Planning Commission - 03/23/1992 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIM PLANNING COND41SSION
Monday, March 23, 1992
7:30 p.m.
CONEMSSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Karen Norman, Doug Sandstad, James
Hawkins, Katherine Kardell, Mary Jane Wissner and
Kenneth E. Clinton
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael D. Franzen,
Senior Planner; Donald Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund,
Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
M. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. NIINUTES
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. REVIEW OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PROTECTS
Presentation by Michael Franzen
Memo from Chris Enger
B. REVIEW OF "THE EVOLVING DOWNTOWN"
Presentation by Michael Franzen
Memo from Michael Franzen
C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
Presentation by Michael Franzen
D. TRANSIT HUB
Presentation by Diane Harberts, Southwest Metro
VI. OLD BUSINESS
VH. PLANNERS' REPORTS
VHI. ADJOURNMENT
AGN323.BS
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COAD41SSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1992 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COABMSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Ken Clinton, James Hawkins,
Katherine Kardell, Karen Norman, Doug
Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner.
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director, Michael Franzen,
Senior Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0-0.
H. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
MOTION:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Kardell to nominate Doug Sandstad for Chairman. Motion carried 7-0-0.
No further nominations were received.
MOTION:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Norman to cast a unanimous ballot for Doug Sandstad for Chairman.
Motion carried 7-0-0.
MOTION:
Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to nominate Tim Bauer for Vice Chairman. Motion carved 7-0-0.
No further nominations were received.
1
MOTION:
Norman moved, seconded by Hawkins to cast a unanimous ballot for Tim Bauer for Vice Chairman.
Motion carried 7-0-0.
MOTION:
Kardell moved, seconded by Hawkins to nominate Karen Norman for Secretary. Motion carried 7-0-0.
No further nominations were received.
MOTION:
Kardell moved, seconded by Hawkins to cast a unanimous ballot for Karen Norman for Secretary.
Motion carried 7-0-0.
III. MEMBERS REPORT
Hawkins submitted a written summary of the meeting between representatives from the State and the
City of Eden Prairie regarding the Shoreland Ordinance requirements. He said that the City Code did
not comply with new State requirements. Hawkins added that Scott Kipp would be conducting further
studies comparing current codes to new requirements.
• Clinton asked how long it would be before the Planning Commission would have the results of this
study. Hawkins replied that the City would be required to be in compliance by January 4, 1993.
Norman questioned exactly what was considered shoreland. Franzen replied that there were specific
designations from the DNR in the Comprehensive Guide Plan for each different type of body of water,
and each water body has different regulations. Franzen stated that he did not believe that the City
and State were that far apart.
Sandstad asked Hawkins to keep the Planning Commission informed about further developments.
Bauer asked what had happened regarding -appointments for the Minnesota River Bluff Adhoc
Committee. Franzen replied that no members of the Planning Commission or the Parks &Recreation
Commission had been appointed. Franzen added that there were several citizen members which had
applied to serve on the committee.
Hawkins asked how many times the committee would meet. Franzen replied approximately 4 to 6
times.
Sandstad asked if Staff would advise the Planning Commission on updates
from the Adhoc Committee. Franzen replied yes.
• 2
IV. MINUTES
Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to approve the Minutes of the March 23, 1992 Planning
Commission meeting as published. Motion, carried 6-0-1. Hawkins abstained.
Bauer commented that he appreciated the previous minutes relating to returning issues being included
in the packet.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. REVIEW OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PROTECTS
Franzen handed out the official form prepared by the City for the Planning Commission's
review. He noted that the only projects that the Planning Commission had not reviewed
previously were land banking and wetland mitigation. Franzen believed that the wetland
mitigation proposal could give the City the opportunity to provide more effective wetland
restoration on larger project rather than several smaller projects throughout the City. The City
could decide to obtain the services of an environmental engineer to assist with the wetland
projects. Franzen reported that the Planning Commission action tonight would relate to these
two issues.
Sandstad asked if all of the Tax Increment Districts by number were noted on Attachment-Figure
1 handed out this evening or only those within the Major Center Area. Franzen replied that
. Figure 1 only included the Major Center Area. Sandstad asked if all of the parcels enclosed
within the dark line included in one or more districts. Franzen replied yes. Franzen added that
the boundaries of the Major Center Area had not changed since 1968.
Sandstad asked Franzen to explain briefly Tax Increment Financing. Franzen stated that the
majority of the property was located within the Prairie Center Drive area and the City had
determined that the only way the land was going to develop was if the City were to take the lead
to create a TIF district to provide money to pay for Prairie Center Drive along with assessments.
The City set up a special tax district. Kardell explained how the property values were frozen
and the taxing worked. Kardell noted that the property had to meet four tests.
