Planning Commission - 04/14/1997 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, April 14, 1997 7:00 p.m.
OOMMISSION MEMBERS: BeverlyAlexander, Kenneth E. Clinton,Rand Foote, Bill Habicht,
Y
Ismail Ismail,Douglas Sandstad,Mary Jane Wissner
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Jessica Lind
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, City Planner
Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE--ROLL CALL
II. SWEARING IN OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
IV. MINUTES
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. FOSS SWIM SCHOOL by Jon Foss. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office tb Industrial on 1.3
acres,Rezoning from C-Hwy to Industrial on 1.3 acres,Site Plan Review on 1.3 acres and Preliminary Plat of 1.3 acres into
one lot. Location:Flying Cloud Drive,Hwy 212 and Shady Oak Road.
• B. THE PINES by Lunski Construction&Design. Request for Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium
Density Residential on 5.8 acres,PUD Concept Review on 5.8 acres,PUD District Review and rezoning from Rural to Rl-
9.5 with waivers on 5.8 acres,and Preliminary Plat of 5.8 acres into 25 lots. Location: Southwest corner of Bluff Road and
County Road 18 frontage road.
C. MENARDS EXPANSION by Mary Prochaska. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the Commercial Regional
Zoning District on 16 acres and Site Plan Review on 16 acres.
D. EXECUTIVE AVIATION EXPANSION by Kelleher Construction. Request for Site Plan Review on 3.5 acres for
construction of a 29,900 square foot hangar addition to Executive Aviation. Location:9960 Flying Cloud Drive.
E. COMPREHENSIVE TRAFFIC PLAN-A review ofthe City's Transportation Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
VI. PUBLIC MEETING
VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. Election of Officers.
X. PLANNERS' REPORTS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
APPROVED MINUTES
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,APRIL 14, 1997 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Beverly Alexander, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy
Foote, Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Douglas
Sandstad,Mary Jane Wissner
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Jessica Lind
STAFF LIAISON: Mike Franzen, City Planner; Scott Kipp, Senior
Planner; Elinda Bahley,Recording Secretary
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kenneth E. Clinton
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL
Acting Chair Foote called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. SWEARING IN OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER
New commissioner member Beverly Alexander was given the oath of office by Mike
Franzen who welcomed her to the Commission.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Habicht, to approve the agenda as
published. Motion carried 6-0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Foote noted the approval of the minutes of the March 10, 1997 and March 24, 1997
Planning Commission meetings would have to be postponed until the next meeting
because a quorum was lacking.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. FOSS SWIM SCHOOL by Jon Foss. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Change from Office to Industrial on 1.3 acres,Rezoning from C-Hwy to Industrial on
• 1.3 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.3 acres and Preliminary Plat of 1.3 acres into one lot.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 1.4, 1997
Location: Flying Cloud Drive, Hwy 212 and Shady Oak Road.
Franzen noted the developer recently received a soils report that indicates up to 20
feet of soil must be removed and replaced where the building is proposed. The
developer must change the site plan to move the building to another location. The
developer has requested a continuance to the April 28, 1997 meeting.
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner,to continue the public hearing
until April 28, 1997. Motion carried 6-0.
B. THE PINES by Lunski Construction & Design. Request for Guide Plan Change
from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 5.8 acres, PUD
Concept Review on 5.8 acres, PUD District Review and rezoning from Rural to Rl-
9.5 with waivers on 5.8 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 5.8 acres into 25 lots.
Location: Southwest comer of Bluff Road and County Road 18 frontage road.
Perry Ryan, Ryan Engineering, reviewed the development proposal with the
Commission. Their main concern is the tree issue on the site. He described the trees
lined along the existing driveway into the site. There plan is to construct a private
• roadway into the site in the same location. The road would be very similar to the
Boulder Ridge development. It would be 24 feet wide with a 25 foot wide right of
way. This will allow them to maintain the existing significant trees without grading
into much more than five feet past the back of the curb. There was a concern by the
Planning Department about snow storage and space for private utilities.
