Loading...
Planning Commission - 11/28/2005 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2005 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Larry Kacher, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz,William Sutherland STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Al Gray, City Engineer Mike Franzen, City Planner Janet Jeremiah, Director of Community Development Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Kacher and Sutherland. Rocheford was present for the public meeting only and was absent at the time of the motions. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Nelson, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 6-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 14, 2005 MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Seymour, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 6-0. IV. PUBLIC MEETING A. EDEN PRAIRIE MAJOR CENTER AREA STUDY The Major Center Area study involves land use, transportation and way finding recommendations through the year 2030. A 14- member task force was appointed by the Council to provide input through out the study process. DRF consulting, Ingraham & Associates and Visual Communications were hired to work on the Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 Page 2 study along with a Technical Advisory Committee of staff from the City and other pertinent agencies. Janet Jeremiah, Community Development Director for the City of Eden Prairie, made the presentation of the Major Center Area Study. Jeremiah stated that the Major Center Area Study has been underway for almost one year. The study encompasses a 1200 acre area near the interchange of Hwy 494 and Hwy 212. Hwy 5 is to the west of the area, Valley View Road on the North and Prairie Center Drive form a ring road around most of the study area. The mall ring road is the road located around Eden Prairie Center. Jeremiah pointed out that the last comprehensive study was done in 1973. This current study will project 25 years from now. She stated that the study's objective is to see what the City will look like in the year 2030. Jeremiah pointed out that there were five meetings that were held with the MCA task force; which included representation from the Chamber of Commerce, business property owners and managers, the Planning Commission, and MCA residents. These meetings were held to give feedback on issues and opportunities, planning principles, concept alternatives, land use-transportation analysis, and the draft final plans. There were also numerous other meetings held that were related to this topic and two different open houses in which numerous community members attended and filled out feedback forms. At the second open house the attendees filled out a questionnaire as to what is most important to the development of this study. This is what the survey came up with, ranking highest priority to lowest: 1. Creating a compact, walkable, mixed use Town Center; 2. Improving traffic flow; 3. Adding sidewalks and trails; 4. Incorporating Light Rail Transit; 5. Improving area wayfinding; 6. Adding parks and open space; 7. Improving access to/from regional roads; 8. Improving local bus transit; 9. Adding offices and employment; 10. Adding life cycle housing. The area of this study was divided into 10 different planning areas. They are as follows: 1. Sub Area#1 — situated by Hwy 5 and Plaza Drive The existing land uses for this area are car dealerships, big box and neighborhood retail and some open areas. The future uses of this land are envisioned to be for more of an intensification of big box retail, office space, and neighborhood retail. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 Page 3 2. Sub Area#2 — situated south of Hwy 5 and the western edge would be Prairie Center Drive and the eastern edge would be Hwy 212/Flying Cloud Drive. The existing land uses for this area are primarily regional commercial uses (retail, service, restaurants) with some apartment, office/medical office and industrial uses. There is also some privately owned open space in this area. The future uses of this land are envisioned to be medium and high-density housing, office, medical office, community retail, entertainment, hotel/lodging and a Town Center area. The Town Center would be a compact walkable mixed use area including ground floor retail with housing or offices above that was the number one priority envisioned by the feedback from the open house. The study also recommends more streets into this section for better connections. The north/south road and Singletree Lane would act as main street. High rise housing (7-10 stories) is envisioned east of Costco next to a potential future park overlooking Lake Idlewild. The only continued industrial use is envisioned to be where the substation is located by Hwy 5 and Technology Drive. 3. Sub Area#3 — situated around the area where Southwest Station is currently. The existing land area contains the Purgatory Creek Recreational area, transit station,restaurants, and multi-family housing. The future use of this land would be to keep it much in its current state with the possible exception of intensification of the Southwest Station development. 