Planning Commission - 07/28/1997 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, July 28, 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
Continued Public Hearing:
A. 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,
• Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open Space 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.
B. LAND ROVER by LeJeune Investment. Request for Zoning Change from Rural to Commercial
Regional Service on 3.51 acres,Preliminary Plat of 3.51 acres into one lot and Site Plan Review on
3.51 acres. Location: South of Valley View Road,west of Office Ridge Circle.
C. LAKEVIEW OFFICE BUILDING AT SOUTHWEST CROSSING by Valley View L.L.C.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 109 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review on 1.57 acres,Rezoning from Rural to Office on 1.57 acres, Site Plan Review on
1.57 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 1.57 acres into one lot. Location: Valley View Road and Prairie
Center Drive.
D. PRAIRIEVIEW OFFICE BUILDING by Equitable Drive L.L.C. Request for Planned Unit
Concept Review on 10.88 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.88 acres,
Rezoning from Rural to Office on 10.88 acres,Site Plan Review on 10.88 acres,and Preliminary Plat
of 10.88 acres into one lot. Location: 7800 Equitable Drive.
E. US WEST TOWER by JPI Consultants. Request for Site Plan Review on a 90 foot monopole
zoned I-5 Industrial Park. Location: 10001 West 78th Street.
F. US WEST TOWER by JPI Consultants. Request for Site Plan Review on a 100 foot monopole
0 zoned I-2 Industrial Park. Location: 7825 Fuller Road.
V. PUBLIC MEETING
VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
'III. NEW BUSINESS
IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS
a. Historic Site Designation-John Gertz
b. Variance Request#97-10 (Outside Display in Office District)
X. ADJOURNMENT
APPROVED MINUTES
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,JULY 28, 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; Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator;
John Gertz, Historic Preservation Specialist;
Elinda Bahley,Recording Secretary
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jessica Lind
• I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL
Chair Clinton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Wissner, to approve the agenda as
published. Motion carried 7-0.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Foote noted on page six, fourth paragraph, fourth sentence, change town homes to
single family homes.
Alexander noted on page six,third paragraph, second sentence, change town homes
to single family homes.
MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Alexander, to approve the Minutes of the
July 14, 1997 Eden Prairie Planning Commission meeting as amended. Motion
carried 6-0-1 with one abstention by Sandstad.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
• Continued Public Hearing from July 14, 1997:
• Eden Prairie Planning Commission
July 28, 1997
A. 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,Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from
Open Space 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.
Ed Farr,representing the developer,explained the plans have been revised to meet the
size, setback and height requirements of the 1996 PUD for this site. They now have
a five-story building, approximately 178,000 square feet,with a three level parking
deck. They have retained the quality of the project still in terms of the exterior image
and all the landscaping requirements that go along with the project. They have met
with their neighbors across the lake and in front of them on Viking Drive and had
positive discussions with them. A model of the project was shown to the Commission
for their viewing.
He explained Stu Fox, the City Forester, has seen the 54 inch oak tree which the
Commission was concerned about saving. The tree has been saved in the plans as
well as much of the existing vegetation around that tree. To do that,the entrance has
been relocated as far west as they could go to the existing NURP pond and clustered
trees accordingly. Fox went out to the site and made a judgement on the trees they
were losing as a result of the move and how the oak tree would stand up. Fox
recommended they stay with the existing plan and lose the oak tree. They would lose
approximately 126 caliper inches of oaks as a result of pushing the driveway further
west.
Franzen recommended approval according to the recommendations on the last two
pages of the staff report. The shift in the driveway back to its original location has
been viewed as a minor change and is something the developer will complete before
proceeding to the City Council. He recommended amending the staff report to
include item 5,prior to the review by the City Council,the developer will revise the
plan to move the driveway back to its original location.
The public hearing was opened.
Habicht referred to the letter submitted by Thomas Schreier indicating some
conditions upon which he was removing an objection which he asserted at the last
public hearing. He noted the Commission was going to take action tonight on this
plan without consideration of those items that would be resolvable between Mr.
Schreier and the proponent.
