Planning Commission - 07/14/1997 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, July 14, 1997 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Beverly Alexander, Kenneth E. Clinton,Randy Foote, Bill Habicht,
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. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. MINUTES
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. HARTFORD AREA 2-1997 by Ryan Companies. Request for PUD Concept Amendment on 17.9 acres,PUD District
Review on 17.9 acres,Zoning District Amendment in the Commercial Regional Zoning District on 17.9 acres,Site Plan
Review on 17.9 acres and Preliminary Plat of 17.9 acres into 4 lots. Location:Prairie Lakes Drive and Prairie Center Drive.
B. SOUTHWEST CROSSING 10400 BUILDING by Liberty Property Development Corporation. Request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 25.38 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 13.28 acres,Zoning
District Change from Rural to Office on 13.28 acres,Site Plan Review on 13.28 acres and Preliminary Plat of 25.38 acres
into one lot and one outlot. Location:Viking Drive.
C. WYNSTONE by Jasper Development. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential on 4.76 acres,PUD Concept Review on 9.01 acres,PUD District Review on 9.01 acres,Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 4.76 acres and R1-13.5 on 4.25 acres,and Preliminary Plat of 9.01 acres into
31 lots. Location:Baker Road and Roberts Drive.
D. MUSA LINE EXPANSION A 600 acre addition to the MUSA Line as an Amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
V. PUBLIC MEETING
VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VH. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VHI. NEW BUSINESS
IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Edenvale Tax Increment Financing Plan
ADJOURNMENT
APPROVED MINUTES
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
• MONDAY,JULY 14, 1997 7:00 PM, 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,Al Gray, City
Engineer, David Lindahl, Community
Development,and Barbara Anderson, City
Recorder
MEMBERS ABSENT: Douglas Sandstad,Jessica Lind
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL
Chair Clinton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
• U. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Habicht moved, seconded by Wissner, to approve the Agenda as published.
Motion carried 6-0.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote to approve the Minutes of June 23, 1997 as
submitted. Motion carried 6-0.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. HARTFORD AREA 2 - 1997 by Ryan Companies. Request for PUD Concept
Amendment on 17.9 acres, PUD District Review on 17.9 acres, Zoning District
Amendment in the Commercial Regional Zoning District on 17.9 acres, Site Plan
Review on 17.9 acres and Preliminary Plat of 17.9 acres into 4 lots. Location: Prairie
Lakes Drive and Prairie Center Drive.
Franzen stated that the proponents requested a continuance and staff had sent notices
of the meeting to residents within 500 feet of the property. Staff did not receive the
letter from the proponents requesting the continuance until it was too late to renotify
• the property owners. The proponents requested the continuance to allow them to
discuss the costs of making the changes recommended by staff. Staff wanted the
residents to be informed of the meeting this item would be rescheduled for.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 14, 1997
Page 2
MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Alexander, to continue the request of
HARTFORD AREA 2- 1997 by Ryan Companies for PUD Concept Amendment on
17.9 acres, PUD District Review on 17.9 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the
Commercial Regional Zoning District on 17.9 acres, Site Plan Review on 17.9 acres
and Preliminary Plat of 17.9 acres into 4 lots until the August 11, 1997 Planning
Commission meeting. Motion carried 6-0.
Franzen stated that staff will notify the residents that this item has been continued
until the August 11, 1997 Planning Commission meeting.
B. SOUTHWEST CROSSING 10400 BUILDING by Liberty Property Development
Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 25.38
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 13.28 acres, Zoning District
Change from Rural to Office on 13.28 acres, Site Plan Review on 13.28 acres and
Preliminary Plat of 25.38 acres into one lot and one outlot. Location: Viking Drive.
Franzen stated the proponents have requested that this item be continued for two
weeks to allow them to make revisions to their plans. The developer will reduce the
size of the building.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to continue the request for
• SOUTHWEST CROSSING 10400 BUILDING by Liberty Property Development
Corporation for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 25.38 acres,Planned
Unit Development District Review on 13.28 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural
to Office on 13.28 acres, Site Plan Review on 13.28 acres and Preliminary Plat of
25.38 acres into one lot and one outlot until the July 28, 1997 Planning Commission
meeting. Motion carried 6-0.
C. WYNSTONE by Jasper Development. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 4.76 acres,
PUD Concept Review on 9.01 acres, PUD District Review on 9.01 acres, Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 4.76 acres and R1-13.5 on 4.25 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 9.01 acres into 31 lots. Location:Baker Road and Roberts Drive.
