Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 10 <br />application for a Preliminary Plat and Rezoning by a 6-1 vote. Staff presented options regarding <br />motions for the application, including approval for Planning Case 24-015 for a Rezoning for the <br />10.74-acre parcel at 1700 West Highway 96, based on the findings of fact and the submitted <br />plans, as amended by the conditions in the January 13, 2025 Report to the City Council: <br />1. Approval is subject to the approval of Resolution 2025-007 for Planning Case 24- 018 <br />(Approving a Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, <br />Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, Final Plat) <br />Planning Consultant Hofer explained the Planning Commission reviewed this application at <br />their December 4, 2024, meeting. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended denial of <br />the application for Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, <br />Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, Final Plat, and Easement Vacation, by a vote of 5-2. <br />Councilmember Weber stated having heard this case on the Planning Commission, he had a lot <br />of his questions and concerns addressed. He noted the Council was now hearing a proposal that <br />includes affordable housing. He indicated he had a chance to look this over. He stated in order to <br />attain the additional density bonus, the development should include affordable housing. He <br />reported this was the way he read the City's comprehensive plan. He commented it would then be <br />a perk for the developer and a perk for the City. However, in this case, the developer was <br />requesting $1.3 million of a financial subsidy from the City which would be 22.5 years of rental <br />payments for the 10 affordable units. He did not believe this was a reasonable starting point and <br />would be a deal breaker for him. <br />Councilmember Holden questioned if the City had a policy in place that required developers to <br />provide affordable housing. <br />Interim City Administrator Jagoe reported the City does not have any policies in place that <br />require affordable housing, even in the language within Chapter 6 of the comprehensive plan. She <br />commented even with additional density through the PUD process, the language does not specify <br />the requirement for a component for affordability. <br />Councilmember Holden asked if picking one aspect of the comprehensive plan was enough of a <br />reason to deny a request, such as building height or the affordability aspect. She commented she <br />was concerned about the legality of this. <br />City Attorney Bjerkness stated this was a key thing to keep in mind. She reported the City <br />Council can enforce regulations and rules within City Code. She explained the comprehensive <br />plan was not rules and regulations, but rather provided guidance. <br />Interim City Administrator Jagoe reported the portion of the comprehensive plan the Planning <br />Commission referenced addressed housing goals that encourage affordable and life cycle housing. <br />Councilmember Holden stated the goals within the comprehensive plan were provided to the <br />City by the Met Council, and again, these are goals not requirements for the City. <br />Councilmember Rousseau indicated the applicant has stated they would be willing to provide <br />8% of the units at 80% AMI and this would require $1.3 million from the City to offset the profits <br />for the investors. She believed the $1.3 million was not a realistic number for the City to offset <br />