Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/13/1997 AGENDA MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MAY 13,1997 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL MAPLEWOOD ROOM 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. August 13, 1996 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Communications 6. New Business a. Section 8 Housing Program - Kathy Kline, Metro HRA b. In-fill Development Study C. 1996-1997 HRA Annual Report 7. Date of Next Meeting a. June 10, 1997 8. Adjoumment c:HRAAGEND.MEM MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MAY 13, 1997 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL HRA Commissioners: Lorraine Fischer, Tom Connelly, Larry Whitcomb, Joe O'Brien, Gary Pearson (arrived at 7:09 p.m.) Staff: Ken Roberts, associate planner 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 13, 1996 Commissioner Connelly moved approval of the minutes of August 13, 1996, as submitted. Commissioner Whitcomb seconded. Ayes-all (Fischer, Connelly, Whitcomb, O'Brien) The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Whitcomb moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner O'Brien seconded. Ayes-all (Fischer, Connelly, Whitcomb, O'Brien) The motion passed 5. COMMUNICATIONS Ken Roberts, associate planner, said the annual Maplewood tour is tentatively scheduled for Monday, June 30, 1997. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Section 8 Housing Program--Kathy Kline, Metro HRA Ken Roberts, associate planner, introduced Kathy Kline and Robin Anderson of the Metropolitan Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority (Metro HRA). Ms. Kline said the Metro HRA is one of twelve housing authorities in the Twin Cities area that administers federal, Section 8, income-based rental assistance. She said the Metro HRA alone has funding for 4,800 families and has 5,000 on a waiting list. Maplewood HRA Minutes of 05-13-97 -2- Ms. Kline spoke about the difference between certificates and vouchers- certificates have a rent limit and vouchers do not. The Section 8 tenant with a voucher would pay the 30 percent plus any amount over the payment standard limit. She mentioned the difficulty encountered in finding apartment units willing to accept Section 8 because of the low apartment vacancy rate, and the ability of landlords to terminate a Section 8 lease if they have other tenants available. Ms. Kline presented a packet of summary information which included referral phone numbers to the commissioners. She and Ms. Anderson, a coordinator who has direct contact with Section 8 participants in Maplewood, answered many questions about the program. Commissioner Pearson noted that he had observed numerous Section 8 cases in unlawful detainer court. He thought the time taken by these cases might be a reason why some landlords would choose to not participate in Section 8 rentals. B. In-Fill Development Study Ken Roberts, associate planner, said he thought the in-fill development study was generated by a need for different criteria to require projects to more closely reflect in size and character the area in which they are proposed. There was a discussion on the concept and function of planned unit developments (PUDs). Mr. Roberts said the sites listed in the in-fill study are parcels remaining in Maplewood that he felt could probably develop residentially. Mr. Roberts explained how staff was uncomfortable with development standards that would prevent people with small parcels from developing them. He felt the city needed more control and tools to enable them to respond to and help developers. He also thought that sites larger than ten acres were large enough to create their own standards. Mr. Roberts noted that the planning commission did not agree with this. They thought every subdivision that created a new street should be approved as a PUD. This would make lot layout within the development more negotiable and sensitive to the topography. He gave examples how specific sites in the in-fill study would be affected. Mr. Roberts said the in-fill development study was brought to the HRA for review because how these parcels develop will often affect the availability of affordable housing. He also added that the planning commission wished to be involved early on in the design of projects rather than reacting to them once they are presented. Mr. Roberts emphasized that it was not the role of the city to design. The commission then discussed the enforceability of covenants within plats. In summary, Mr. Roberts reiterated that the purpose of the in-fill development study was to give the city council more ways, through ordinances, to enable them to control lot sizes and natural characteristics in developments. It was suggested the city pass the proposals contained in this study but then allow five years before it becomes active. This would give property owners time to develop before these restrictions would apply. The commissioners generally agreed on the benefit of neighborhood meeting requirement. The HRA agreed on the following: - Neighborhood meeting requirement. - Expanding the use of the PUD ordinance. Maplewood HRA Minutes of 05-13-97 -3- - Preservation of the property owners' rights. The HRA unanimously agreed to table the in-fill study until the June 10,1997, meeting. C. 1996-1997 HRA Annual Report Ms. Fischer noted a minor change on page 2 of the draft annual report. Because of the late hour, the HRA unanimously agreed to table this report until the June 10,1997, meeting. 7. DATE OF NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Maplewood HRA will be Tuesday, June 10, 1997. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:22 p.m.