Franzen noted that staff had notified residents within 500 feet of the property and
received a call from John Mallow that this project would affect many more residents
than those within that notification area due to the Forest Hills Road connection. Staff
sent out notices to those residents who also would be impacted by this roadway
connection.
Jim Jasper, Jasper Development, reviewed the project for nine single family and
twenty-two twin homes. The Guide Plan indicates that this land should be single
family residential,but times are changing and the Guide Plan can be modified based
• on changes in housing needs within a community. There will be an increase of 65%
in need for town homes because of the aging population and these people will need
a place to live within the same community. He discussed transition between the single
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 14, 1997
Page 3
family and multi-family zoning and they have attempted to create a buffer by using
single family lots and Baker Road,with the exception of the land to the south,which
is vacant at this time. This will be developed in some way in the future,but there have
been soil problems which have delayed this process.
Jasper described the town homes and the style and architecture which was proposed.
The price range will vary from $140,000 to $180,00 with others in between. The
single family homes will be between$180,000 and$200,000 in price, depending on
the location. He noted that a fair number of the trees on the site have been planted
in the last 25-30 years. The tree loss numbers appear to be significant, but if only
indigenous trees are considered,the number of significant trees that will be lost is only
about 20%. This area is not considered to be an extensive wildlife habitat, and there
are no wetlands that would be lost. He described the topography on the site and
noted that a great deal of grading will be needed to construct a through roadway on
the site. There will be a Homeowner's Association that will be responsible for the
maintenance of the site,and there will be two retention ponds located on the property.
There will be a two-tiered retaining wall on the south side of the development which
will be fully landscaped. They propose to extend Forest Hill Road to Bake Road to
facilitate traffic flow within the development.
Jasper discussed the single family lots exceed the minimum square footage
• requirements. He commented that town homes represent a desirable alterative to
single family homes for some homeowners, and it is not appropriate to zone the less
desirable land for multi-family and keep the best land for the single family homes.
Clinton inquired how many neighborhood meetings the developer had held and Jasper
responded they had held one,which approximately 45 residents attended.
Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted that the City has approved several large
multi-family projects in Eden Prairie over the last several years for people who want
to move out of a large home into a smaller one. These projects were in areas already
planned for higher densities. He discussed the density issue and how it relates to
other developments in the area. He noted the staff recommended Alternative II in
the staff report,which would reduce the density and amount of tree loss and connect
the roadway to distribute traffic more evenly throughout the area.
Foote asked about the land to the south and how it would be accessed. Franzen
responded that it would not access Baker Road. It would be an extension of the
existing cul-de-sac.
Ismail commented that because of the proximity of his home to the site and the
presence of many friends and neighbors,he would abstain from voting or commenting
on this project.
• The Public Hearing was opened.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 14, 1997
Page 4
iJohn Mallow, 14000 Forest Hills Road, stated that about two years ago they came
before the Planning Commission regarding the roadway connection issue and the
Planning Commission had assured the residents that it would not be connected. The
City Council had overturned this decision and then the Council reversed that decision
based on more information presented by the residents, although they opted to keep
the right-of-way in case the need was shown that the roadway should be connected
in the future. The grade on the existing roadway is very steep and there are many
curves,which make winter navigation hazardous and difficult. It has been a dead-end
street for 20 years and to connect it now would disrupt the entire neighborhood. He
noted a petition had been submitted in opposition to the roadway being connected.
Jim Brandser,7238 Vervoort Lane,stated his back yard backs up to this development
on the south side, and all that land is not vacant, as represented by the proponent.
The project does not fit in with the character of the existing development. He
believed the retaining wall was too high, and would damage his property values.
Terry Willmsen, 7265 Vervoort Lane, stated he was opposed to the project as
proposed. He purchased his home 5 months ago and had been told the vacant land
was zoned for single family residential. He was opposed to the density of the project,
and believed it was too high. There is wildlife in this area, and development would
destroy habitat. The buffer zone was inadequate and he did not believe the project
• fit in with the character of the existing neighborhood.
Dick Feerick, 7365 Howard Lane, stated he worked with Jasper on the St. Andrew's
Bluffs development and the quality of his developments was exemplary. This project
has the potential to be a similar development. There is a need for housing of this kind
for people who wish to live independently but do not want the burden of yard work
and maintaining a single family home. He requested that the Planning Commission
approve the project.