Sandstad stated that there were many restrictions placed on how Tax Increment Financing funds
could be used.
Norman asked what the life was of Tax Increment Financed property. Kardell believed it was
approximately 30 years.
Clinton asked how much money would be generated. Franzen replied approximately 8 million
dollars.
3
Kardell asked if there were changes in the original list and the current one enclosed in the
• packet. Franzen replied they were the same.
Bauer asked how the City was suggesting to acquire the property. Franzen replied that this had
not exactly been determined yet. Bauer was concerned about the City publishing what properties
it was interested in and believed that this would naturally drive the price up. Bauer was
concerned that once these proposed acquisition sites were part of a City Policy Statement the
property value would be inflated.
Wissner asked what time frame was proposed for the traffic signal projects. Franzen replied that
the City had hired traffic engineers to determine where the signals were really necessary and no
time frame had been set except that Singletree Lane and Prairie Center Drive and Leona Road
and Highway 169 could be installed this summer.
Bauer was concerned about the addition of traffic signals and the slowing of traffic and the
resulting environmental impacts for pollution.
Norman asked who regulated the lights on Highway 4 and 5. Franzen replied the lights were
regulated by MnDOT.
Sandstad asked the Commissioners to comment on the wetland mitigation and drainage issues.
Hawkins asked for clarification on the Carpenter letter enclosed
in the packet. Franzen replied that there were 2 designated wetland areas on the Carpenter
property and the Army Corp of Engineers had said that the one wetland area could not be filled.
Carpenter is concerned that now he will not be able to develop approximately 3 acres in the
southeast corner. Franzen stated that Carpenter did not have anywhere on the property to
replace the wetland area.
Sandstad asked how this would relate to the City's storm water drainage plan. Franzen replied
that wetland mitigation and storm water drainage were two completely separate issues. Sandstad
believed that the letter from Carpenter was requesting assistance and involvement from the City
in the development of additional N.U.R.P. ponds and wetlands.
Hawkins noted that presently there was a case before the Supreme Court related to new laws and
regulations hindering the development of property which prior to the laws could have been
developed and how the property owner should be compensated.
Sandstad asked how costs would be recovered for additional mitigation if the City became
actively involved. Franzen replied a charge could be made on a per acre basis.
Hawkins believed that environmental resources were important. He was not in favor of putting
the City's resources into furthering the increase in value of property within the Major Center
Area for the developers in lieu of environmental issues.
4
• Sandstad asked the Commissioners for comments on land banking.
Hawkins believed that land banking provided for long-range economic
commercial development and provided flexibility.
Bauer concurred with the land banking policy and believed that it should be increased and a long
term strategy developed for land swapping. Bauer was concerned about the identification of the
properties in advance.
Wissner concurred with the land banking policy and further believed that the Teman property
was important to the City.
Clinton concurred with the land banking concept.
Hawkins believed that the wetland mitigation was still a perfectly legal approach to preservation
of environmental areas. Hawkins further believed that the City's money should not be used to
develop wetland mitigation area unless strong economic tradeoffs were provided by the
developer.
Sandstad stated that he was in favor of both land banking and wetland mitigation. He believed
that the wetland mitigation would allow for more flexibility in the Major Center Area
development than what was currently available and was confident in the prudent judgement of
the City's elected officials to invest properly. Sandstad believed that the City should be more
• involved in the preservation of green space and wetland areas.
Hawkins stated that he could support wetland mitigation with the understanding that there would
be substantial economic contribution from the Major Center Area developers.
MOTION:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Clinton to strongly endorse and approve the land banking concept
as proposed in the memorandum from Planning Director, Chris Enger, and further that the City
pursue other land banking opportunities whenever possible without the need to come before the
Planning Commission for further approval on each parcel.
Sandstad understood the motion to include properties outside the Major Center Area be
considered for land banking and asked if this was the intent. Hawkins replied yes.
Sandstad asked Franzen if the City had not actually already done some land banking outside the
Major Center Area and it was not a new concept. Franzen replied that this was a new concept
in that the land would be purchased and not necessarily used right away.
Bauer stated that historically cities had only purchased property when it was needed and no
thought of long-term planning was done.
• 5
AMENDMENT TO MOTION:
Land banking would not be limited to areas within the Major Center Area but would include any
area within the city limits of Eden Prairie which might be determined to offer an opportunity
for future enhancement of the community.
Motion as amended carried 7-0-0.
MOTION:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Norman to make qualified approval of the proposed wetland
mitigation concept with the condition that wetland mitigation or any other similar project never
be pursued by the City when that pursuit would result in the avoidance, delay, or undermining
of an environmental regulation or safeguard and furthermore that wetland mitigation or similar
project should only be pursued when there would be benefit to the City from a financial,
economic, or other community value standpoint and when the property owner was also bearing
a portion of the financial and economic burden separate from and in addition to the taxes on said
property.
