Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 11/10/1980 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 1980 7:30 PM, City Hall PLANNING COMM I SS ION MEMBERS Cha i rrnan Wi l i i am Bea rman , George Bentley, Virginia Gartner, Hakon Torjesen, Liz Retterath, Grant Sutliff, Matthew Levitt STAFF MEMBERS: Chris ginger, Director of Planning Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 279 1980 MINUTES 111. MEMBERS REPORTS IV. PUBLIC HEARING A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM PUBLIC HEARING A) W UF EDEN 1 E X- TY V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. EDENGATE SINGLE FN411'Y ENV I NTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET. quest for approve o . VI. OLU 30b1NESS - V11 . I" BUSINESS fe .. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved Monday, November 10, 1980 7:30 PM, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Grant Sutliff, Matthew Levitt, Liz Retterath, George Bentley MEMBERS ABSENT: Hakon Torjesen STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Bentley moved Retterath seconded, to apprcv� the agenda as submitted. Motion carried 6-0. II . APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 27, 1980 MINUTES Mr. Bentley questioned his vote on the Edengate project on page 4 of the minutes under the second motion which was a motion for rezoning. Bentley felt that he had voted aye on the rezoning motion but "nay- an the preliminary plat motion because he had disagreed with the addition of the cul-de-sacing of Harrogate Drive, not with the overall landuse. Other Commission members reminded Mr. Bentley that he had voted as the minutes reflected. Therefore, Mr. Bentley wished it noted in the current minutes that his objection in the item wars not to the landuse but rather to the modification of the plat by other commis- sion members to deadend Harrogate Drive. With that comment, Bentley moved to approve the October 27, 1980 minutes as submi.�ted. Retterath seconded, motion carried 5-0-1 with Retterath abstaining. III . MEMBERS REPORTS Bearman asked that a letter submitted from rrmmiccinn Member Torjesen regarding the On-Belay proposal which was reviewed at the October 27, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting, be attached to the November 10, 1980 minutes. IV. PUBLIC HEARING A. C%ol e , --.A I f v.r.:�trv: +`r`�i vI.vCOK u"nni*i ruoi.i C iiEm"Ut IiG ruR uJC OF EDEN X The Planner gave a brief history dating from 1974, of the Community Development Block Grant Program. He included in his presentation the original goals of tine program to provide housing and service apportuni-les for the low and moderate income family, elderl , and handicapped person. He also summarized the program activities carat Eden �rairie had completed since 1974. The Planner explained that in 1978, Eden Prairie as the of the cooperative meiftrs of the Hennepin County Urban County Croup, had adopted a three year plan w0 ch was to bank. money every year to be utilized for land acquisition or as a developme�►nt incentive subsidy to help encourage provision of up to 160 low and Aoderate income elderly' units in Eden Prairie. :approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- -November 10, 1980 The Planner explained that there was approximately $125;000 set aside for Eden Prairie's three year plan at this point and that the third year of the three year plan would be to set aside the 1981 money to complete the program. The planner explained that the City had been working with thi a developers for sites for low .and moderate income elderly housing, and that two of the developers had applied for Minnesota Housing Finance agency funds and new construction section 3 rental assistance funds during the past year, but had been denied by this regional agency on the basis that family funds oni were being approved on a regional basis . For this reason, the staff was currently in discussion with one remaining developer regarding a condominium approach to provision of elderly housing utilizing some or all of the C. D.B.G Funds to make the project feasible and affordable for low and moderate income elderly people. The Planner explained that the Human and Rights and Services Commission had endorsed the three year plan and the third year of this plan for provision of low and moderate income elderly housing. The Planner asked that the Planning Commission continue the three year program and earmark ,the 1981 funds toward low and moderate income elderly housing subsidies. Mr. Mark Hendrickson , representing Hennepin County, was present to answer questions regarding the program and questions regarding eligible activities. He explained that the Carter Administration had authorized funding of the C.D. 6.G Program for an addition- al three years. Levitt asked how much money the City had earmarimcl .ov_er thefirsttw years of the three year program from 1978. 