Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />Dec. 30, 1985 <br />Rutzick <br />Development <br />(Cont.) <br />Mrs. Scalze replied that this was not her impression. <br />Johnson asked if the City wanted only Little Canada seniors to be allowed <br />in the units. Scalze replied that the City has a senior citizen building <br />currently, and it is not limited to Little Canada seniors, as this project <br />should not be either. <br />Johnson stated that if the need is identified, they have no problem with <br />complying with the City's wishes. Johnson pointed out that the property <br />still must be platted and the City has to act on that as well as final <br />PUD approval. Johnson felt that the matter of the senior housing could <br />be addressed at that time. <br />Fahey agreed that final PUD approval would not be given until the issue <br />of senior housing was resolved. Fahey also did not feel that the City <br />wanted 25% of the units designated for senior housing, but rather a <br />percentage based on the results of the market study. The City also <br />wanted a good faith effort to study the issue, and if feasible, a certain <br />number of units would be set aside. <br />Johnson reported that Mr. Kintzinger's impression was that the Council <br />wanted a flat 25% of the units set aside as part of the loan agreement. <br />Fahey commented that at the meeting the Council left it to the Bond <br />Counsel to come up with the proper language to protect the interests <br />of the City. Fahey commented that the Council felt if the senior housing <br />were feasible that up to 25% of the units should be designated as such. <br />Scalze suggested that the figure be set at a later date, when the PUD <br />agreement is signed. Scalze pointed out that the City really cannot <br />set the figure until it has the results of the feasibility study. <br />Fahey suggested that the loan agreement state a minimun of 25%, if <br />feasible. <br />Mr. Johnson cited the locations of several other senior housing projects <br />in the immediate area, and felt that there might not be th~ need that <br />the Council feels there is. Scalze disagreed. Scalze also pointed out <br />that the City Attorney suggested that this contingency he placed in the <br />loan agreement. <br />Fahey reported that the City Attorney advised him to rely nn the <br />recommendation of Briggs and Morgan. <br />Mr. Keenan reported that he would wor!< with Mr. Kintzinger to eiork out <br />the proper language that would be appropriate and address the c~~ncerns <br />of the City. <br />Fahey felt that the figure used should be 25%, if feasible. <br />Page -3- <br />