Loading...
Planning Commission - 02/11/2002 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2002 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Frantz Corneille, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Fred Seymour, Paul Sodt, Susan Stock, Ray Stoelting STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, City Planner Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Alan Gray, City Engineer Scott Kipp, Senior Planner Kirsten Oden, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Corneille called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Corneille, Commissioners Nelson, Brooks, Stoelting, Stock, Seymour, and Sodt. Absent: Commissioners Foote and Koenig. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Sodt, second by Nelson to approve the agenda. Motion carried, 7-0. III. MINUTES A. Minutes of the January 14th, 2002 Community Planning Board Motion by Brooks, second by Stock to approve the minutes of the January 14, 2002 Community Planning Board. Motion carried, 7-0-1, abstention Stoelting. IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETING A. THE HEIGHTS AT VALLEY VIEW by Eden Prairie Leased Housing Associates I, LP. Location: Northwest corner of Flying Cloud Drive and Valley View Road. Brian Lubben,project architect, stated this was a difficult site to work on. There are grade changes and significant trees. Alternative A is four stories tall with two levels of underground parking to minimize site impacts and the footprint. They are proposing to take part of the scenic easement and provide open space in trade. They Community Planning Board Minutes February 11, 2002 Page 2 of 7 would retain twice as many trees this way. This provides affordable housing, addresses traffic congestion. Alternative B is similar but uses none of the scenic easement. There are three levels of underground parking. The building steps down twice and there are more driveways. It takes more grading and retaining walls along Valley View, and removes more significant trees. This provides affordable housing, addresses traffic issues,but is not as functional as Alternative A. Alternative C is all Office. This would require an access off Valley View, leveling the site and removing all of the trees. The traffic impacts would be greater than the residential alternatives. Alternative D is the combination option. The office portion would need access off Valley View. The project would be smaller. They prefer Alternative A. The developer said this would provide an affordability component and proximity to employers. Franzen said there are policies affecting the development of this land including mixed housing, affordability, and traffic reduction and maximize tree preservation. The issue for the board is what satisfies the goals of the City. Barb Kaerver, 12800 Gerard Drive, stated Eden Prairie owes the Enblom family, the owner of the land below who gave the City the scenic easement. Land values would drop while the aesthetic values of this property would increase. She would like to see a drop from four to two layers, adding a woody buffer, and setting the footprint back. Jeff Strait 15021 Summerhill Drive, said the Enbloms called him to look at the proposal. He is a member of the Minnesota Land Trust. This is a signature piece of property. Both A and B have large footprints for the area and the terrain. They should consider low impact paved trails and community gardens, appealing screening between the properties. The board should consider the scenic values of the protected property. He supports affordable housing, however, no affordable housing in Eden Prairie will remain affordable for anyone past the first owner. He recommends talking with the western Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust, who is engaged in attempting to make housing affordable over a period of time. He supports reducing traffic in the area. Any plan for this area needs to consider as well there are no convenience centers or recreational areas planned; people will go in and out. Any plan should link pedestrian and bicycle commuter routes. Hennepin County backs bikes as commuter transportation. He is concerned with the conservation easement. Valley View and Flying Cloud will be widened so the trees 2 Community Planning Board Minutes February 11, 2002 Page 3 of 7 will be taken out eventually anyway. The intent of the proposal is good; he recommends the developer reduce the footprint. He suggested going higher. Nancy Arieta, 10785 Valley View Road, said her concern was the environment. Tree replacement is never really replacement. She does not see anyone planting trees of the same value that were removed. She questioned the meaning of affordability. She suggested the Planning Board consider a senior condominium concept. Also she is not a fan of Tax Increment Financing. John Lundquist, 10785 Valley View Road said traffic on Valley View Road is a concern. It should be a four lane road especially around Lake Smetana. Nine mile creek could be a hazard. Charlotte Enblom, 10610 Valley View Road, said she has lived there over 60 years. Her parents donated land in 1974, 11 acres. She placed her remaining acres in the Minnesota Land Trust so it would not be developed. She was not notified until a week before the meeting of the development. She requested postponing a decision on the matter. Daniel Enblom stated the property was a vision of his family. There is still a lot of wildlife in the area. He inquired about the use of TIF, and whether there was a development review committee. Friends and neighbors have commented it would be terrible to destroy the hill. When Welsh was developing the land they were going to set aside that property. David Enblom stated he was just informed about the development. The hill is an unusual topographic feature. There is a large area with no trees in the northeast corner. This is one of few natural features in Eden Prairie. The trees should stay. Eric Enblom stated he would like to see a detailed plan with computer generated images of the final product. This is an important area of the City and the City should keep them from tearing out the hill. Nancy Arieta stated the evergreens and birches would not be a good replacement for oaks. Corneille stated this is an informational meeting not a public hearing and no decision would be made tonight. He summarized the residents concerns as footprint, site protection, affordability, TIF, and computer generated plan designs showing a final product. Franzen asked the developer to speak about the size of the project and TIF. The developer stated Alternative A was a four story, 45-50 foot high project. This impacts the least amount of trees. There is 1.5 stories of underground parking. This 3 Community Planning Board Minutes February 11, 2002 Page 4 of 7 is atypical; they would otherwise have to completely chage the grade. $130,000 is the approximate cost for the units. They considered a 9-12 story project, which would be economically unfeasible and would have a visual impact. They are trying to minimize visual impact and save as many trees as possible. To meet the affordability goal they will provide 15-25 years of affordabilty through TIF financing of 15 years and 80% of the increment. 