Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-1994 APPROVED PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Meeting No. 9 November 14, 1994 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 CALL TO ORDER The Economic Development Authority was called to order by President Linke on November 14, 1994 at 8: 00 p.m. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: President, Jerry Linke; Vice President, Phyllis Blanchard; Secretary, Diane Wuori; Commissioners Gary Quick and Julie Trude; and Executive Director, Samantha Orduno MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Economic Development Coordinator, Cathy Bennett; • Assistant to City Administrator, Tim Cruikshank; City Consulting Engineer, Rocky Keene; Community Development Coordinator, Paul Harrington APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Wuori to Approve EDA Agenda VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Blanchard to Approve Minutes of October 10, 1994 EDA Meeting VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried CONSENT AGENDA: There were no items placed on the Consent Agenda for this meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: There were no public hearings scheduled for this meeting. EDA BUSINESS: 1110 EDA Page 2 • Meeting No. 9 November 14, 1994 A. Consideration of Resolution No. 94-EDA17 Approving Construction Plans for the Silver Lake Pointe Project Cathy Bennett, Economic Deve.opment Coordinator, reported that per Section 3 . 3, Constructign Plan, of Development Assistance Agreement for the Silver Lake Pointe Project, the Authority shall approve the Construction Plans if it determines that they conform to the applicable provisions of the Agreement. Such Construction Plans mulpt be rejected in writing by the Authority within ten working days of submission or shall be deemed to have been approve by the Authority. The full plans were submitted to the City's building department on October 31, 1994 and the attached resolution fulfills the requirement for the Authority to approve the Construction Plans for the Silver Lake Pointe Project within the ten working days of submission. Bennett said she had included a memo for review from Building Official Rick Jarson which outlines the required changes to the plans to conform with the City's building codes. She noted that per Section 3 . 3, approval of the Resolution 94- • EDA17 does not in any way approve the building permit process with the City's Building and Engineering Department. The resolution is to approve the design and configuration of the project as it was understood in approval of the Development Assistance Agreement. Jeff Huggett of MSP Real Estate explained that the project started back in January or February when he met with Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, and Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator. Shortly after that, application was made to the City Council for the tax increment financing and rezoning approval of the project. Huggett said their final plan which was approved by the EDA, was an 83 unit, three-story project with underground parking of 66 stalls. He stated that they are building 83 units in the ratio of 50 one-bedroom units and 33 two-bedroom units. They have achieved 73 underground parking stalls and the same amount of on-site parking stalls that was previously approved by the EDA Board. Another requirement of the EDA was to have a minimum of 59 affordable dwelling units within the project. Huggett stated that, based on financing that was obtained, 70 affordable units will be available out of the 83 total. The amount of brick on the project was another concern of the EDA and 41/1 Huggett said the amount of brick was now at 50% on this project. He reported that construction plans were submitted EDA Page 3 • Meeting No. 9 November 14, 1994 through the Minnesota Finance Agency for tax credit financing and that this project received more tax credits than any other senior affordable housing project in the State of Minnesota. Huggett commented that 85 peope had already signed an interest list to rent in the building and only 83 units were being built. At the time the project was started, interest rates were at 9%. Those rates are now in the 10% to 10-1/2% range and Huggett said the rental rates of the affordable units would remain around $490 for a onq-bedroom to $590 for a two-bedroom unit. Market rate units wduld be higher than that. Huggett commented that numerous wetland issues were brought up. Those issues have all been resolved and the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) issued a permit in August. Skip Sorrensen, the project architect, used an overhead projector to show the layout of the proposed project. He pointed out the locations of the new sidewalks and trees to be planted along the boulevard. The entire site will be sodded 1111 and will have an irrigation system. The entrance into the underground parking will occur off Mounds View Drive. That elevation is about 4' lower than the existing street so there will be a gradual decline going in with an electronic garage door opener. Commissioner Trude pointed out an area west of the building. Sorrensen explained that on April 27, that area was delineated as a wetland by the surveyor indicating that no encroachment could be done in the way of filling or building within that wetland area. Neither the parking lot nor the building encroaches on that wetland area. Trude questioned exactly what area would be sodded. Sorrensen explained that the sodded area would occur all the way to the edge of the property line on three sides and about two-thirds of the way on the north side of the site. There will be tree plantings along the wetland area as well. Huggett explained that one of the requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District was that the wetland area be improved and upgraded. Sorrensen pointed out the driveway location coming into the garage off Mounds View Drive, and indicated the overhead 4111 garage door is 16' wide. A staging area will be provided outside the garage door for the weekly pick up of refuse EDA Page 4 1111 Meeting No. 9 November 14, 1994 containers. There is heat and 24-hour lighting provided in the underground parking. He went over the structural details of the garage and said there would be ample space for handicapped parking stalls located near the main elevator lobby. .