He reviewed the site plan explaining the locations of the homes. The proposal is for
slightly smaller homes with double car garages, single family ramblers with 6/12
pitched roofs. If the homes were two-story,they would be 15 to 18 feet higher with
much more of a negative impact to the surrounding neighborhood. The tree loss
determined by the developer is 29 percent and staff determined it to be 45 percent.
Staff was concerned that it fall somewhere in between. He explained the reasons for
having higher density on this site is for transition to Highway 169 and to keep the
price of these homes around$250,000. This is a market that is in demand in this area.
There was a neighborhood meeting on February 5, 1997 and he outlined the concerns
of the neighbors such as the trees, the buffer along Bluff Road,the density, and the
upgrade of the homes. He said the meeting was very successful and was what a
neighborhood meeting was all about. He also discussed the impact on the site
compared to the site being zoned R1-13.5.
Kipp responded to some of the issues raised by Mr. Ryan. The difference between
• 2
• PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 14, 1997
the zoning and the land use is that the guide plan permits density up to 2.5 units per
acre,which allows for a number of different lot sizes ranging from R 1-44 to R 1-13.5.
The existing guide plan is not necessarily the maximum density to be permitted. The
issue with this development is not the product but the density,the transition of that
density, tree loss, and the number of waivers being requested as part of the project.
The number of lots to serve a heavily wooded property depends on working the lot
sizes in order to preserve the trees. Lot size is an important factor in terms of
preserving trees. Staff feels quite confident their calculation of 49 percent tree loss
is accurate.
Staff reviewed the plans and does not support the guide plan change or the project as
proposed based on the reasons listed on page two of the staff report. They believe
a standard single family development without waivers served by a public road, not
exceeding 30 percent tree loss would work on this site. Another option would be
looking at some sort of cluster development with a large consolidated open space area
that preserves tree mass and provides transition, with tree loss not more than 30
percent.
Ismail asked if there was a tree loss formula available for the developers. Kipp said
• the City code explains this.
Sandstad asked if the City Forester saw any significant trees due to species, size,
health or distinctive character on the plan. Kipp replied it is a heavily wooded
coniferous site.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Arthur Greenberg, 9697 Falcons Way, noted he lives across the street from this
development. He said the project is very nice but was concerned about the six
properties that will border Highway 169. This property was a single family estate and
the family moved because of the truck traffic from the highway. There is no way to
put enough trees there to satisfy the noise. He was concerned about the density and
the tree loss. There has to be some way to develop this and still preserve the trees.
Rollin.Lippka, 10509 Shelter Grove, was concerned about the high density. He was
also concerned about the drainage from the private road because they have problems
with the water right now. There will be more runoff as a result of so many homes.
He was also concerned about the snow removal.
Barbara Stevenson, 9579 Falcons Way, shared the same concerns as her neighbors,
especially the snow removal. She noted she walked the site and commented on the
3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 14, 1997
amount of noise from the highway. She was concerned about four more driveways
coming out on to Bluff Road causing problems. She was also concerned about the
tree loss because there are so many beautiful pine trees that should not be lost.
Roger Perkins,9624 Falcons Way,was concerned about the aesthetics of the area and
about the additional traffic on Bluff Road and also Townline Road.
Dick Grant, 9588 Falcons Way, commented his biggest concern would be the snow
removal because he thinks it will be a big problem for everybody.
Dan Sletten, 9700 Falcons Way,noted he lives at the comer of Falcons Way and Bluff
Road,directly opposite from the Greenbergs. He was concerned about the lots facing
Bluff Road because of the noise. He also shared the same concerns as his neighbors.
Maria Sletten, 9700 Falcons Way, commented how precious that area is and how it
would be a tragedy to loose all that and the beautiful trees. She was also concerned
about the three driveways that would be very close to her home and the traffic on
Bluff Road.
• Richard Schultek,Wooddale Reality, commented he has sold or been involved in the
sales of all the townhomes on Falcons Way and Shelter Grove, and has a good idea
of what people are looking for. He thinks the idea of clustering the homes is a good
one and it would reduce the concern of the three driveways.
Vicky Hennes,9724 Brookview Circle, shared the same concerns as her neighbors but
noted her main concern is the density. She lives on a five acre lot and could not
imagine 25 homes on five acres. This would not blend in with the area.
