My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-02-21_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Housing Redevelopment Authority
>
Minutes
>
2006
>
2006-02-21_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2010 3:40:28 PM
Creation date
3/10/2008 3:21:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Housing Redevelopment Authority
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/16/2006
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
City of Roseville - HRA Minutes for February 21, 2006Page 2 of 6 <br />Motion carried: 6-0 <br />7.Public Hearing <br />None <br />8.Action Items <br />Consider Housing Redesign Application -- 3103 Asbury St (HF0042) <br />a. <br />Executive Director Bennett provided a summary regarding the request by the Roseville resident for <br />design assistance under the Housing Redesign program. The owners of 3103 Asbury, Scott & Carrie <br />Lindgren, submitted an application for the program in late December for review. As part of the <br />program review process an eligibility criteria checklist was prepared. On January 31, 2006, the <br />Roseville Development Review Committee reviewed the application, eligibility criteria checklist and <br />renovation plan and concluded that the project prequalified for reimbursement of ½ of the design <br />fees up to $6,000 for the renovation work which is an eligible expense under the program guidelines. <br />However, the DRC suggested that the homeowners have the architect complete the sketch plans for <br />the phase II plan that would include the addition of a mudroom to connect the garage to the house, a <br />master bedroom addition and a front entry as part of this redesign application. <br />Scott Lindgren was in attendance to show existing pictures of the home as well as the future plans <br />for an attached garage, mud room, master suite and front entry. <br />Member Kelsey noted that the total assessed value was above the required amount in eligibility <br />criteria 1 and requested an explanation regarding this. Director Bennett noted that because the <br />building value was so low ($45,000) and that this program is to address homes in need of <br />renovation, she made an exception to that criteria. Bennett noted that the lot was large which <br />brought the total value of the property above the minimum amount noted in criteria 1. <br />Member Kelsey noted that this changes the program criteria and that the HRA must abide by its own <br />program rules or others will expect waivers to this criteria as well. Director Bennett explained that the <br />program goals are to help create affordable housing for mid income families, which in this case it <br />meets that goal. <br />Member Elkins asked if the sales appraisal from 2004 was reviewed by staff to determine why the <br />house value was so low. (No it was not requested or reviewed). <br />Member Bean suggested that if this house was on a smaller (more typical) lot it would likely meet the <br />value criteria but that since the Lindgren’s have a large lot with a small, lower value home, they <br />should not be disqualified from being in the program. Member Bean supports an exception in this <br />case. <br />Member Kelsey suggested taking another look at the program criteria first before approving this <br />project. <br />Chair Majerus suggested changing the criteria to account for this anomaly. <br />Director Bennett explained that the Lindgren’s understood the program limitations in advance but <br />staff (Bennett) suggested that they move forward do to this particular situation. <br />Mr. Lindgren explained the need for an architect after they spent many months with a design/build <br />firm and were not happy with the results. Instead of settling on a design that was not satisfactory, <br />they took the risk and spent more money on an architect with the hopes that they could supplement <br />that cost through this program. However, they understood that it was not a guarantee and were <br />never lead to believe that it was. They want to stay in Roseville and are committed to the <br />neighborhood. <br />Chair Majerus suggested looking at an adjustment to the program in the future. Member Kelsey <br />noted that this program was set up for the households that could not afford an architect. <br />http://archive.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/hra/minutes/2006/hram060221.htm3/10/2008 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.