2016-05-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Page 11 Member Daire clarified that the rationale for his question was based on a maximum 95’ 502 height limit and discussion of parking and the traffic study for a 250 maximum unit 503 development and traffic generation accordingly. While this is fairly hypothetical on one 504 hand, Member Daire stated he was attempting to get a handle on what the site could 505 possible look like; and what his perception may be if he lived across the street from this 506 development and concerns he may have with horror stories for possible height and 507 density development that could occur. 508 Member Kimble asked if the tax credits were the only funding gap for the capital project, 509 or if others were being considered. 510 Mr. Bakker responded that the developer was applying for tax credit funding, as well as 511 other sources depending on if and when the application deadlines would impact the 512 project itself, some of which had already been eliminated due to timing. While unable to 513 identify all funding sources under consideration at this point, Mr. Bakker confirmed that 514 they were considering additional funding beyond tax credit funding. 515 Member Kimble stated the reason for her question was as it related to feasibility and 516 readiness for this specific development proposal. 517 Public Comment 518 Amanda Kappes, 10761 Smetana Road, Apt. #111, Minnetonka, MN; Metro Interfaith 519 Council on Affordable Housing (MICAH) 520 Ms. Kappes advised that their organization, MICAH, had been in discussion with the 521 Good Samaritan Society and their proposal for senior housing gin Roseville for 522 approximately nine months now. Ms. Kappes noted that initially they had been asked to 523 get involved with the community engagement process and what the community would 524 most like to see. Ms. Kappes noted that MICAH’s first response had been whether or not 525 Good Samaritan had spoken to community members themselves, which prompted 526 working on an open house with MICAH staff available to help answer questions. 527 One of the questions at the open house, as well as brought forward tonight was whether 528 there was a market demand for senior housing at this time. Ms. Kappes stated there was 529 a huge focus on that option, and was asked for much more often than indicated by the 530 Governor’s request and currently pending legislative action by the house and senate. Ms. 531 Kappes noted that, at this time in MN, the state’s senior population is the fastest growing 532 homeless population; and as well as looking at affordable units, across the state there 533 were 25,000 units, with an additional 150,000 senior households who could qualify for 534 those affordable units. Ms. Kappes clarified what “affordable” housing actually indicated, 535 not housing units for the lowest income residents, but based on 60% of the area median, 536 identified for a household with typically only 1-2 persons/unit, an annual income of 537 roughly $24,000 to $30,000 annually. Ms. Kappes noted that this income usually applied 538 to retirement and/or disability benefits; with 54% of renters in MN over 55 years old, and 539 currently paying over 30% of their household income. Ms. Kappes reiterated the great 540 need for affordable senior housing that would continue to grow. 541 Ms. Kappes referenced the City of Roseville’s comprehensive plan numbers and 542 Metropolitan Council guidelines at or below 30% of area income at 72 units; and when 543 looking at 31% to 50% of median income, Roseville could add an additional 50 units; and 544 if looking at 51% to 80% of median income, Roseville could add an additional 20 units; for 545 a total of 142 units. In looking at the 60% median income level, Ms. Kappes opined that 546 62 units would go a long way in reaching that total number of units. 547 Given the fact the Metropolitan Council supports this effort, and the state may help fund 548 it, Chair Boguszewski asked if this was the right site for this project. 549 Ms. Kappes responded that, based on the traffic study indicating the project would only 550 add a delay of a matter of seconds during peak times, and given the previous nursing 551 home use with more traffic than this development would indicate given those previous 552 employees and shift change traffic, Ms. Kappes opined that there should be no 553