2
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
July 28, 1997
MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION 2: Wissner moved,seconded by Foote,to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of 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,Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open Space 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 based on plans dated July 25, 1997 and subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated July 25, 1997,and to include a fifth recommendation that prior
to appearing before the City Council, the developer will revise plans to move the
driveway back to the original location in order to save a cluster of healthy oaks
instead of a single 54 inch oak based on the recommendation of the City Forester.
Motion carried 7-0.
B. LAND ROVER by LeJeune Investment. Request for Zoning Change from Rural to
Commercial Regional Service on 3.51 acres into one lot and Site Plan Review on 3.51
• acres. Location: South of Valley View Road,west of Office Ridge Circle.
Franzen explained this site is currently guided Regional/Commercial which would
allow auto sales as a permitted use. This is the same guiding that Suburban Chevrolet
and Eden Prairie Ford have on Highway 5. Staff s approach with this project was to
treat the dealership in the manner similar to the projects that have already been
approved such as maintaining the same building material standards, the level of
screening, and the light levels as the other projects.
Jon Hansen, owner of LeJeune Investment, presented building elevations and
explained the concept Land Rover has is quite different noting it's only going to sell
Land Rover. The building itself will have an Eddie Sauer or Colorado atmosphere.
There will be wood accents in the front with a green metal stainless steel roof and will
look like a Colorado chalet. The interior of the building will carry suit with the
exterior. There will be an artifact shelf with antique motors,maybe a moose, and an
old canoe.
This is a luxury dealership and they don't advertise on the roof. The building is about
40 percent the size of Eden Prairie Ford and about 20 percent of the size of the
Chevrolet dealership. The volume of sales is expected to be about 1/6 that of the
other two dealerships.
• Greg Kopischke, Westwood Professional Services, gave background information
3
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
July 28, 1997
about the site,and reviewed the site plan and the landscaping plan. There are three
areas set up for parking new cars,used cars, and service on the east side. There are
also islands throughout the site to help define the parking. He discussed the traffic
flow issue noting there are two access points into the site off of Valley View Road.
There is one unique feature on the site which is a test path that allows the sales people
to take potential buyers on a test drive and show the full capabilities of the vehicle in
terms of clearance and movement. The proposed landscaping is very comparable to
what the other two dealerships have done.
Sandstad expressed concern about the large amount of foundation that would be
exposed because of the steep slope and the erosion control area is not that far from
the building. He asked how stable the material is and what they are thinking about
doing. Kopischke said they are getting soil testings on the site. Their initial review
was the slopes are stable and will support the foundation of the building.
Sandstad asked if the finished surface in the area to be graded would be a blanket and
seed or is it going to be stakes and sod. Kopischke replied they are going to seed it
rather than sod it.
Habicht asked how many vehicles are going to be inside at any given time for sale.
Hansen said there may be up to 45 used and about the same number new but that
number varies from time to time. The plan outlines what the maximum will have
depending on any incentive programs.
Foote inquired if there was enough parking. Hansen was comfortable with the
amount of parking.
Wissner asked if the signage is going to be out on Valley View Road which will not
be visible from the highway. Hansen said yes, and explained that their dealership is
more of a destination location. If someone is looking for a Land Rover they will call
up and ask directions. As people learn about Land Rover,the green roof will be the
identification for it.
Franzen recommended approval according to the recommendations on page 4 of the
staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
MOTION 1: Foote moved, seconded by Sandstad, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 7-0.
4
• Eden Prairie Planning Commission
July 28, 1997
MOTION 2: Foote moved, seconded by Sandstad, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of LeJeune Investment for Zoning Change from Rural
to C-Regional Service on 3.51 acres based on plans dated July 14, 1997 and subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 25, 1997. Motion carried 7-
0.
MOTION 3: Foote moved, seconded by Sandstad, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of LeJeune Investment for Preliminary Plat of 3.51
acres into one lot based on plans dated July 14, 1997 and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 25, 1997. Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION 4: Foote moved, seconded by Sandstad, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of LeJeune Investment for Site Plan Review on 3.51
acres,based on plans dated July 14, 1997 and subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated July 25, 1997. Motion carried 7-0.
