Planning Commission - 03/25/2002 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Frantz Corneille, Randy Foote, Vicki
Koenig, Susan Stock, Ray Stoelting, Paul Sodt, and
Fred Seymor
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Alan Gray, City Engineer
Mike Franzen, City Planner
David Lindahl, HRA Manager
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Corneille called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Corneille,
Commissioners Brooks, Foote, Koenig, Nelson, Stoelting, Sodt, Stock. Absent:
Seymour.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Stoelting moved, second by Sodt to approve the agenda. Motion
carried, 8-0.
III. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the February 25, 2002 Community Planning Board
Meeting
MOTION: Koenig moved, second by Stoelting to approve the minutes of
the Monday, February 25, 2002 Community Planning Board Meeting as
presented. Motion carried, 8-0.
B. Minutes of the Monday,March 11, 2002 Community Planning Board
Meeting
MOTION: Foote moved, second by Stock to approve the minutes of the
Monday, March 11, 2002 Community Planning Board Meeting. Motion
carried, 7-1-0, abstention Sodt.
Community Planning Board Minutes
March 25, 2002
Page 2
IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. THE HEIGHTS AT VALLEY VIEW by Eden Prairie Leased Housing
Associates I, LP. Request for: Guide Plan Change from Office/Industrial
to high Density Residential on 10.26 acres, Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 10.26 acres, Planned Unit Development District
Review with waivers on 10.26 acres, Zoning District Change from rural to
RM-2.5 on 10.26 acres, Site Plan Review on 10.26 acres, Preliminary Plat
of 10.26 acres into 1 lot. Location: Northwest corner of Flying Cloud
Drive and Valley View Road (continued from 2/25/02 meeting).
This project was first reviewed at an informational meeting on February
11, 2002. The Board reviewed four alternative concept plans and directed
the developer to work on a housing plan with no encroachment into the
existing conservation easement and to retain trees along Valley View
Road. Staff recommends approval based on plans dated March 11, 2002,
and the staff report dated March 22, 2002.
The public hearing opened at 7:03.
The developer noted their direction from the board was to consider a
development which would stay out of the conservation easement while
lessening the impact on Valley View. They have met with neighbors to
incorporate their concerns while dealing with financial considerations.
They removed several hundred feet of building encroaching into the scenic
easement and moved it to the south side. Parking has remained the same.
There is a lesser impact on Valley View Road and grading has been
minimized. There are four levels of apartment units and three levels of
underground parking with smaller parking lots above ground. Another
goal was to minimize tree loss. The trail has been pulled closer to the
building. The pond has a new shape to accommodate the driveway.
Nancy Ariotta, 10785 Valley View Road, #207, stated when there is tree
loss there is never any quality trees left because the construction kills
trees. She is concerned that junk trees will replace significant trees. She
questioned why an environmental impact study was not being completed.
The design of the building looks like a corporate structure and is not
compatible with the area. This would create competition for the
neighboring senior co-op housing. She is concerned a rental property will
bring with it more crime.
Community Planning Board Minutes
March 25, 2002
Page 3
Beth Timm 1161 Raspberry Hill Road, counsel for the developer and a
resident, stated this is a great site for affordable housing because of its
proximity to the Park and Ride, Cub Foods, and shopping. Speaking as a
resident and not as counsel, she would like to see the affordable housing
built.
Susan Gregson, affordable housing committee member from the Pax
Christi Catholic Community, stated she has met with Dominium about the
project and supports affordable housing and this project. They are making
an effort to address the needs of the residents. The affordable housing
committee provided a letter of support to the board and City Council.
MOTION: Stoelting moved, second by Nelson to close the public
hearing. Motion carried, 8-0.
The public hearing closed at 7:16 p.m.
Stoelting asked staff to address the percentage of tree loss.
Fox stated he reviews each plan for tree loss and the calculations are
locked in. At the time of completion, the project is reviewed. If they go
above the initial calculation in tree loss there is a large penalty. As to the
quality of trees, significant trees are replaced with significant trees and
will mature. He has 20 plus years of experience reviewing projects and
tree loss. Protective fences will be put up during construction.
Sodt inquired asked for clarification on tree replacement.
Fox noted the significant trees here were primarily oak. They will be
replaced with trees that give a balance of seasonal attractiveness, with a
balance of flowering and upper story trees, as well as screening trees that
must be planted. It would be nice to replant with 100% oak,but a diversity
of trees must be planted to address the urban landscape.
Koenig stated there is always concern about saving trees. Keeping
construction out of the drip line of the trees is an issue. She asked whether
there is a way to keep machinery out of the drip line.
Fox noted a realistic construction zone would be established. It is up to the
developer whether they will comply; if they don't comply they will be
penalized.
Lindahl explained the proponent is asking for 67 units or 33% affordable
housing. It has to do with the tax credit financing. It is not a problem; at a
minimum it would have to be 20%.
Community Planning Board Minutes
March 25, 2002
Page 4
Sweeney stated the percentage is 33% based on the total unit count, or
about 25% on a square footage basis. There is a need for workforce
housing for the smaller units. The larger units would not be affordable.
One of the things that attracted them to the site was the large mature trees;
they value the trees as a permanent amenity. There is a similar, successful
development on Thomas Lake in Eagan. There is 70% more underground
parking than normal in order to save trees.