25% of the building would be affordable. Franzen asked what the normal rent rate would be. The developer said $1000 for a one bedroom, $1300 for two, $1500 for three. About $1.25 per square foot. $640 for affordable. Sodt asked about the economics of fewer units, like 160. The developer said they need a certain number of units to make it economically viable; 160 units would not work. Construction costs are very high because of things like grading and use of more heavy equipment. They need to be 195 units plus to make it viable. Sodt asked whether if they don't approve the easement it would not be feasible. The developer stated Alternative B would be possible then but there would be more of an impact on the trees. Stock inquired about the size of the units. The developer stated approximately 1100 square feet on average. Nelson asked whether the oaks were red or white. The developer said they were Burr oaks on the hill and red oaks along Valley View. Nelson asked when the scenic easement came about Fox stated it was part of the 1984 Wilson Ridge development agreement. It was put in as a scenic and conservation easement as a quit claim deed to the City. Nelson inquired whether there was a big difference financially between a four and five story. The easement could be saved if they went up higher. The project architect stated above four stories would require a significant difference of steel framing. It would be cost prohibitive. Nelson inquired about the size of the affordable housing. 4 Community Planning Board Minutes February 11, 2002 Page 5 of 7 The developer stated it would be for one bedroom and efficiency. Nelson said there were no facilities for recreation for children. The developer said it was a renter by choice facility, typically singles or professionals, not for families. There is community space, meeting rooms, and exercise equipment. Nelson asked staff about the zoning. Franzen said it was zoned rural and guided office industrial. Sodt asked whether widening Valley View was in the transportation plan for the City. Gray said yes. Brooks asked whether the tree loss was typical for a project this size. Franzen said 30-40% was typical for apartments. Stoelting stated it appears there is an office building with a creek behind it nearby. He asked about the reason for the existence of the conservation easement and whether it was part of a larger area. Fox said three areas, outlots C, D, and E had conservation easements as part of the Wilson Ridge PUD. It is called an "easement for scenic preservation" and is linked to the nine mile creek corridor to the north. Franzen asked how much land acreage the Enblom's retained. Enblom stated 10 acres was sold to the meat cutter's union and changed hands several times. She sold two acres to Hustad. There is 5.5 acres of the original land remaining. Barb Kaerver said through 19 acres near nine mile creek was protected land. She and her husband put some land into the conservation easement as well. This easement should remain protected. Enblom said she had some more questions about her land and would like to have another meeting. Franzen stated she could speak with staff or at a public hearing. Nelson said they had been starting to base density on conservation easements. She feels strongly about maintaining them. They have based a whole method of 5 Community Planning Board Minutes February 11, 2002 Page 6 of 7 development on this and what they do with it would have an impact on future developments. Plan B shows a 49% tree loss on a major site; this is much too height Stoelting agreed with Nelson. He is very concerned about the conservation easement. Stock concurred. She asked about the process from here. Franzen explained this was an informational meeting; they could go back to the neighbors before coming before the commission with plans. Corneille said based upon the information he would suggest they meet with the neighbors again. Dick Feerick said land use, density, environmental impact, and whether Enbloms received adequate notification were issues. The development had been reviewed by the City prior to the Council meeting and appeared to be a done deal. Franzen stated he had met with the property owners and other city staff. This was the first public forum concerning this development. Sodt noted they would return with a PUD and he hoped they would discuss issues with the neighbors prior to this. Arieta said the documentation called this a permanent easement. Franzen stated the Council would have the discretion to alter this. Corneille thanked everyone for their input. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BRYANT LAKE BUSINESS CENTER THIRD ADDITION by Glenborough by Glenborough Realty Trust Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 2.37 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.37 acres, Zoning District Change from Regional Commercial to Office on .6 acres, Site Plan Review on .6 acres, and Preliminary; Plat of 2.37 acres into one lot. Location: 7555 Market Place Drive Franzen said Staff recommends approval of the project based on plans dated January 31, 2002, staff report and conditions therein dated February 8, 2002. Motion by Stoelting, seconded by Brooks to approve Bryant Lake Business Center Third Addition by Glenborough Realty Trust, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 2.37 acres, Planned Unit Development 6 Community Planning Board Minutes February 11, 2002 Page 7 of 7 District Review on 2.37 acres, Zoning District Change from Regional Commercial to Office on .6 acres, Site Plan Review on .6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2.37 acres into one lot based on plans dated January 31, 2002, and staff report and conditions therein dated February 8, 2002. Motion carried, 7-0. VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen stated the next scheduled public hearings were February 25th. There is a plan for a new medical facility. X. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Stoelting, second by Nelson to adjourn. Motion carried, 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. 7