C. MOUNTVIEW OFFICE BUILDING(aka LAKEVIEW OFFICE BUILDINGI
by Valley View L.L.C. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment
on 109 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 1.57 acres,Rezoning
from C-Regional to Office on 1.57 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.57 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 1.57 acres into one lot. Location: Valley View Road and Prairie
Center Drive.
Bob Sofeld, president of Mountview Properties and Development Company,
commented they are in agreement with staffs recommendations to the Planning
Commission.
Kipp stated the original property was contemplated for a restaurant use. The
proponent has requested an amendment to the PUD to permit the office use. The
original PUD was for office,commercial,and industrial. Staff believes the use of the
property as office would be consistent with the PUD. The proponent will be
requesting a waiver through the PUD for the amount of impervious surface according
to the code. Staff believes there is some merit for this waiver because the original
plan had a similar amount of impervious surface and is within the Major Center Area
and that's when the Shoreline Code was revised. The traffic generation will be less
for office based on 100 peak hour trips for the restaurant use and only 52 for office.
The only recommendation for the property is that there be some additional
landscaping provided along Highways 169 and 212 frontage to aid in additional
screening of the parking area. Staff recommended approval.
Clinton was concerned about site distance. Kipp said staff did raise that as an issue
5
• Eden Prairie Planning Commission
July 28, 1997
and the proponent did provide a site distance graphic that does demonstrate the site
distance according to MnDOT standards.
The public hearing was opened.
Wissner asked if it's going to be a one tenant building or is it going to be multiple
offices. Sofeld replied it will most likely be either a single or two tenant building and
there are some tenants identified at this point.
MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Alexander,to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 7-0.
Sandstad asked what type of landscaping would be needed for screening. Kipp said
shrubs that may grow to be about two to three feet high. There is a retaining wall
proposed now. Providing some low screening shrubs will provide a good amount of
screening.
MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Alexander, to recommend to the City
• Council approval of the request of Valley View L.L.C.for Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment on 109 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on
1.57 acres,Rezoning from C-Regional to Office on 1.57 acres, Site Plan Review on
1.57 acres,and Preliminary Plat of 1.57 acres into one lot based on plans dated July
11, 1997 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 25, 1997.
Motion carried 7-0.
D. PRARUEVIEW OFFICE BUILDING by Equitable Drive L.L.C. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.88 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 10.88 acres,Rezoning from Rural to Office on 10.88
acres, Site Plan Review on 10.88 acres,and Preliminary Plat of 10.88 acres into one
lot. Location: 7800 Equitable Drive.
Bob Sofeld, president of Mountview Properties and Development Company,
commented they are in agreement with the recommendations from staff.
Clinton asked for a little more detail on the landscaping and proposed development
in terms of landscaping and tree replacement. Ed Farr reviewed the site plan and
landscaping plan. They are proposing new landscaping as a buffer,besides berming,
right along Equitable Drive to screen the parking lot from the public street and from
their parking lot, and also screening on the south side of the parking lot to block the
views of Highway 5. Generally,most of the significant vegetation is all down right
next to the creek in the wetland area. They proposed to stay out of the wetland area
6
• Eden Prairie Planning Commission
July 28, 1997
100 percent so all the existing vegetation will remain.
Wissner asked if they will change the 30 foot tall downcast fixtures to 20 feet in
height. Farr replied they will comply with the 20 foot high poles for the PUD.
Kipp stated the project will require a waiver through the PUD for a front yard setback
of 25 feet. The waiver has merit because others along Equitable Drive have received
the waiver. It is a narrow site and with a 25 foot setback, it provides additional
setback from the conservation line. Screening it is adequate based on the berming and
the plant material provided. Staff recommended approval of the project.
The public hearing was opened.
Habicht commented it's a nice looking project.
Sandstad was concerned whether the plantings at the top near the parking lot will
work with the proposed slope. Farr said they are complying with the 3:1 maximum
slope grade and that the landscaping can be accommodated there.