� Sorrensen said that one of the features being provided in the lower level is a carwash bay. There will also be custodial maintenance, mechanical and electrical rooms located on the lower level. Adjacent to the elevator lobby will be the trash compactor area where the trash chute comes down. This trash room has been resized for disposable refuse and recycling containers. There will be a trash chute and recycling bins located on each floor and larger bins located in the trash room. Sorrensen felt that not more than 80% of the tenants would have vehicles once they moved into this building, and the 73 parking stalls would be adequate. Secretary Diane Wuori expressed concern regarding the number of underground parking stalls, citing the poor public 1111 transportation in the area. Sorrensen described the security system, which will have a communications phone in the lobby to be used to contact the tenant, allowing entrance to the building. He explained that the building will be prewired for future security television monitors at the garage door and at the main entrance. It will also be prewired for a future emergency generator in the building. Sorrensen pointed out the features of a typical one-bedroom unit stating that all units will comply with the Federal Fair Housing Act, Minnesota State Handicap Code and the American Disabilities Act. Each one-bedroom unit will have an air conditioner in the bedroom. Every unit will have a pantry and kitchen, dishwasher, exhaust hood, electric range and refrigerator. There will be a storage room with adjustable shelving on the wall and a coat rack in each dwelling. Some of the bathrooms will have bathtubs and some will have showers. The dimensions of a typical one-bedroom is 13 ' x 13'1/2 ' with a walk-in closet. He then pointed out the features of a typical two-bedroom unit, noting there will be an air conditioner in the bedroom and living room. Sorrensen stated that miniblinds, carpet, sheet vinyl, all cabinetry, plumbing fixtures, phone and television jacks in 4110 the bedrooms will be provided in each unit. The only thing the tenants will have to furnish is their own possessions and 4111 EDA Page 5 Meeting No. 9 November 14, 1994 telephone. There will be sound proofing between each dwelling unit and the floors. Fire-stopping material will be put in the gypsum floors between the garage level and the first and second floors. The windows will be vinyl with low E argon glass. Sorrensen said the exterior of the building will feature bay windows along the two wings of the building with accent brick. The main entrance canopy going into the building will connect from the lobby all the way out to the main turnaround. There will be power assisted entrance hardware on the main lobby doors. Rain gutters will be located near the entrances. There is a complete area drain that goes across the entrance of the garage. That water will be taken inside the building to a sump where it will be pumped up into the retention pond. There is also a complete drain tile system at the lower level tied into sumps to the retention pond. Sorrensen explained design elements of the building such as the solarium, management offices and mail room. The community room on the first floor will have seating capacity of nearly 100, with a residential-type kitchen rather than an 4111 institutional-type kitchen. There will be laundry rooms on each floor in the center of the building. An ornamental open staircase will go from the first floor up to the second floor. A health and beauty room will be located on the second floor for a barber shop or salon. There will be a television lounge directly across from that. The third floor will have a library room facing south with outside windows. It will have built-in book shelves. Charlie Melcher, engineer for the project, explained the wetland issues. He pointed out an area of . 05 acres that was a man-made wetland created less than ten years ago. Although the RCWD approved an exemption for this area, the developer was asked to mitigate 3 , 170 square feet of an area located north of the building. The RCWD also wanted the existing wetland enhanced either by excavation, removing the soil all together, or by pushing the soil out to the boundaries to form a berm. This project was accepted and approved along with the 3 , 170 square feet that was mitigated and a permit was received in August. Melcher said the high water table of the area was 906.2 and the garage slab was at 906. Their solution to the problem, which was agreeable to Steve Woods of RCWD and the Mounds View Consulting Engineer, was to fully waterproof the boundaries of 4111 the walls, to provide an exterior drainage system which connected it to the sumps. There will also be an undergrade system which would take under-slab water to the sumps to be EDA Page 6 . Meeting No. 9 November 14, 1994 pumped out through the weir and into the wetland. In Melcher's opinion, if there were to be a hundred-year storm back to back or even three in a row, this project would not obtain substantial water to the point there would be wet slabs. If there was water coming in and under the slab, it would be pumped out at a greater rate than it would be coming in. The building itself is well above the 908.2 elevation the City required. The drainage pond met the RCWD's requirement for the release rate of the proposed increase in runoff due to this