is <br />all they have to work with. <br /> <br />Maschka questioned the turnover and average length of stay. <br />Coppersmith responded that the turnover was 10 - 11% and that the <br />average length of stay is longer than other areas. <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated his concern that the payback on the tax <br />increment financing could be stretched out 12 years or longer. <br />Waldron replied that according to state law, the life of a tax <br />increment district could be as long as 25 years and that 14 - 15 <br />years is typical Roseville pay-as-you-go approach. The proposed <br />12 years is in that range and is based on reasonable projections <br />of the increment of the project. <br /> <br />DeBenedet pointed out that the retail is not being developed by <br />the present developer and questioned what the impact on the tax <br />increment financing would be if the commercial doesn't happen. <br />Waldron responded that the retail would be required to be built <br />and if they don't do it, the increment the city would receive <br />would be less and therefore the payment to the developer would be <br />less. <br /> <br />Berry asked the applicant to describe the exterior appearance of <br />the building. Gregory summarized the exterior design of the <br />various components of the development. <br /> <br />Berry inquired if the units would be handicapped accessible. <br />Gregory responded that they would. <br /> <br />Goedeke inquired if the parking for the retail would meet city <br />requirements, asked what the number of stores would be, and <br />expressed the concern that if a restaurant was located in the <br />