Rollin Lippka commented again about his concern for the five or six deer that run in
the area.
Patty Smith, 9784 Brookview Circle, asked for an explanation of what clustering is.
She likes the type of homes being proposed but was concerned about the transition.
Kipp explained clustering which would be to work with small lot sizes,keeping the
houses tight in a fashion where they share portions of the property in tradeoff by
preserving a significant tree area.
Dan Davis, 9795 Bluff Road, noted he lives two blocks over from unit one. He
bought his property a year ago for the beauty of the property on the comer. He was
concerned about the trees and the nature that lives within the property. He was also
concerned about the density and the increase in traffic because of the number of small
• 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 14, 1997
children on Bluff Road.
Ryan agreed that the noise problem is the reason the family moved out of their
property. That's generally the reason most communities look at putting higher density
on the property. These homes are not marketable with less homes. To help the
problem of the noise,those units are at 70 to 80 feet from the property line on the side
adjacent to the frontage road. They are not grading more than five or ten feet behind
those homes.
The snow will be mainly dumped and hauled to the pond area. Larger roads doesn't
mean it's easier to store the snow, and it doesn't make sense to take out trees to store
snow. They are very committed to the numbers they have calculated for tree loss.
The last development they did was an empty-nester development and it generated
somewhere in the vicinity of five trips per day where standard single family homes
generate 10 trips per day. Mr. Lunski has 15 empty-nesters that want to buy in here.
They are willing to look at maybe clustering driveway#1 and#2 together, and#3 and
#4 together so there will only be two driveways onto Bluff Road. He noted no matter
how many homes are built, it's going to displace the deer. To help the potential
flooding,they have increased the pond size on the property.
• Alexander asked if they plan to retain the right of way to get to the pond area to drop
the snow. She was concerned about the snow being in the backyards of homes#5 and
#6. Ryan replied the homeowners association takes care of all the common areas and
exterior for all the building areas so additional right of ways are not required.
Alexander asked if there was any reason why they can't reduce the number of homes
to build in that area to comply with the low density. Ryan said doing 14 lots would
make them$400,000 or$500,000 homes and they are not marketable at that location.
Gale Allen, 1050 Audubon Court, commented about the existing water problems
noting the water in his backyard comes up within a foot of the pads. He believes the
drainage system is too small and expects it to be flooded out with this development.
Habicht complimented Mr. Ryan on his presentation. He said he did not hear
compelling reasons to negotiate the guide plan change except for the financial issues.
The plan is a good start but the density is overwhelming. He was not comfortable
with the amount of waivers. He suggesting some compromise for 14 to 17 units. His
vote at this point is to deny or continue.
Sandstad would not support the project in it's present format because it is not a
reasonable guide plan change, the impact on the adjacent property, the inadequate
• 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 14, 1997
transition to adjacent low density, and the roadway issues. All the waivers requested
for this project are way too big for this site. He noted he likes the Lunski project on
Mitchell Road including the house style and the design.
Wissner concurred with Sandstad. She noted she loves what Lunski did on Mitchell
Road. She Ekes the idea of clustering 14 homes and believes there would be a market
to be living in the woods. There is an opportunity to take the uniqueness and make
it something special. She would not support the project because of the density and
the waivers.
Ismail said there are too many loose ends on this project and was strongly in favor to
continue to come up with another plan that addresses the issues and concerns.
Foote concurred with the commissioners. There are too many waivers and there is
no compelling reason to change the guide plan. He commented as much as everyone
wants to see the property remain wooded, everyone has to realize it is guided low
density residential. Even if this project does not go, there will be something
developed in some form. He would not support the project as it stands.
Kipp said if the Commission decides to continue and the developer is willing to work
with new plans, staff would like clarification on whether or not to stay with the guide
plan at low density or would the Commission look at a guide plan change with a
reasonable amount of density such that it preserves the trees and other issues.
