Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />g <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 <br />54 <br />HRA Meeting <br />Minutes — Monday, October 20, 2009 <br />Page 4 <br />Secrion housing in the community, with an exisring 2-3 year wairing list and no vacancies; and <br />current non-income-restricted housing serving as the community's affordable housing based on <br />the lack of amenities and upgrades to bring it up to market rate housing (i.e., smaller units <br />versus family-sized units). <br />Ms. Kelsey reviewed various challenges and opporiunities in the near future based on a lack of <br />land available for development requiring higher density redevelopment to meet needs; and <br />addressing 60% median income/ <br />Mr. Trudgeon noted the value of this tool for the HRA, the City Council <br />Commission as each body and the community itself considered promorion <br />and as development proposals were received to determine which proposal�$ � <br />and which are already market-saturated. Mr. Trudgeon opined that th�, �tu� <br />time with the market slow and allowing for an opporiunity to be "';pared <br />upturn and more aggressive developments coming forward, allo ing r prc <br />reactive consideration and review. <br />Discussion among members and staff included definin� neec <br />line multi-family apartments, and Section 8 housing �c��ptial <br />rates to allow them to be self-sustaining; condirion,�rt'` `�� -c] <br />multi-family buildings in the community and �how <br />developers with rehabilitation to meet community housi ��u <br />formerly considered middle class as far as income levels in the <br />incomes and needing affordable housing; and identifying poc <br />that may allow for infill affordable ho ��luniries. <br />ire projects <br />marketable <br />�at a good <br />� 'd-income families, top <br />e conversion to market <br />renovarion at some existing <br />can assist owners and/or <br />ds; cognizing that those <br />ere now those on fixed <br />ireas within the community <br />Further discussion included specific p ls av ' , ding the vacant parcel on Hamline <br />Avenue owned by School District No. 2 d stat of contaminated soil mitigation; the <br />Reiling properry across the street on W 'll and the value of its proximity to Central Park <br />for upper-end multi-unit rental housin���,Twin Lakes Redevelopment area; and the North <br />Suburban Cable Com�i���nbuilding soat���o.�ie vacated. <br />Ms. Kelsey �a �'� ed st �' intent to �ert the School District(s) to the study for their <br />considerari ":��� nd fu �� �,,��s; and potential apartment buildings that could be <br />demolis a' ����`'or housing; or where proper full-time management on-site <br />would be a vi tion. Ms. Kelsey noted the example in the Har Mar redevelopment and <br />management ch d th��posirive value being experienced. <br />�'I : w vised th�� staff continued to research various opporiunities and would keep the <br />HRA adv ,'� f optitins that may work for the City, including participating in discussions for <br />future tran�i� ���:%corridor improvements, markering the value in reducing commute time and <br />expense t� �educe cost burdens for other living eapanses, marketing through living in <br />Roseviller �id coordinating with existing and future mulri-family apartment building owners. <br />Member Maschka moved, seconded by Member Majerus, to accept the <br />ensive Multifamily Housing Needs Analysis that was completed by Maxfield <br />as presented and requested staff to forward the Analysis to the City Council for <br />'" City use. <br />Ayes: 6 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />b. HIA Policy <br />