4. Sub Area#4 — situated to the south of Sub Area#3,by the Flagship area. The existing land area contains office, commercial, senior housing and care facility, athletic club, and the new Fountain Place Development. The future use of this land does not see a lot of change except for the new high rise residential development envisioned on the vacant parcel at Columbine and Prairie Center Drive a potential change in format at Broadmoor. 5. Sub Area#5 — situated on the east side of Hwy 212 and the south side of Prairie Center Drive The existing land area contains multi-family senior residential, auto service, medical, restaurant and fast food, retail, library, vacant and single- family residential parcels. The future use for this land would be to see a continuation of retail, medical buildings will remain; and there may be some civic uses added near the library. 6. Sub Area#6 —this is the Eden Prairie Center Area and the adjacent retail development. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 Page 4 The existing land area contains retail and office space. The future use for this land would be to maintain its retail identity with the opportunity to become more mixed-use in the future. A 15% intensification was factored into the traffic study. 7. Sub Area#7 — situated east of Eden Prairie Center. This existing land area contains primarily residential with some office and commercial. The future use of this area is not envisioned to see any significant change but the study does encourage more neighborhood retail uses, such as convenience stores. 8. Sub Area#8 — situated north of 78h street and east of Hwy 212/Flyiniz Cloud Drive. This existing land area is primarily commercial with big box and neighborhood retail and hotels. The future use of this area is envisioned to intensify with more big box retail,perhaps two-story with structural parking. 9. Sub Area#9 — situated to the north of Hwy 494 where Prairie Center Drive turns into Valley View Road with Hwy 212 _offing down the middle of this area. This existing land area contains hotels, office, service,restaurant, and a television station. The future use of this area is expected to see a continuation of hotel and lodging and some additional office development. At some point, the strip retail could consider redevelopment as office. 10. Sub Area#10— situation on the north side of Hwy 5 and south of Valley View Road. The existing land area contains office, hotel, business park uses and a vacant car dealership. The future use of this area is envisioned to see more office development. Jeremiah stated that the study also received feedback as to what would make Eden Prairie a great place to live. These were the following findings needed to make a city a great place to live in: 1. Viability—it has to work from an economic perspective,has to be convenient and have adequate infrastructure. 2. Livability—which would account for safety issues, provide enough amenities, and have opportunities for public gathering places so residents have a small town feel in a larger, growing community. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 Page 5 3. Memorability—this requires authenticity and also trying to create a legacy for future generations. The key planning elements needed to make Eden Prairie a great place to live, are as follows: 1. A dynamic walkable Town Center area. This would include: a. A mixed use area of retail, office, residential, entertainment and civic areas. b. More private and public open space. c. A revised street grid system. d. More mid-rise and high-rise (7-10 stories) residential development. e. Create this area to be more attractive f. Transit Oriented Development Area—near the light rail transit system. 2. Improved way-finding (clarity and ease of movement). a. Use varying signage types with similar aesthetics to make the area memorable and distinctive. b. Use gateway signage as you enter area. c. Divide area into sub-areas or neighborhoods with signage indicating directions to each area and different banners. d. Include pedestrianibicycle signage and map kiosks. 3. Safe and pleasant places to walk. a. Balance this with vehicle accommodation and bike/pedestrian facilities. b. Modify signal timing and build medians and other intersection improvements at significant intersections. c. Build missing pedestrianibicycle facilities and segments. d. Grade separated crossing should be considered at some locations. 4. Green system of urban parks, civic areas and iZreen streets. a. Design streets to a hierarchy of function and streetscape type. b. Connect trails, sidewalks, existing parks and new civic open spaces. c. Anticipation of a future park in town center area for new housing and community gathering. 5. Development balanced with transportation capacity. a. Study looked at what areas were likely to redevelop based on the following issues: areas with larger parcels, sized to allow meaningful change; location and visibility factors; land and building value; ability to create a compact Town Center area; traffic balance against planned roadway capacity. b. 65% of this area is currently in surface parking; which would give the opportunity to do infill and redevelopment with structured parking in the future. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 Page 6 6. Transportation and transit improvements. a. Aesthetic and improved operations projects.