Foote said he would prefer to see them work within the guide plan. Sandstad said he
was comfortable with option A or B in the staff report. Habicht said he would be
hard pressed to look at anything over a 2.5 units per acre density. He wants to see
maybe some creative clustering concept rather than a standard 14 lot subdivision, and
the tradeoff is preserving the pines and some minimal impact on grading. Foote was
comfortable with clustering if it's an option that retains the evergreens. Ismail said he
was in favor of option A.
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Habicht,to continue the public hearing
for 30 days. Motion carried 6-0.
C. MENARDS EXPANSION by Mary Prochaska. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 15.72 acres, Planned Unit Development District
Review on 15.72 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Commercial Regional
Zoning District on 15.72 acres and Site Plan Review on 15.72 acres.
Gary Colby,representing Menards,presented the expansion proposal and noted they
6
• PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 14, 1997
are requesting a signage waiver for the southerly building elevation. The proposal is
for 25,000 square feet of additional sales area to the northeastly end of the building.
There will also be 13,600 square feet of additional building area on the other end of
the building which would be used as a cold storage warehouse. This would be
attached to the building because it will be a lot easier removing products right out the
front instead of the back.
Sandstad liked the idea of an elevator and asked if there are offices on the second
floor. Colby said the entire second floor area will be accessed to both associates and
customers.
Habicht was concerned about the height of the building after the expansion. Colby
reviewed the building elevation and noted elevation on the back and both ends in the
rear of the building will be raised slightly. It's a matter of two or three feet that it
would be higher. The front of the building on the 25,000 square foot portion is
actually two and a half feet higher than the existing peak, and it's the same on the
13,000 square foot addition.
Franzen noted staff recommended approval of the request according to the
. recommendations on page three of the staff report.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Steve Riesgraf,manager of Menards, explained the need for the expansion and noted
the aisles will be wider throughout the store and at the checkout. There are no offices
upstairs and they will remain the same. The elevator access will be great for
customers to go to the light fixtures and the shopping carts will fit in the elevator.
The addition for the wood covering will make it nice for customers getting lumber in
the bad weather. The expansion will add a lot more variety of products and also more
room to sell.
Wissner commented it's nice to see a business do well in Eden Prairie and continue to
do well in the community. She liked the plan and supported the request.
Ismail supported the project. He asked when the work will start. Riesgraf replied
probably not until late 1997. They need to get through their busy time of the year
before they can remodel.
Alexander asked if the bathrooms are going to be expanded for handicap accessibility.
Riesgraf replied the existing bathrooms will remain as they are. There will be a new
set of bathrooms in the 25,000 square foot expansion area and they will be handicap
• 7
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 14, 1997
accessible. Alexander supported the project.
Foote supported the plan.
Habicht supported the plan and said it's a well done expansion.
MOTION 1: Habicht moved, seconded by Ismail, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 6-0.
MOTION 2: Habicht moved, seconded by Ismail,to recommend to the City Council
approval of Mary Prochaska for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on
15.72 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.72 acres, Zoning
District Amendment in the Commercial Regional Zoning District on 15.72 acres and
Site Plan Review on 15.72 acres based on plans dated April 11, 1997 and subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 11, 1997. Motion carried 6-0.
D. EXECUTIVE AVIATION EXPANSION by Kelleher Construction. Request for
Site Plan Review on 3.5 acres for construction of a 29,900 sq. ft. hangar addition to
Executive Aviation. Location: 9960 Flying Cloud Drive
• Dave Walock reviewed the site plan and building elevations, and explained the
expansion is needed for additional storage for aircraft currently stored outside. He
noted they are comfortable with the staff report.
Habicht commented how clean the existing facility was.
Kipp reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of the expansion.
Sandstad was concerned about the size of the upholstery sign he saw on another
hangar on the field. Kipp said sign permits are issued by our zoning adminisrator and
he would have to refer to her about it. The upholstery shop has been at the airport
many years. A resident in the audience commented it's the only place in the area you
can get canvass work done on any type of heavy material. They do aircraft and boats.
Sandstad asked staff to officially take a look at that sign.
Ismail was concerned about the septic tank handling the additional hangar. Walock
said this hangar and will be used for aircraft storage and will not tie into the existing
septic system.