Mike Dietrich, 13736 Candice Lane,expressed concern about extending Forest Hills
Lane because of the children in the neighborhood, and the traffic dangers such a
connection would present. He commented he owns a home and has three vacant lots
on Candice Lane yet to be developed, and he believed the project would adversely
affect his property values.
Jim Carroll, 13720 Jennifer Court, stated he purchased a single family home because
he enjoys puttering in his yard, and he is over 55 which doesn't mean he has to live
in a town home. He suggested the buffer on the south side be changed to single
family to provide more buffering between the existing single family homes and the
multi-family homes proposed.
Scott Ringhand, 7270 Vervoort Lane, stated he concurred with comments made by
• his neighbors and was opposed to the density of the project. He believed the land
should be developed with single family housing to be consistent with the existing
neighborhood. He was also opposed to connecting the roadway.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 14, 1997
Page 5
Wayne Zeien, 7246 Vervoort Lane, stated his property abuts the south border of the
project. He was concerned about the impact of the project and believed the density
was too high. The buffering was inadequate on the south side of the project. The
retaining wall was a good idea but the slope was too steep. The tree loss was too
high,even when the junk trees were excluded. The developer had withdrawn a prior
plan for the land on the south side because of density issues.
Duane Dietrich, 12400 Whitewater Drive, stated he represented the property owner
who owns the property to the north of the project site. He concurred with the
residents that spot zoning to put town homes in this location was not good. The cost
of land was so high that if the density is not approved the land will not develop. He
read a letter which they sent to the neighborhood residents which elucidated their
objections to the connection of Forest Hills Road to Bake Road. Foote inquired what
the prices for the homes in the development were and Dietrich responded the average
price was about $260,000 to $300,000. The land costs averaged out to be about
$60,000 per lot. Discussion ensued regarding density versus land costs, which can
determine end product costs.
Tom Schrimm,7151 Prairieview Drive,stated he did not object to having town homes
but he felt the density was too high. They would like to keep the hill and do not want
to see the roadway connected.
• Lyndon Moquist, 13722 Candice Lane, stated Forest Hills Road should not be
connected. He believed overall values should be considered,and expressed concern
the density was too high. He believed single family should be continued and the town
homes should not be built in this location. He believed land value should not be the
determining factor in density decisions. He discussed housing costs in Eden Prairie
and surrounding communities. He expressed concern regarding the amount of tree
loss and was concerned about the screening and buffering of the project.
Damon and Teri Ground, 13700 Candice Lane, stated they were opposed to the
project because the density was too high, and they were opposed to the roadway
being connected. They were also opposed to the construction of town homes in this
location and as this development would be an extension of Candice Lane, they
believed the single family homes should be extended.
Marsha Kershaw, 14030 Forest Hills Road, stated she did not want to see the
roadway connected because there were many small children in the neighborhood. The
roadway was very dangerous now and to make this road a through street would only
make it more dangerous. She described the grades and the potential hazards of
increasing traffic on the street.
Deb Ranglin, 1375 Jennifer Court, stated she was opposed to the development, and
did not want to look at townhomes. She stated she works out of her home and her
view would be impeded by the townhomes. She did not believe town homes would
fit into the character of the neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 14, 1997
Page 6
Wilbur Gersuick, 7102 Baker Road, stated he has lived there for thirty-seven years
and he was in support of this project. He believed the proponent would do an
excellent job with the development and because this development will be located in
his back yard,he has no objection to it at all.
Wissner inquired if the Arbor Glen townhomes were built first or the single family and
Franzen responded the townhomes were constructed first.
Alexander commented that not everyone in Eden Prairie could afford $300,000 to
$400,000 homes and if the proposed townhomes were attractively built there was no
reason why they could not be accommodated. There are some across the street which
were there before the single family homes were built.
Foote commented that Jasper built quality homes, and thought single family homes
would fit in better with the existing neighborhood. He was concerned about the
density. He commented he was also concerned that the neighborhood residents
thought $250,000 single family homes were not "upscale" enough for this area of
Eden Prairie. He would like to see Forest Hills Road connected but this was a unique
roadway because of the grades and it would be dangerous to make it a through street.
He requested that the right-of-way be preserved in case it were needed in the future.
Habicht commented that there has been a standard established that to deviate from the
Guide Plan there must be compelling reasons and he has not heard a compelling
reason why the Commission should do that. The density was too high, and he
believed the roadway connection'issue should be discussed.