(TH 212 and Prairie Center Drive) b. Major east-west and north-south roadway connections. c. Mall interior Ring Road modifications. d. Bus and LRT transit service improvements. Long-term transportation improvements. a. Mall Ring Road one way operation. b. TH 212/Singletree Lane realignment. c. TH 212/Prairie Center Drive grade separation. d. Regional access improvements. e. LRT and bus circulator. Jeremiah indicated steps for implementing the plan. They are as follows: 1. NEAR TERM INITIATIVES A. Land Use/Community Development 1. Town Center Market Study 2. Detailed Physical Redevelopment Study 3. Financial Feasibility Analysis (site project studies) & Strategy 4. Potential Regulatory Changes a. Adopt concept plans and principles into new Comprehensive Plan Redevelopment Chapter. b. Change land use and zoning designations within Town Center area (contingent on results of market study and feasibility analysis). B. Transportation/Public Realm 1. Pedestrianibicycle trail segments and intersection improvements. 2. Outer ring road streetscape and landscape improvements. 3. TH 212 aesthetic treatment(streetscape and landscape). 4. Intersection geometric/signal improvements. C. Near Term Public/Private Initiatives 1. Initial wayfinding signage. 2. Mall ring road initial improvements. 3. Catalyst redevelopment site(s). a. Town Center mixed use. b. Additional housing. 4. New street network(Town Center). Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 Page 7 2. LONG TERM INITIATIVES A. Realignment of Singletree Lane/W. 78h Street B. LRT Station Specific Development and Infrastructure C. District Parking 1. Ramps. 2. Surface and on-street management. D. Grade-separated Pedestrian Crossings. E. Ultimate Mall Ring Road Design F. TH 212/Prairie Center Drive Grade Separation and other potential capacity improvements. G. Resolution of Regional Access. 1. I-494. 2. TH 212. H. Ultimate Wayfinding Design (after new streets in place). Jeremiah pointed out that the next steps for this study would be to get continued community feedback; get formal consideration of the study from the Planning Commission and City Council; achieve detailed feasibility analyses and implementation plans/strategies; and public/private implementation activities. Stoelting stated that the City had a diversified vision plan in 1973 and many goals were achieved;but there are things that could be improved upon. He pointed out that what Jeremiah presented tonight really brings out the past vision plan in the process to move forward in the new plan. Stoelting asked Jeremiah that in looking forward, how will the City and Planning Commission work with private developers and how will this plan help us. Jeremiah stated that the plan is seen as an advisory tool and if there are areas that are not ripe for change it does not necessarily mean it will take place and if developers are looking for opportunities this would show potential development. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that there is nothing to add at this time. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Conrad Schmitt, of 17574 Hackberry Court, Eden Prairie,presented a question. He stated he would like to know what percentage of the total population of Eden Prairie had input into this study. Jeremiah stated that the percentage was quite low. Mr. Schmitt asked if a developer could come in and potentially want to build up the area; example, Donald Trump wanting to come in and build up Eden Prairie with twenty plus story buildings. Jeremiah stated that currently the City does not have any zoning that would allow for that high of a density so they would have to ask for a new comprehensive plan designation, and new zoning district to be written. If it was not that high of density and it did happen to fit into the City's zoning district, they would have to apply for amendments and go Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 Page 8 through the Planning Commission and City Council hearing process. Mr. Schmitt asked what would happen if the City Council denied the project. Stoelting stated that the only option the developer could take would be legal recourse; Franzen confirmed Stoelting's statement. Mr. Schmitt stated that he is very interested with more height of buildings going up and sees that as a benefit for this growing City. Jeremiah stated that feedback at the second open house did not show any concern for the seven to ten story height at the locations shown,but the task force did feel that it was a sensitive issue and felt that 10 stories would be of an adequate height. The task force felt that traditionally Eden Prairie has been a lower density suburb and they felt that going up higher might not be something the community or task force would want for the City. Mr. Schmitt asked what would happen if a developer wanted something over 10 stories. Jeremiah responded that it would have to go through the process and be approved by the City. Nancy Arieta, of 10785 Valley View Road, #207, Eden Prairie, stated that she has some issues and questions regarding this plan. They are as follows: 1. Developers and right-offs. Does the City think it is important to bring in development and in so doing does the City supply them with a tax break? 2. Were the Grassroot citizens invited to be on the task force? 3. She felt that crooked streets in the City are not bad; they add character. 