1-he Planner answered approximately $126,000. Levitt asked if because of the adoption of the general three year program if this year we were locked in to absolutely cocmmitting the 1981 money to continue the three year program. The Planner answered that the program could be modified if necessary. Bentley asked what would happen with the money if there was no project for elderly people at the end of three years. The Planner answered that both the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Hennepin County would require that some evidence of progress be shown toward our elderly goal or the money should be appro- priated to other short tern. programs. Bentley asked if there was a proven need for r0abilitation of existing homes in Eden Prairie and if money should be set aside froT the C.D.B.G Grant for this purpose. The Planner answered that the City Staff currently administrates a MHFA Home Imprnvemert Grant for low and moderate income people and that currently applicants have not exhausted that source of funds but added that if this became the case, in 1980 - the City had earmarked $6,000 toward rehabilitation of existing structures and this should prove to be sufficient. Rettereth asked where the money was that was being banked. Hendrickson replied that the Federal Government retained it and as it was spent. the County And Cnrr+ujnitiNc draw down against it.. Retterath asked whether we could draw all the money at this point and invest it so that it would grow with inflation so that when a real project became, evident, the money would not be worth less . Hendrickson replied you cannot draw the money out before it was spent. Retterath asked if part of the money could be utilized to investigate alternate energy applications for low and moderate income people. The Planner inswered yes , however, the MIHFA Grant seed to be covering this rather well . Levitt asked regarding provision of the low and moderate income elderly housing, what the pros and cons of ownership _,... . _:;t were. The Planner explained that although ownership required equity, many of these elderly people in Eden Prairie currently owned property which would make them illegible for rental assistance, but eligible for ownership. The Planner went on to explain that the ideal situation would be to. ' approved Planing Commission Minutes -3-- November 10, 1980 have both rental and ownership ;nits, however, the rental apartment required -- Qpv�")va1 of Section 8 funds, which had been &mied to the City because of regional emphasis on provision of-,-family housing rather than elderly. i6tterath asked whether Tudor Oates would be in competition with a project of this -Im. The Planner replied that preliminary investigation indicated that low and moderate income ::nits should be offered at no more than $46,000 whereas time Tudor Oaks units were being offered the Enid 60' s . Sutliff inquired whe"Aor or not handicappeu units for people of any age could be inter- mixed with the older j units. The Planner replied that this was up to the City to consider. A Bentley moved to close the public hearing, Retterath seconded, motion carried 6-0. Bentley moved to approve the proposed Year VII Program which was to set aside the total amount cs the third year of a program that banks the money for use as a subsidy toward provision of low and moderate income elderly housing units. Retterath seconded, motion carried 6-0. Retterath asked the Planner to check on what type of programs the Vocational Technical -School was now engaged in regarding energy conservation and to report back to the Commission. V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. EDENGATE SINGLE FAMILY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSNEET. Request for approval of EAU. i Beaman requested that the plat snap included in the EAM be revised to reflect the plat as ultimately approved. Gartner asked what the 15% of electrical usage on page 7 of the EAW w"der the heading "Processing" was for. The planner replied that the category is used Enr electrical appliances other than for heating. and air conditioning. Gartner moved Sutliff seconded, to Find No Significaiot Impact as per the Environowtal Assessment liarksheet as corrrtcted. Notion carried 5--0-1. Retterath abstaining. V1. OLD BUS11NESS - - „rc ht t Cowission's attention to the City Attorray' s letter 044-4 10/9I80 that waS, replying to a cownission request as to what devolopatent same guards the City had which would require adhermznce to City 0rdi nanan , and Developer' s Agreements. The Commission voiced a general opinion that thw letter did not contain information they were alm�ady aware of, and tk. m requested Staff to ask the City Attorney what other safe guards could be incorporated to more effectively insure compliance, i .e. , penaltigs, etc. t was suggested by the Comi ss i on that a meeting with the City Attorrmty would be helpful . The Planner explained that in regard to ordinance violations , the safe guard wW for enforcement of existing ordinances. VII. MEW BUSINESS None _ Vill . ADJ T - ner moves Su t 1 i f f seconded, to ad j ours the meet i n9 a t 9:00 PM. Not ion carried r The GARDEN I►ovember 6, 1980 William Bearman, Chairman Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 55344 Dear Bill: I am sorry to have to miss the Planning Commission on Monday, because I had wanted to make it a matter of record at that meeting that I have some afterthoughts about the interim use amendrient on Franlo Road, which we reconuaended by a 3-2-1 vote last time* That was my motion, and I regret: that it did not limit the propor_ent to solving his sewer problem at no expense to surrounding properties. We permitted an y:iterim use to trigger a possibility of sewer assessments. This makes the project, in effect, not an interim use, and, furthermore, threatens the interim and transitional uses of surrounding properties. If the commission wishes to reopen this matter, the maker of the notion has no objection. P ce Hakon Torjesen Ilakon & Karcn Torjc-,cn C 6605 Rowlund Road. Edcn Prulrlc. %linncgota v3344 O Tc/cpbone: 612/944-20404 I