• MOTION 1: Habicht moved, seconded by Foote, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION 2: Habicht moved,seconded by Foote,to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Equitable Drive L.L.C. for Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 10.88 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.88
acres, Rezoning from Rural to Office on 10.88 acres, Site Plan Review on 10.88
acres, and Preliminary Plat of 10.88 acres into one lot based on plans dated July 11,
1997 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 25, 1997.
Motion carried 7-0.
E. US WEST TOWER by JPI Consultants. Request for Site Plan Review on a 90 foot
monopole zoned I-5 Industrial Park. Location: 10001 West 78th Street.
David Van Landschoot, president of JPI Consulting, said this will be a joint
presentation for this item and the next item. He noted they have presented four
applications on behalf of US West Wireless Communications. He presented and
reviewed a propagation map depicting the four antenna locations and also the
surrounding cell sites. Two antenna sites have been approved administratively by
Eden Prairie; site 53,and the one in the middle which is on a NSP tower. Out of 160
site Twin Cities antenna locations,over 130 are already approved and are permitted
• uses. They are down to the last 20 or 25 cell sites so they can be ready for
7
• Eden Prairie Planning Commission
July 28, 1997
construction. They anticipate construction to be later on into the year into early 1998.
He reviewed the site plan which showed the existing US West Wireless
Communications facility and the monopole locations. He also presented examples of
the antennas that will be at the top of the monopoles and the phone of the future
which can be taken anywhere you go. Part of the network is there's a computer port
so people will buy these phones for safety and security. Since US West is the last
provider at this point in the community,they have the benefit of providing the most
advanced technology.
Sandstad asked what the roof height of this building on 78th Street is compared to the
90 foot monopole. Van Landschoot replied the existing roof height of the building
is approximately 16 feet,a one story-building. Sandstad asked if they have considered
incorporating a nesting platform for birds of prey with towers because it is being done
in some areas. Van Landschoot replied they have not. Sandstad said they should
look into that because it's a consideration that might help in public support.
Wissner asked what they see the long term for this is and how many years before new
. technology comes along and makes this obsolete. Van Landschoot said all six
providers are in competition and explained what the new technology does. At some
point, as hundreds of thousands of people each month sign on to this technology,
these antenna locations will max out coverage and capacity. Again, being the last
provider has lots of benefits for them. They can build this pole and it will actually go
higher. It will be built for 120 feet even though they are going to do construction at
90 feet. They don't have authority to make the antenna higher but if three years from
now another provider comes along and needs to add another antenna site in this
location, staff can authorize US West's 90 foot monopole to be extended to 120 feet
and they can co-locate.
Ismail asked if there is any ladder for someone to service the pole because he was
concerned about kids climbing up. Van Landschoot said they have removable grab
bars to climb or they could use a cherry picker depending on the location and the
height. There is nothing there for anyone to play on and climb. Ismail asked how
high the lighting rods will be. Van Landschoot said it's a three foot light rod. Ismail
commented the materials used for construction are for 25 degrees below zero. He
said the temperatures go lower than that and asked if there was any concern for the
structure. Van Landschoot said US West is not going to construct something that's
not going to work but he will personally talk to them about it.
Sandstad asked if there was any requirement at all in the new ordinance about fencing
• around the base of the towers of any kind. Johnson said no.
8
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
July 28, 1997
Johnson stated the site plan review process is necessary because the towers are over
80 feet in height. The 7825 Fuller Road site has the typical monopole and will have
ground equipment with it and the standard antenna design. It is located in the
Industrial District and is at least 1000 feet from any residential area.
The other site is on West 78 Street and this is a 90 foot monopole with the same type
of ground equipment and antenna design. This is near the 18/494 intersection. It's
located in the small lot that's zoned I-5 Industrial District and is between office
buildings. This site is at least 1500 feet away from any residential and that residential
neighborhood is the Bloomington neighborhood. The co-location on the pole will be
achieved because there is another user that will go on to that monopole. The co-
location is a possibility on the other site because there are ports available for a future
user. Both of these requests have been sent to Eden Prairie's Communication
Coordinator for review to make sure they would not have any interference with the
Public Safety Communication, and no problems have been identified. If there are
problems,it will be the responsibility of US West to correct any trouble.