4. She stated that the hill that was taken down by Michaels sorrows her because it took away an attractive characteristic of the land. 5. In regards to the first question, she stated that she would like the Planning Commission to be aware that it is hard to see businesses make money at residents' expenses. 6. Who is paying for the circulator bus? 7. She stated that she likes the concept that the light transit is above the roads. 8. Is the City going to use the Hennepin County Trail? 9. She felt that high rise buildings are wind tunnels and should be avoided. 10. She likes two ways on ring roads. 11. In regards to banners and kiosks —destruction happens. Kiosks are a dirty catch all and banners tend to get destroyed. 12. She feels that the neighborhood signs in Minneapolis are useless. 13. Is Epic going to be torn down and become residential? Stoelting stated it was not. 14. Is Broadmoor in a wetland area? Stoelting stated that it was. 15. Is Wal Mart going to be torn down and relocated to a different property? Nelson stated that could possibly happen but would not take place for the next 15-20 years; and that Wal Mart would have to initiate the change. 16. Would like to see Healthpartners come out to Eden Prairie. 17. Are the condos out here going to be Section 8? 18. What civic uses would be next to the library? Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 Page 9 Jeremiah addressed Nancy Arieta's questions and comments. The results are as follows: 1. In regards to concerns with developers receiving tax write-offs, she believes all businesses in Eden Prairie are paying the full amount of taxes but a portion of some are used to help with unusual project costs and public infrastructure via TIF. 2. In regards to Grassroot representation, there were residents on the task force that did not have businesses in development areas and a number of business representatives were also residents of Eden Prairie. 3. In regards to Mr. Schmitt's concern about community involvement, this study was advertised in the papers. The City would also like to see more community involvement. 4. In regards to Nancy Arieta's statement about the crooked streets, Jeremiah stated that she agrees it is important to keep some aspects of the City unique. 5. Jeremiah stated that she was unsure of the history of the hill that was taken down at Fountain Place but agrees that character should be kept throughout the community. 6. Metro Transit pays for busing and the City would not be subsidizing this. 7. Jeremiah pointed out that Light Rail above the major streets was a priority with the task force. 8. The County is studying potential light rail transit on the old Hennepin County Corridor. The city has requested other options to serve the business areas. 9. Jeremiah stated that she thought the comments regarding wind tunnels and destruction to banners and kiosks was very good and should be considered. 10. In regards to Epic, they will be continuing as a restaurant establishment. The study shows potential housing in the future. 11. Broadmoor does overlook the wetlands and they are aware of developments in the future. 12. High rise comment was very well taken. The study is sensitive as to location. 13. As far as Wal Mart, there are no immediate plans to move this business. 14. In regards to Healthpartners, the plan envisions more medical offices to establish themselves in Eden Prairie. 15. The City has very aggressive, affordable housing goals in the plan for the future of the City. These will be revisited over the next couple years. 16. Civic uses by the library have not been discussed in detail,but an example would be a community theater. * The density may be necessary to help pay for desired amenities. Jeff Strate, of 15021 Summerhill Drive, Eden Prairie, stated that he is very excited about the plan and the processes leading to it. He stated that if the City could accommodate high rises, that would be a good idea. He also stated that the Southwest Transit Center had done a wonderful job in regards to landscaping. Mr. Strate did bring up some concerns. His first one being, did the City do research to see what neighboring communities are doing for future plans. The Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 Page 10 second concern would be are more streets going to be constructed and if so, are we planning for rain water treatment areas. Jeremiah stated that there is a formal process to review other city plans and Eden Prairie has spent a considerable amount of time doing that. As with the Light Rail Transit, the City also talks to other communities. In regards to the construction of more streets, rain water gardens are very much in keeping with the plan. Nancy Arieta had a few more concerns and questions she wished to express. They are as follows: 1. She does not want a brick plaza installed. 2. Would like a health food store in the Eden Prairie area. 3. Southwest Metro does not do weekend and evening service; would like Planning Commission to consider this. 4. She stated that there was no comment in regards to Section 8 or handicapped units and would like that addressed. 5. Was there something that was to go next to the Wilson Development Complex? 