Loading...
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.