Motion carried 6-0-1. Bauer abstained due to professional involvement with Walter Carpenter.
B. REVIEW OF "THE EVOLVING DOWNTOWN"
. Franzen reported that the downtown area had been a project in the making for several years.
He added that the consultant had continued to work on this project after the Walmart proposal
was approved and possible land uses were suggested for the downtown. Franzen stated that an
amendment to the downtown area is envisioned called a spine plan. This plan would follow
Technology Drive to Prairie Center Drive to Singletree Lane. It would link the City Hall with
the Downtown area. Staff had spoken with several of the developers in the downtown area and
they were excited about the new plans. Franzen reported that Staff planned to continue with the
downtown area study. Staff had recently spoken with Apple Valley staff and had learned several
things from their experience in planning a downtown. Franzen stated that Staff was excited
about the project. Franzen concluded that this was simply an update for the Planning
Commission and he would continue to keep the Commission informed of any changes.
Sandstad stated that he liked the new City Hall location.
The Planning Commission concurred that they were excited about the new plan proposed and
suggested that the spine plan also include Anderson Lakes Parkway and Columbine Road.
C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
Franzen reported that the City had always practiced economic development but had never been
given credit for doing so. Franzen believed that framework would help the City encourage new
6
development and retain existing businesses. He reported that the Development Framework was
ia draft and was presented to the Chamber of Commerce. The framework would continue to be
refined. The City would become more active in this area in the future. Franzen stated that the
Chamber of Commerce was pleased to see the City taking a proactive approach. Franzen said
that developers had commented in the past that Eden Prairie Codes were tough but it was also
fair and just in the administration.
Norman stated that she did not want to see economic development become a priority at the
expense of good planning, traffic management and preserving the environment.
Hawkins asked if there was a Recreational Development Framework. Franzen replied that there
was a long term plan for Park and Recreation development. Franzen added that the Economic
Development Framework could become part of the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Hawkins stated that he would not want to see development just for development sake. The City
has invested much time and effort in a planned and prudent development of the City that worked
well to preserve the environment and to retain the current quality of life.
D. TRANSIT HUB
Diane Harberts, Administrator for the Southwest Metro Transit, and Jim Lasher presented the
proposal for a transit hub development.
. Hawkins asked if Southwest Metro Transit was involved with the Southwest Transit Coalition.
Harberts replied no, the association was with MnDOT.
Harberts stated that the Southwest Metro Transit had been in existence for 5 years. He believed
that the Transit Hub would provide better service as a whole.
Usher present the plans for the present and future routes. He stated that the 1990 Park&Ride
study had been completed. The hub concept would have several buses going out to various area
and bring riders back to the Hub facility. The Hub would also provide reverse circulation from
downtown out to various Eden Prairie areas. Lasher believed the Hub would promote growth
and development around the surrounding area. Usher reviewed the criteria in determining a
Hub location. Usher noted also that there had been an increase in suburb to suburb commuting
in which major shopping center areas were utilized.
Sandstad asked when the suburban hubs would be developed. Harberts replied that funding was
an important issue and probably would not be seen until 1996.
Usher stated that studies indicated that people were not moving closer to their jobs but actually
further away and the number of trips being made were increasing not the number of vehicles on
the road. He noted that the overall concept was to reduce the number of trips and still provide
the needed convenience. Sites were being reviewed at the Eden Prairie Center and another off
Highway 212. Lacher added that they were looking at adding a daycare center near the Transit
Hub to provide additional convenience. The Transit Hub could interface with the school bus
system also.
Norman asked if Southwest Metro would lease the business spaces or would it be owned by the
commercial businesses. Lacher replied that this had not been determined at this time.
Sandstad asked if there were any other facilities similar to this other than the one in Boston.
Lacher replied there was another facility outside of Seattle.
Usher reported that the legal aspects needed to be investigated further and a market analysis
study done. Lacher noted that it would be important for the commercial businesses to be able
to survive on their own without the bus traffic. Lacher stated that MnDot had agreed in concept
to build a Park & Ride Lot as part of the Highway 212 development.
Sandstad asked if a building design had been drawn up yet. Lacher replied no, that it had not
been determined if this would be financially feasible or not. Sandstad asked Franzen what the
City's views were on this project. Franzen replied that Staff could see a lot of possibilities for
special City events using shared parking.
The Planning Commission concurred that this was an interesting concept which had merit and
supported the concept.
• VI. OLD BUSINESS
VU. PLANNER'S REPORTS
VIU. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 PM. Motion carried 7-0-0.
8