Shirley Wikner,owner, commented the space will be large enough for 10 aircraft.
i 8
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 14, 1997
The public hearing was opened.
MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Ismail, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 6-0.
MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Ismail,to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Kelleher Construction for Site Plan Review on 3.5 acres
based on plans dated April 11, 1997 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated April 11, 1997. Motion carried 6-0.
E. COMPREHENSIVE TRAFFIC PLAN-A review of the City's Transportation Plan
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Al Gray, City Engineer,reviewed the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive
Municipal Plan with the Commission. He explained the type of studies they have
done in the past noting they all looked at the City street segments which this plan
includes. The foundation for the transportation plan is a traffic analysis that forecasts
the traffic volumes for all significant street segments in Eden Prairie for the year 2015.
This forecast considered the anticipated level of development in Eden Prairie as well
as surrounding communities. For the purpose of this study Eden Prairie was
considered to be fully developed by the year 2015 when it is expected to have a
population of 62,000 and employment of approximately 58,000.
He reviewed the policies and strategies included in the plan. Some of the strategies
are increase of vehicle occupancy,better use of transit,more car pools and van pools,
and also a concept like telecommunication. There needs to be more ramps, better
control of traffic controls, and better timing. The plan includes replacement and
improvement of the existing highway system and the City needs to focus on spending
their dollars in the best possible way. This doesn't mean focusing on large plans the
City cant afford but focusing on smaller congested areas where they can afford to fix.
Expanding the highway capacity is very important but it has to be within what
MADOT and the Met Council feel are financial abilities to expand that system.
This analysis was done using a model called the regional model and he explained how
it was developed and what it depicts. He noted the Met Council developed this model
in 1995 based on the demographics and the City is using it to project what traffic will
be in 2015. He explained the two traffic forecasts that were prepared. One presents
the traffic volumes with a fully constructed Highway 212 connecting to the Cologne
bypass. The other one presents traffic volumes with a partially constructed TH 212
ending at CSAH 4. The traffic volumes in this were used to determine which roadway
segments within Eden Prairie should be upgraded by the year 2015 to manage
9
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 14, 1997
anticipated traffic. The plan anticipates the need to upgrade several city street
segments that will be sensitive to adjoining residential neighborhoods. These
segments include portions of Valley View Road, Scenic Heights Road, Anderson
Lakes Parkway, and Mitchell Road.
He noted this is a pedestrian and bicycle community and reviewed the map depicting
the roadways because it's part of the overall system. The CIP gives an idea of what
the cost will be in the future. The plan anticipates the City's share of transportation
improvements to total approximately $40,000,000. The anticipated revenue sources
are Municipal State Aid, Special Assessments, and TIF Funds. It is anticipated that
approximately 26 percent of revenue will need to be derived from special assessments.
To accomplish this a high percentage of projects supporting developing areas will
need to be financed by special assessments. It is also important to the financial
feasibility of the plan that the portion of State Transportation Funds allocated to the
Municipal Account(MSA System)is maintained at the current level.
Sandstad commented the work of the plan itself is very nicely done, very readable,
and professional. He was concerned about pedestrians safely getting from the Eden
Prairie Center area down toward Staring Lake. Gray said they are getting very close
• to being able to do that. They would like to do that in 1998 and he explained why it
has taken so long.
Foote commented about the mass transit in the report and asked if they are relying
much more on mass transit than they rely on now. Gray said the Met Council is
encouraging and supporting the concept of continuing improved mass transit system
such as more ridership, changing work hours, and getting the occupancy rate of
vehicles up. They predict traffic patterns to be what they are today and from a policy
standpoint would like to.see that happen.
Wissner was concerned that the rush hour time seems to be getting earlier and earlier.
Gray replied over the years they are seeing the growth of traffic in all types of ways.
They still intend to see a real peak at about 5:00 and it can vary from day to day.
The public hearing was opened.
Peter Nalljed, 6805 192nd Ave W, commented they were notified by the Eden Prairie
newspaper about the proposal and asked if there is a date and time the City may
expand Highway 101 between County Road 5 and 7. Gray said it's anticipated
MnDOT will turn Highway 101 back into a county road as it will be a county turn
back. The County is still negotiating studies to look at what the upgrades to Highway
101 will be.
