Laserfiche WebLink
HRA Meeting <br />Minutes – Tuesday, March 16, 2010 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />2 <br />Member Masche noted that, while the program could be self-funded, sales were needed to <br />3 <br />provide that funding. <br />4 <br /> <br />5 <br />Member Lee questioned how to determine the magnitude of inspections and the degree of <br />6 <br />codes, with minimum things needing to be brought up to code unless remodeling took place <br />7 <br />(i.e., upgraded and grounded electrical outlets for bathrooms); and existing windows in older <br />8 <br />homes not being sized to code for egress. <br />9 <br /> <br />10 <br />Member Elkins noted concerns with lead-based paint on older windows as well. Member <br />11 <br />Elkins suggested that, in addition to comparable information from peer communities, the MN <br />12 <br />Housing Agency has general information showing their requirements, based on health and <br />13 <br />safety issues. <br />14 <br /> <br />15 <br />Mr. Trudgeon confirmed that standards would be based on current building code <br />16 <br />specifications. <br />17 <br /> <br />18 <br />Mr. Trudgeon cautioned that this would be an issue of concern for the public, and needed <br />19 <br />clarification that this is only informational research at this time to determine if a <br />20 <br />recommendation was indicated for or against; and that the City was not proposing it at this <br />21 <br />time. Mr. Trudgeon advised that public concerns had already been fielded by staff; and <br />22 <br />advised that he would alert the City Council that the HRA was interested in pursuing this <br />23 <br />research. <br />24 <br /> <br />25 <br />Member Elkins opined the need to emphasize concerns based on health and safety issues, not <br />26 <br />aesthetics, to avoid the negative perceptions and miscommunication with the public. <br />27 <br /> <br />28 <br />Member Quam opined that she understood this was customary for communities, and expressed <br />29 <br />a concern that Roseville not fall behind in this role. <br />30 <br /> <br />31 <br />Acting Chair Majerus requested that staff benchmark other communities to determine the <br />32 <br />advantages and disadvantages of such an inspection program. <br />33 <br /> <br />34 <br />6. Inclusionary Zoning <br />35 <br />Mr. Trudgeon reviewed alternatives that could include incenting or requiring any new <br />36 <br />developments to include a component that provided a percentage of their units designated as <br />37 <br />affordable housing to ensure affordable housing is included, but not segregated to a specific <br />38 <br />area of the community. Mr. Trudgeon provided examples of such incentives (i.e., waiving <br />39 <br />applicable fees), with some supporting such incentives, but the overall development <br />40 <br />community not supporting them as they cost those developers more money. Mr. Trudgeon <br />41 <br />noted that the HRA could consider various and creative options to force or assist the market in <br />42 <br />providing affordable housing. MR. Trudgeon referenced the recent Housing Market Analysis <br />43 <br />that identified gaps within the community. <br />44 <br /> <br />45 <br />The consensus of members was to pursue further discussion of this item in the immediate <br />46 <br />future to ensure that it is incorporated into the rewritten zoning code; and asked that staff <br />47 <br />provide additional research. <br />48 <br /> <br />49 <br />Member Pust requested that Aeon representatives be tapped for their comments and <br />50 <br />perspective since they have a number of multi-family units in various communities. <br />51 <br /> <br />52 <br />Mr. Trudgeon encouraged Member Pust to provide comment on HRA priorities from her City <br />53 <br />Councilmember perspective. <br />54 <br /> <br />55 <br />Rental Housing <br /> <br />