Staff did go through the site process and people within 500 feet were notified. There
• was an inquiry on the West 78 Street site. US West and JPI individuals did talk to
them and gave them information they were looking for. Staff recommended approval
of the two site plan review requests.
Van Landershoot noted they are under a tentative agreement with Sprint for co-
location so Sprint will take down their temporary tower which is across the freeway.
The co-location will happen on the Fuller Road site and that's why they are looking
for 100 feet.
The public hearing was opened.
Stan Riegert,owner of Eden Prairie Lawn and Garden,located across the street from
the Fuller Road site, had no objection to the towers because he views two towers
already when he looks out to the northeast and to the south.He was concerned when
it was going to stop. He noted he has been a resident of Eden Prairie for 60 years and
in November of 1993 he wrote a letter to the City of Eden Prairie because he wanted
to put up a windmill tower. He got a call from the City of Eden Prairie that said he
could not put a tower on his property. It bothered him that he can't put one 35 foot
tower up and they can put up a couple of 100 foot towers.
Habicht stated he would not participate in the voting because of conflict of interest.
He noted this could be as a result of federal regulations.
•
9
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
July 28, 1997
Johnson said she would check the back records and call Mr. Riegert tomorrow. She
noted his tower would probably be feasible.
Sandstad asked if there are separation requirements of a 1000 feet or so between
PCS towers and the ordinance. Johnson replied no.
Foote asked how frequent would they have to place these towers. Johnson said some
of them can be as close to half a mile distance apart but the reason they tend to clump
in areas is they have to respond to where the need is and the need is where the major
roads are and the major users.
Ismail asked if there is a maximum number the City of Eden Prairie will allow of this
type of structure. Johnson replied no.
MOTION 1: Alexander moved, seconded by Foote, to close.the public hearing.
Motion carried 6-0-1 with one abstention by Habicht.
MOTION 2: Alexander moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend to the City
• Council approval of the request of JPI Consultants for Site Plan Review on a 90 foot
monopole based on plans dated July 25, 1997 and subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated July 25, 1997. Motion carried 6-0-1 with one abstention
by Habicht.
Sandstad commented he liked the site plan review checklist but noted it would be
helpful in the future to know the distances to the nearest existing tower since there is
no regulation in the new ordinance. Johnson said they can do that. She noted they
are also working on a large plan that shows all the existing towers in town,both the
ground ones and the rooftop antennas, and also illustrating all the NSP towers.
F. US WEST TOWERby JPI Consultants. Request for Site Plan Review on a 100 foot
and 90 foot monopole on sites zoned I-2 Industrial Park. Location: 7825 Fuller
Road and 10001 West 78th Street.
MOTION 1: Alexander moved, seconded by Foote, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 6-0-1 with one abstention by Habicht.
MOTION 2: Alexander moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of JPI Consultants for Site Plan review on a 100 foot
monopole at 7825 Fuller Road based on plans dated July 25, 1997 and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 25, 1997. Motion carried 6-0-1
with one abstention by Habicht.
10
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
July 28, 1997
MOTION 3: Alexander moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of JPI Consultants for Site Plan review on a 90 foot
monopole at 10001 West 78th Street based on plans dated July 25, 1997 and subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 25, 1997. Motion carried 6-
0-1 with one abstention by Habicht.
V. PUBLIC MEETING
None.
VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS
None.
VH. CONTINUING BUSINESS
None.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
None.
IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS
A. Historic Site Designations - John Gertz
Gertz referred to the memo of July 23, 1997, requesting the Planning
Commission to review each property report and comment on any land use
issue in relation to the City Guide Plan, adjacent land uses,or other planning
considerations.
Sandstad commented he was familiar with the Frederick's Spring and the
Mathew Riley Farm, but not the Sheldon Smith House. Gertz gave the
historical background surrounding the Sheldon Smith House. Sandstad asked
if there are any immediate plans to improve the property. Gertz said there are
no immediate plans in terms of restoration or rehabilitation. They are simply
maintaining the house and the City will provide maintenance for the exterior
of the house.
