Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />Chair Nichols-Matkaiti questioned why the developer had chosen to have 32 units per acre. Mr. <br />Mentz reported this density was selected based on the size of building that would fit on the site and <br />to make the math work. He explained the maximum density allowed would be 40 units per acre. <br />Commissioner Biedenfeld inquired if the developer had any creative solutions to bring the building <br />height down. Mr. Hoyer stated he has been exploring having a lower roof pitch for these homes. He <br />commented another option would be to have rooftop terraces on the townhomes. Mr. Mentz <br />indicated the pitch of the roof could be changed for the apartment buildings. He explained he would <br />have to speak with his investors if an entire floor were eliminated from this project. <br />Mr. Christopherson recommended two story or story and a half buildings be considered for this site <br />as it would blend in better with the adjacent neighborhood. <br />Chair Nichols-Matkaiti asked who controlled the status of the affordable housing units. Mr. Mentz <br />reported the building would have to remain affordable for the next 23 years under Minnesota State <br />law. <br />Mr. Nelson questioned why his neighborhood was being treated differently than the rest of New <br />Brighton. He suggested the affordable housing be spread throughout the community versus being <br />placed all in one neighborhood. He noted the proposed redevelopment plans were twice as dense as <br />any other area in the City. He asked if the developer could construct the workforce housing complex <br />with only 50% of the units being affordable and the remaining 50% being market rate. Mr. Mentz <br />stated anything was possible in theory, however, he understood there was a need for affordable <br />housing in New Brighton. He commented on the great success Dominium has had in leasing <br />affordable units in surrounding communities. <br />Chair Nichols-Matkaiti requested staff discuss the use of TIF. Assistant Director of Community Assets <br />and Development Gozola reported one of the main complaints people have about TIF was the impact <br />it had on school districts. He discussed how the State of Minnesota funds its schools noting this was <br />based on the number of students enrolled in each district. He commented further on how the City <br />would be collecting tax revenue for this development. He noted the developments would continue <br />to pay their full freight in taxes for the life of the development and the extra value would be captured <br />to assist with paying for the site improvements. <br />Ms. Bates urged New Brighton residents to keep in mind that when the development is built the <br />increased tax value will not go to the school district or the County, rather it would pay off debt for <br />the project. She reported the last Mounds View School District levy was based solely on capital <br />improvements and not for regional numbers. <br />Mr. Dora asked if there was any pollution on the property that was formerly owned by New Brighton <br />Garage. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development Gozola commented this property <br />had been studied and the building would be removed per State regulations. He stated he was not <br />aware of any specific pollutants on this site. <br />Mr. Nelson explained based on the comments received he recommended the Commission table <br />action on this item. <br />