project. Melcher furnished to the EDA copies of a report from Huntingdon that showed an engineering review of the area. He also furnished copies of a hydrologic review from Rocky Keene, Consulting Engineer for the City. Melcher noted that, at the request of Mr. Keene, revisions were made to the proposed contours of the pond. Trude expressed her concern for rain and ice building up at the garage entrance. Melcher explained that there would be a 1' wide by 12' long catch basin leading into the water drainage system to be pumped out. He also explained the elevations and water drainage of the project area. President Linke remarked that any approval given at this meeting does not preclude the approvals that are necessary by the engineers and the building officials. He stated that what is being considered for approval by the EDA is the layout of the building. Linke explained that, basically, EDA's review has gone from preliminary to final drawings with no review in between. Trude stressed that she wants this building to be good quality because it will serve the people of the community for a long time. Linke asked Rocky Keene, City Consulting Engineer, if he had any concerns regarding this project. Keene said he didn't feel there would be a problem with surface water going into the building. He also mentioned that the wetland issues were under the jurisdiction of the RCWD. Melcher explained the types of vegetation that will be planted in the wetland area. 411/ Wuori said there were nice pussy willows growing in that wetland now and it would be a shame to replace them with something different. Keene questioned the practicality of EDA Page 7 . Meeting No. 9 November 14, 1994 enhancing a wetland and replanting it when the vegetation already growing there is so nice. Commissioner Quick remarked that, to his recollection, the wetland did not exist until County Road I was built and the owner of the property excavated it. He said the wetland appears man-made. Paul Harrington, Community Development Coordinator, commented that the maps used by the City to determine buildable property do not show a wetland area at this location and that RCWD raised the issue of the wetland. Cathy Bennett said that this approval would not take any precedence to the building approval. The project is still required to go through the process. Linke explained that the EDA must determine whether the developers actually did what they said they would at the preliminary hearing and consider approval of the layouts. Executive Director Samantha Orduno said that it was made clear 1111 to Jeff Huggett and other members of the development team that this project would be under close scrutiny, particularly with respect to drainage problems. It was also made clear this would be a viable development, that there would not be a situation where there would be water in that underground garage. Orduno felt that the development team has complied. She also felt they were aware of the City's concerns as well as the concerns of the RCWD and local residents. The items that the developer said they would provide are now on record and the City will definitely hold them accountable. Keene explained the 10: 1 side slope recommendation for the retention pond. He cited the safety factor since this area is located in a residential district. He also addressed the minimum building elevation criteria, and was satisfied with that. Keene said he had talked to a RCWD engineer and was told there was no high water elevation in the wetland located to the west of the project. Keene discussed the subject of retention ponding. It is the philosophy of the City to do nothing about a retention pond when it turns green. The pond has been built for one purpose- -to remove the sedimentation. S Keene referred to a letter he had written to Paul Harrington dated November 11, 1994 , in which seven recommendations were EDA Page 8 Meeting No. 9 November 14, 1994 made. He briefly commented on those recommendations, indicating that the issues had been resolved by the developer. Keene stated that this area was identified as a drainage study area in the Local Water Management Plan to address the kinds of issues being discussed at this meeting. The purpose of the Local Water Management Plan is to find out what kinds of wetlands the residents want in this area. Trude expressed concern about water going into the garage level of the building. Keene explained that the elevation of County Road I is such that it is lower than any accessible point into the building so water is not going to flow toward this building. Regarding the groundwater issue, the sump pumps may run a fair amount of time during certain periods, but Keene felt they would keep the garage dry. MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Wuori to Adopt Resolution No. 94-EDA17 Trude asked if there was a portion of the Development 4111 Agreement that would still allow for the review of other plans concerning this project. Orduno explained that, once the Construction Plans are approved, any requirements remaining in regards to the building permit would then be up to the building officials. Trude asked if there should be any building contingencies put on the project. Linke explained that the contingencies are the building codes. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried REPORTS 1. Report of President Linke: No report. 2 . Report of Vice President Blanchard: No report. 3 . Report of Secretary Wuori: No report. 4 . a. Report of Commissioner Quick: No report. b. Report of Commissioner Trude: -No report. 4111 5. Report of Executive Director Orduno: No report. EDA Page 9 410 Meeting No. 9 November 14, 1994 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before this Authority, President Linke adjourned the meeting at 9: 47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J d Riser R condi, g Secretary meSaver Off Site Secretarial