Ismail asked what the significance is regarding the Frederick's Spring. Gertz
• explained the spring is important because it's the context of the site. It's the
11
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
July 28, 1997
unique feature of the site. The thing that's important is the sense of place and
the association of the spring, the road, and the wooded valley. All of these
things combined create an historical significance for that property. Ismail
asked if the City is planning to make it presentable because he saw a lot of
junk around there. Gertz said Bob Lambert has presented an improvement
plan for this site right now.
Wissner asked if they have any idea how many people visit the site. Ismail
commented he visited the site for 20 minutes and counted five cars. Gertz
noted there are many regular users of the spring.
Wissner inquired about funding for cleaning up the Sheldon Smith House.
Gertz said they don't have any funding set aside for what they call restoration.
What they simply do is just have the City's maintenance provide basic
maintenance for the property. He noted the front porch needs some serious
work.
Foote commented reading about these sites was very interesting and he
learned a lot. Referring to the Mathew Riley Farm, he said the house is
currently occupied by a renter and asked if that is going to continue. Gertz
said it will continue until a time that they put that property into public use. It's
better to keep a renter in there than to let the house sit by itself.
Clinton commented he comes from Charleston, South Carolina, one of the
most historical sites in the country,and he would like to preserve as much as
possible in Eden Prairie.
MOTION 1: Sandstad moved,seconded by Foote,to recommend to the City
Council that all three Historic sites are consistent with the Comprehensive
Guide Plan and well worthy of official designation. Motion carried 7-0.
B. Variance Request#97-10 (Outside Display in Office District)
Johnson explained the 97-10 Variance Staff Report has been included in the
Planner's Report as an informational issue to inform the Commission of an
unusual variance before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. It is going
before the Board in August and the Commission's comments will be sent to
the Board.
Sandstad was concerned about setting a precedent and doing this on similar
properties. He was not comfortable with the variance.
12
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
July 28, 1997
Habicht asked what has changed between the time that there was an original
application made to the City for a joint license and the present time. He also
noted he did not see the hardship letter dated July 13. Johnson said the July
13 letter was the application letter that they had and it mentioned the
economic impact of having to change the location. The general issue here is
opening the Office District to commercial sales and displays. Habicht
expressed his concern about setting a precedent but in fairness to the
proponent he would like to hear this presented before making comments.
Johnson said that's why discussion should be in the general sense of the Office
District.
Wissner commented she has firsthand knowledge this is a situation for the
outdoor storage at the site. She noted there have been situations of cars that
are sitting there and you think they are abandoned and you find out they are
not.
Foote commented this could be a dangerous precedent allowing for this one
particular instance. He had safety concerns and said people don't necessarily
park in the spots they're supposed to. He had hesitation in granting this
variance. Sandstad concurred with Foote.
Clinton commented he would like to see more details. He noted seeing more
cars out there than there were before is what got his attention.
Johnson noted she would keep the Commission informed.
Franzen commented the developers first came in and talked with Chris Enger
and himself about what the politics are for all the commercial use of the
property at the corner of Highways 18 and 1 as it's currently guided. Staff
realizes this would be a difficult project because it was such a departure from
the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Rather than having the developer invest time
and expenses putting the plan together, they want to get the neighborhood
involved and see if they were comfortable with the plan or variation of the
plan that they would be comfortable with before actually bringing it in front
of the Commission.
Oppidan Development has held a series of neighborhood meetings and the
neighborhood is coming to grips with what's important to them as a land use.
Staff has not heard anything from the developer yet as to whether they are
going to go forward with this plan or whether they're going to modify the
• plan. He noted he has a meeting with the developer tomorrow afternoon and
13
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
July 28, 1997
will know more about where they intend to go at this point.
Franzen reviewed the agenda for the next meeting,August 11.
Alexander was concerned about the corner of Technology Drive and Prairie
Center Drive. Foote noted it's the surcharging area for the transit hub.
Clinton inquired about his request of landfill. Franzen said they have not put
together all statistics yet for total percentage of wet landfill. The Commission
will find there is quite a variation on what they have done because they have
viewed those projects on a site by site basis.
X. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Habicht,to adjourn the meeting. Motion
carried 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
14