Wissner stated that she was concerned about the density of the project,rather than the
pricing of the units, and she also had not heard a compelling reason why the Guide
Plan should be modified. She suggested the proponent come back before the
Commission with a reason to change the density. She believed the roadway
connection issue was a moot point at this time.
Jasper stated that not everyone in Eden Prairie was rich and they were trying to
provide homes at a reasonable cost. The new residents on Candice Lane appeared to
be setting the tone for what went on in this neighborhood as most of the surrounding
homes are much lower in price.
MOTION:Foote moved, seconded by Habicht to close the Public Hearing. Motion
carried 5-0-1. Ismail abstained.
Clinton stated he had not seen a compelling reason to change the Guide Plan. He
requested the developer to come back to the Commission with a plan that fit the
density. The tree loss was too high, and transition between the development and the
neighborhood was a problem. He asked if the proponent would resubmit a plan if the
Commission continued the request. Jasper asked the Commission to vote on the
merits of the submitted project, and noted that economics were a compelling reason
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 14, 1997
Page 7
for the proposed density of the project.
MOTION: Habicht moved, seconded by Foote,to recommend to the City Council
denial of Wynstone by Jasper Development for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 4.76 acres, PUD
Concept Review on 9.01 acres,PUD District Review on 9.01 acres,Zoning District
Change from R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 4.76 acres and R1-13.5 on 4.25 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 9.01 acres into 31 lots because no compelling reason was
demonstrated to change the Guide Plan. Motion carried 3-1-2. Alexander voted no,
Ismail and Wissner abstained.
D. MUSA LINE EXPANSION. A 600 acre addition to the MUSA Line as an
Amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted that staff recommended approval of the
835 acre MUSA Line expansion,subject to final approval of the remaining 235 acres
by the Metropolitan Council,which will be completed on 8/18/97.
The Public Hearing was opened.
John Standall, 9955 Spring Road, stated they have grown evergreens on their 20 acre
. farm and are in favor of expanding the MUSA line.
Brad Holt, 14700 Flying Cloud Drive,stated he was in support of the extension of the
MUSA line.
David Brown, 9801 Spring Road, stated he supported the MUSA line extension.
Darryl Peterson, 18700 Flying Cloud Drive, stated he has a farm and supports
extending the MUSA line. The City has purchased park land from them before and
have another option to purchase more land.
Richard Vogel, 105 Pioneer Trail, stated he supported extension of the MUSA line.
George Marshall,9995 Dell Road,stated he has lived on this property all his life, and
he cannot afford to live there anymore. He supported extension of the MUSA line.
MOTION:Foote moved,seconded by Wissner to close the Public Hearing. Motion
carried 6-0.
MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Wissner,to recommend to the City Council
approval of the 835 acre addition to the MUSA Line subject to final approval by the
Metropolitan Council. Motion carried 6-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 14, 1997
Page 8
• V. PUBLIC MEETING
VI. MEMBER'S REPORTS
Ismail commented that the staff reports from City staff had been very well done lately, and
he wished to commend them for clearly explaining issues.
VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS
A. Edenvale Tax Increment Financing Plan
David Lindahl discussed the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Edenvale and noted
that State law required that the Planning Commission review the Tax Increment
Financing plan and find it consistent with the Guide Plan.
Heather Boyer, Springsted,Inc.,reviewed that plan and noted that no bonds would
be issued for this project. She reviewed the other sources of revenue for the project
• and discussed the budget included in the plan. She noted that the City, State and
Metropolitan Council would all be putting money into the project. She noted that the
City would not collect taxes for fifteen years,and the tax increment financing district
would run for those first fifteen years, although she expected it to really last only
about thirteen years.
Habicht inquired if the developer would not be able to contest the value of the project
to get a lower valuation and thus lower taxes and Lindahl responded that the City
Assessor has to follow State Statutes in regard to the valuation of the project and
what it will be valued at in fifteen years,and this is what causes the developer to need
the Tax Increment Financing program.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote,to recommend to the City Council
that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Edenvale Family Townhouse Project
is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. Motion carried 6-0.
B. Commission Group Picture
Franzen noted that Human Resources had requested a group picture of the Planning
Commission and a date needed to be established. After discussion,it was concluded
that a group picture would be taken before the meeting of July 28, 1997.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 14, 1997
Page 9
• X. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Wissner moved,seconded by Foote,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-
0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
0