01-13-25-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 11 the costs for the affordable units. She stated it was disappointing the comprehensive plan's affordable housing goals were not considered earlier by the developer. She understood former Councilmember Fabel mentioned this at a meeting and it was also her understanding Planning Commissioner Bjorklund reached out to the developer to encourage affordable housing as part of this project. She understood other 55+ housing projects and the City has not followed the affordability goals. She indicated she was not on the Council when these projects were completed. It was her understanding that the City did not have an Ordinance in place to address affordable housing requirements, and this was not okay. She commented on the park dedication fees, noting the fee schedule was not updated this year. She anticipated with inflation, the fees should have been increased 15%. She questioned if how many people living within these developments qualified for some kind of subsidized housing discount. Interim City Administrator Jagoe commented 80% AMI can be considered market rate and in order to qualify for grant opportunities, the City would need to look at 50% or 60% AMI for affordable housing needs. Councilmember Holden stated two different 55+ housing developments have been completed in the City. She reported the City was not willing to give the requested amount of financial assistance for the first. She commented the second building had an agreement with the State of Minnesota and Bethel University, where Bethel would be training their health care students at the assisted living facility across from the Anderson Center. She agreed that 80% AMI was market rate and noted she would not be willing to provide $1.3 million in order to create 10 units at 80% AMI. However, she also was not willing to give up a $33 million housing project. She stated she would be considering all aspects of this development. Mayor Grant provided further information on PUD's and the flexibility that can be offered through the PUD process. He discussed how 80% AMI could happen organically and agreed that 80% AMI was a de facto market rate. He indicated the individuals that would be renting from this development could afford more than market rate, while others would be below the area median income. He stated he would not be able to support the $1.3 million financial request. He explained this was a $33 million project for the City and he was not willing to turn it down on one item alone. He stated if the 80% AMI and the $1.3 million were removed, he could support the project. He reported earlier today he met with seven mayors and city administrators where he asked if any of the other cities have directly funded affordable housing without TIF. He learned that none had done it, except for one, which provided the developer a loan that had to be paid back. Councilmember Monson asked how the City used the park dedication and residential dedication fees. Interim City Administrator Jagoe explained the park development fees would be used for park improvement projects or the ongoing maintenance of parks. She reported the residential development fee was used towards the overall maintenance and upkeep of park development and park maintenance. She indicated the land use application is paid for through the application and escrow fees. Councilmember Monson asked what City ordinance says when it comes to setting park dedication fees for projects.