6. How many hotels are going up in the area? Jeremiah stated that an actual number has not been identified. Stoelting asked Jeremiah to address Nancy Arieta's questions and concerns. Jeremiah stated that in regards to a brick plaza, the study has not gotten into that detail as of yet. In regards to affordable housing, the City does recognize the need for more affordable housing. She stated that 20% of all rental and 30% of owner occupied units should be affordable housing according to the Comprehensive Plan and they are not. This will be revisited. Jeff Strate had a concern about small businesses and asked if there was some way that the City could support small businesses. Jeremiah stated that small businesses are in keeping with the Town Center concept. The City does currently have a "Meet and Greet" with all businesses to discuss any concerns that business may be experiencing. Seymour asked what the time table would be for the near term initiatives and if we would be using the same consultants. Jeremiah stated that the first items to be completed would be a market study analysis and the feasibility study, which would be started next year. She also stated that they may use the same consultants for the physical redevelopment study but different market and financial consultants. Seymour asked how long the market study would take. Jeremiah stated that there are a lot of questions that need to be addressed in regards to all aspects of the development area. The market study is not a lengthy process and could be done in as little as a few months. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 Page 11 Stoelting asked what the regulatory changes would be and would we be revisiting the original version of 1973. Jeremiah stated that they propose moving forward with the new plan as an advisory tool and would not be changing any zoning or land use designations until after the feasibility studies are done. Stoelting asked Franzen that if the City gets a re-development proposal in the future,how would the staff report respond to this. Franzen said that in a lot of reports there is a summary section with questions for the Commission. The critical question that would have to be addressed would be, is it staying with the comprehensive plan and in keeping with the study? Koenig asked if someone comes in with a development proposal and conforms to all the ordinances,but the City and Staff are not really interested in the project, what are the alternatives. Franzen stated that if they are complying with all the guide plan changes and zoning regulations the City has a legal obligation to approve it. Koenig said that in regards to open space and natural resources in the PCRA development, the City did a wonderful job with this property. She pointed out that there is so much diversity of wildlife in the area now. She also stated that it is a concern to protect this area; especially when there is talk of putting high density in this area. Koenig said we should be very sensitive in where we locate these structures. Stoelting asked Jeremiah about future re-development projects and open space areas. Jeremiah said that some examples would be civic plazas with water features or very green spaces in open areas, or a lot of greenery on streets. Jeremiah pointed out that this plan is very aware of the need for open space. Nelson asked if we have done ground checks for high-rise buildings. Jeremiah said that these tests have not yet been conducted. Nelson said that memorable features are very important. She would hope that the topic of streets would be addressed now instead of in the future; she would like to see congestion off of the ring roads. Kirk thanked Jeremiah for all of her work and was very supportive of the plan. He pointed out that in the Town Center area the City would most likely be forced to have high density areas. He also said that green ways are very important memorable areas. Kirk stated that one concept that shocked him was that 60% of the 1200 acre area is used for parking. Stoltz asked how close the City is to growth in 1973 in comparison to today. Jeremiah said that we are very close to predictions in regards to population and growth. She also pointed out that the current plan is fairly conservative compared to the developers' feedback. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 Page 12 Stoelting asked Jeremiah why the appendix, which would include the planning principles, was not attached to the plan. Jeremiah stated that the planning principles are included on the web, and the traffic technical memorandum is being finalized by Public Works. They are also waiting to include, in the appendix, the public process and comments that came out of the surveys. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Koenig, to close the public meeting. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Stoltz, to recommend to the City Council that the MCA Study be adopted as an advisory tool for future development and redevelopment. Motion carried 6-0. V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS IX. NEW BUSINESS X. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen stated the December 12'h meeting will include two proposals. The first proposal will be a development proposal on Dell Road that will include subdivision waivers and land dedication. The next item addresses the new business, Aging Joyfully. The Planning Commission will not have a meeting on December 26h. The next meeting after that will be January 9', 2006. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Seymour, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.