Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2017 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Commissioner Klebsch questioned if the Planning Commission would be able to further review <br />this request. Planner Sevald explained the Commission would review the Development Review <br />and Major Subdivision. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson understood traffic and congestion were a concern for this corner, but he <br />supported this item moving forward. <br /> <br />Commissioner Klander questioned what value of the property would be forfeited in TIF. City <br />Administrator Ericson stated the City hasn’t had a lot of TIF projects over the years (4 total). He <br />stated the first three created the Mounds View Business Park, have been very successful and <br />have been decertified. He reported the City has not ever done TIF for a housing project. He <br />explained he was uncertain as to what the expense would be to the City noting this would be <br />dependent upon the cost per unit. He indicated the Met Council was seeking additional <br />workforce housing in the metro area. He believed the request from the developer was not <br />unreasonable. <br /> <br />Commissioner Klebsch asked how much the City would be investing in this project. City <br />Administrator Ericson estimated the City would be investing $650,000 to $850,000 in this <br />project. He reported the length of the term would depend on the value of the project. <br /> <br />Commissioner Schiltgen stated he supported Highway 10 becoming a better focal point within <br />the community. While he had some concerns with traffic from the proposed development, he <br />wanted to see this corridor revitalized. <br /> <br />Commissioner Klander commented on the number of rental units within Mounds View and <br />stated for this reason he would not be supporting the project. He suggested the item being tabled <br />for further discussion. Planner Sevald stated it would be appropriate for the Commission to table <br />this item if there were more questions regarding traffic and congestion. He explained a traffic <br />study would take some time to complete. <br /> <br />Commissioner Klebsch expressed concern with the fact that the applicant was proposing to have <br />60 more rental units within the community versus single family owner-occupied units. She <br />believed the renters did not have as much buy-into a community, as homeowners. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson questioned what the going rate was for apartment rental and asked how this <br />compared to the proposed development. Planner Sevald stated a housing study would have to be <br />completed in order to gather this information for the Commission. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked if the Commission wanted to take action on the motion on the floor or to <br />make another motion to table. He stated he would be willing to withdraw his motion. Planner <br />Sevald explained the Commission was making a recommendation to the City Council and not a <br />final decision. <br /> <br />Commissioner Schiltgen recommended the Commission take a vote on this item in order for it to <br />move onto the City Council.