Nelson asked whether all 67 units were one bedroom units.
Sweeney stated yes. They are not addressing affordable housing for
families.
Sodt asked whether their market research showed who their target market
would be.
Sweeney stated their customer would be the people working in nearby
offices and retail areas or people currently bussing in from the city. There
will be some seniors.
Koenig stated she appreciated the changes they made and they did
everything they could environmentally. There is a need for housing for
single mothers. She asked whether they would have a few units in there
that could accommodate families.
Sweeney said one of the main concerns was saving trees. A building with
a common entry, sharing an apartment hallway with kids would not make
good neighbors. They do not want to get into a situation where they are
creating problems down the road.
Koenig inquired whether the affordable units would be scattered
throughout the building.
Sweeney stated yes.
Brooks asked for an estimated cost.
Sweeney stated about$120,000 per unit.
Brooks said he agreed with Koenig. There are many apartments with
families in them and a new building like this may attract single parent
families. He would like to see at least a few units serving this need.
Community Planning Board Minutes
March 25, 2002
Page 5
Corneille asked whether there was demand in their Eagan project for
single parent housing.
Mark Moorehouse stated they have built similar projects. There is not a
big demand for people with kids to live in apartment units.
Foote asked whether the affordable units would be similar to the others.
Sweeney stated it would be the same design.
Foote inquired whether any were handicapped equipped.
Sweeney noted handicapped accessibility was required..
The developer stated all of the units are adaptable and can be made into
handicapped units. 3-5% are initially built as handicapped. The only
difference between an adaptable unit and handicapped unit are things like
grab bars.
Nelson asked about the size of the doors.
The developer stated the doors are two feet ten inches in width, there will
be roll-in showers. Others can be converted.
Nelson stated she would like to see three foot doors in more of the units;
with the aging population it could be necessary. She inquired about the
balcony size.
The developer stated the balconies are six feet in length.
Corneille said we should not try as a board to address every problem with
one development. The main purpose for this development would be
workforce housing.
Sodt concurred; this is aimed at a particular market, the workforce. We
should not expect every project to address every problem.
Brooks asked about what the TIF was based upon and whether it was a
typical scenario.
Lindahl said the total tax base; they want to be consistent with past
projects, and are giving them 90% over a 15 year period. They are
proposing a 17 year term.
Corneille asked about the amount of parking needed meeting city code.
Community Planning Board Minutes
March 25, 2002
Page 6
Franzen stated the parking does meet the code. The parking is 2.12 spaces
per unit.
Corneille inquired about the trail and whether it connects.
Fox stated the recommendation is the trail the length of the project; there
is a trail north of there.
Foote inquired whether the city monitors construction fencing.
Fox stated they will monitor it if they have a bad experience with a
developer. This is his first experience with the company; they will ensure
tree clearing was done and the fence was up and may periodically check it.
Sodt said he was confused about the height of the building relative to the
Wilson Learning center.
The architect stated the Wilson Learning center was used as an example to
show the height of the building relative to the midpoint of the roof.
Nelson said she was very pleased with the changes with the building and
the sensitivity shown to the neighbors. She would like to see some
transitional work force housing of 2 bedrooms. She hopes they will do
whatever they can to make it usable for many people.
Corneille concurred.
Foote stated it should be noted there is an important distinction between
work force and low-income housing and the developer did a good job
explaining the difference.
Sodt stated he appreciated them pulling away from conservation easement.
MOTION: Koenig moved, second by Stoelting to approve The Heights
At Valley View by Eden Prairie Leased Housing Associates I, LP.
Request for: Guide Plan Change from Office/Industrial to High Density
Residential on 10.26 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review
on 10.26 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers
on 10.26 acres, Zoning District Change from rural to RM-2.5 on 10.26
acres, Site Plan Review on 10.26 acres, Preliminary Plat of 10.26 acres
into 1 lot according to the plans dated March 22, 2002, the staff report and
conditions therein. Motion carried, 8-0.
Community Planning Board Minutes
March 25, 2002
Page 7
Dan Enblom thanked Dominium for meeting with the residents. He would
have preferred three rather than four stories.
B. THE HEIGHTS AT VALLEY VIEW TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN
Lindahl stated the TIF hearing is scheduled for April 6 in front of the City
Council. The developer is requesting TIF financing to help lower rents on
67 one-bedroom units. The use of TIF is consistent with goals in the
Comprehensive Plan.
A resident stated TIF would take away a million dollars in funding from
the schools.
Lindahl stated legislative changes made it so that the city is only collecting
taxes at a municipal level. The school is notified of all TIF hearings. He
has never heard one negative comment from the school.
MOTION: Brooks moved, second by Stoelting to approve the use of Tax
Increment Financing for this project. Motion carried, 8-0.
Franzen stated on April 16'h there would be public hearings at the City
Council on this project.
VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS
Corneille noted it was Stock's last meeting. He thanked her for her two years of
service.
VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
Franzen noted Council approved the Guide Plan update without the aviation
chapter. The board will have input into this chapter,before returning to the City
Council.
IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS
X. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Sodt moved, second by Stoelting to adjourn. Motion carried, 8-0.
The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.