• 10
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 14, 1997
Nalljed asked if they do the changeover do they have to do the improvements before
they give it back. Gray said no. The County would propose to do the improvements
with what would be called Turn Back Funds and then the County can apply for those
funds. If you don't do it at all, the County does not have to improve the roads. The
County has 10 years from the date they accept the Turn Back Funds to apply for
improvements to the roadway. It has not been approved yet.
Nalljed asked how much time there is before anything is approved. Gray said it would
be at least three years before looking at anything and the public will be noted.
Nalljed commented about the detailed plan of County Road 62 and was very
concerned about living on that section of road between Duck Lake Trail and Valley
View Road. There are 20 homes going to be severely affected by the expansion of
Highway 101. He asked what the big advantage is of improving Highway 101
between County Road 62 to County Road 5. Gray said it may not have as much
commercial traffic.
Nalljed asked if a bile trail is still being put in with Highway 101. Gray said he would
think both the County and City would encourage the inclusion of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities along with the improvements. Part of the study would be to improve
that kind of facility.
Nalljed commented County Road 62 was built to relieve the pressure off of County
Roads 5 and 7. He was concerned that by expanding Highway 101 the relief coming
into that area is going to be much greater now on County Road 62. Gray said he
understands his point but based on the current traffic count they find more traffic on
Highway 101 than Dell Road. He noted they will be recounting that this year. Peter
disagreed with the City's measurement of traffic control on Highway 101 in the future.
Debbie Gjervold, 9965 Garrison Way,commented the diagram indicates Highway 169
as a four lane divided highway and asked if that's considered to be the improvement
that has already been made or are there additional improvements to that. Gray said
when you look at Garrison Way and new Highway 169, that's the final section the
City could perceive will be there.
Gjervold said Anderson Lakes Parkway has always been planned to be a four lane
highway. She was concerned that heavier lines on Figure 8 reflected heavier traffic.
Gray replied heavier lines look at jurisdiction with MnDOT and the County system.
Gjervold was concerned about the need for Anderson Lakes Parkway going from a
two lane to a four lane highway and noted there is no new construction going on
north or south of that area to increase the volume of traffic. Gray said if you look at
11
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 14, 1997
all the cities south of Highway 5 and Highway 494, there are really only two
transportation corridors easy and west of Anderson Lake Parkway and County Road
1.
E. L.Hassam, 6400 Eden Prairie Road, commented his driveway happens to be one
that pops out on Eden Prairie Road and he was concerned about any improvement of
four lanes because it's very narrow right now and dangerous. He also commented
he does not see traffic as a problem in Eden Prairie. If has to get up 15 minutes
earlier to be to work on time he will because he wants the quality of life that exists in
Eden Prairie. He hopes everyone involved thinks about improving and widening
everything involved with the traffic pattern. There is always going to be traffic noise
whether it's two lanes or four lanes.
Mal Fay, 15600 N Lund Road, commented it's inevitable these improvement plans will
be done. They are trying to discourage people from driving yet doing nothing but
spend money on roads. It sounds like money very poorly spent.
Wendell Brosdahl, 15601 N Lund Road, was concerned about four lane highways
because it's dangerous. He wants the traffic slowed down,not increased. He agrees
• that mass transit is the way to go.
MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Habicht,to continue the public hearing.
Motion carried 6-0.
VI. PUBLIC MEETING
None.
VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
Sandstad said he was unable to make the City Council meeting on the 18th and asked
what the outcome was regarding growth strategies. Foote said the general consensus
was they were going to meet again to review growth strategies.
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
None.
• 12
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 14, 1997
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. Election of Officers
The Commission agreed to continue until the May 12 meeting when Ken
Clinton will be present.
X. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Franzen said there are six potential projects on for May 12. He expects enough
projects for a second meeting and Wednesday,May 21 st and Tuesday, May 26th are
reserved as alternate dates. The Commission will decide at the April 28th meeting
which alternate date they prefer.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Habicht moved, seconded by Ismail,to adjourn the meeting. Motion
carried 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
i
13