Planning Commission - 08/12/1996 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,August 12, 1996 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton,Randy Foote,Bill Habicht,Ismail Ismail,
Katherine Kardell,Douglas Sandstad,Mary Jane Wissner
STAFF MEMBER: Michael Franzen, City Planner
Scott A. Kipp, Planner
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE--ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. MINUTES
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. TREE COMMITTEE RESULTS
B. STARING LAKE TOWNHOUSES - PHASE II by Pulte Homes. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low, Medium and High Density Residential and
Office to Medium Density Residential on 35.57 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept
Review on 35.57 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 35.57 acres,Rezoning
from Rural to RM-6.5 on 35.57 acres, Site Plan Review on 35.57 acres, and Preliminary Plat
of 35.57 acres into 196 lots and 2 outlots. Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring
Lake Parkway.
C. THE HILLS OF EDEN PRAIRIE by Venku Corporation. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density on 14.84 acres, Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 14.84 acres, Site Plan Review on 14.84 acres and
Preliminary Plat of 14.84 acres into 51 multi-family units. Location: Willow Creek Road.
D. MITCHELL BAY TWIN HOMES by Noecker and Associates. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential on 1.54 acres,Zoning District Change from RM-2.5 and R1-22 to RM-6.5 on
1.54 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.54 acres and Preliminary Plat on 1.54 acres, Board of
Adustments and Appeals variances. Location: Terrey Pine Drive.
E. ST. ANDREW'S BLUFF by Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia. Request for
Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 4.3 acres, Site Plan Review on 4.3 acres and Preliminary
Plat of 4.3 acres into 10 lots. Location: Baker Road at St. Andrew Drive.
F. REALITY INTERACTIVE by Oppidan Investment Company. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change from Office to Industrial on 6.42 acres, Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment on 100 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers
• on 6.42 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 6.42 acres, Site Plan Review on
6.42 acres,and Preliminary Plat of 20.5 acres into 1 lot and 2 outlots for construction of a
40,000 sq.ft. building. Location: Equitable Drive.
G. RESEARCH ADDITION by Research Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 26.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 26.2 acres,
Zoning District Amendment in the I-5 Zoning District on 26.2 acres, Site Plan Review on
26.2 acres and Preliminary Plat on 26.2 acres into 2 lots. Location: Flying Cloud Drive.
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
APPROVED MINUTES
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,AUGUST 12, 1996 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill
Habicht,Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell,
Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner
STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, City Planner, Scott Kipp,
Senior Planner, and Barbara Anderson,
City Recorder
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL
Chair Clinton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Kardell was excused.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:Wissner moved, seconded by Foote,to approve the agenda as published. Motion
carried 6-0.
• III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Wissner noted a correction on page 6,paragraph 5,to read, `wooden siding"instead of roofs.
MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Habicht,to approve the Minutes of Monday,July 23,
1996 Planning Commission Meeting as amended. Motion carried 5-0-1. Ismail abstained.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. TREE COMMITTEE RESULTS
Franzen reviewed the changes to the Tree Ordinance which were recommended by
the Planning Commission. Fox described the process that the task force undertook
to arrive at the present point in the process. They considered two things; one was
changes to the ordinance itself and the other was changes to the policy. The Tree
Ordinance has been in place for six years and the City Attorney does not want to
make some of these changes into ordinance amendments until they have been tested
as a policy for a period of time.
Sandstad commented he was not an expert in identifying trees but he would like to
know where the line was to be drawn regarding the bulldozing of native trees that
• maybe worth preserving. He thought perhaps trees that exceeded 36 in diameter in
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, August 12, 1996
Page 2
species such as oak,hickory and perhaps even large cottonwood trees may be worth
preserving. Fox listed a number of species that are indigenous to Minnesota and
stated he could develop a list of specific species and diameters that would be
considered worth preserving in a policy to encourage developers to save these trees.
He will be making a list of 10-14 species of a specific size to be included in the policy,
and this will be given to developers early in the process to encourage them to leave
those trees that are worth preserving when they design their projects. Habicht
commented he believed this list should be included in the policy. Ismail asked if there
was a preliminary report on the work that was done over the last seven months. Fox
responded that they found the ordinance was working very well and they made some
changes regarding specific types and sizes of trees to be included. They also changed
the bonding requirements, and amended the policy to deal with mass tree loss in
neighborhoods and to encourage developers to use existing tree mass as a screening
tool between developments. The policy will also permit only a certain percentage of
tree loss to occur on a given site. The Planning Commission requested staff to
provide them with a list of these tree types and diameters at the next meeting.
B. STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES-PHASE H by Pulte Master Builders. Request
for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density,Medium Density, and High
Density Residential and Office to Medium Density Residential on 35.57 acres,
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review of 35.57 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 35.57 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on
35.57 acres, Site Plan Review on 35.57 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 35.57 acres into
196 lots and 2 outlots. Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway and HWY.. 169.
Franzen introduced Gary Grant, Pulte Master Builders, who reviewed the changes
requested by the City Council. Ron Bastyr reviewed the changes in the site plans.
They created smaller neighborhoods using cul-de-sacs rather than the linear style of
larger neighborhoods which was originally proposed. The NURP pond is in the same
location as before.
Foote inquired if the density was about the same as before, and Grant responded
affirmatively. Sandstad asked about the tot lots and where they were located. Bastyr
indicated the three areas where they will be located and described the pedestrian trails
which will connect them. Wissner inquired what equipment would be placed on a tot
lot and Grant responded that there will be some type of playground equipment on
each of them but they have to meet with staff to determine exactly what will be on
them.
Ismail inquired about the traffic going in and out of the project, and noted the access
was only onto Columbine Road. Grant responded that was done by direction of the
City Council.
• Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted that the Parks,Recreation and Natural
Resources Department has standard types of equipment that is regularly installed on
tot lots and the staff will meet with the developers to determine exactly what types of
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, August 12, 1996
Page 3
equipment will be appropriate for this site.
The Public Hearing was opened.
No one wished to speak.
Wissner inquired how many potential homeowners are on the waiting list and Grant
responded there are approximately 334 but they will have more when the sales office
opens up. Ismail asked what the City Council wanted the Planning Commission to
review, since they had already granted PUD approval for the project. Franzen
responded that the Council wanted the Commission to ensure that the plans were the
same as those originally proposed and met the approval criteria for the PUD.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Sandstad, to close the Public Hearing.
Motion carried 6-0.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Sandstad, to recommend approval for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density, Medium Density, and High
Density Residential and Office to Medium Density Residential on 35.57 acres,
Planned Unit Development Concept Review of 35.57 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 35.57 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on
35.57 acres, Site Plan Review on 35.57 acres,and Preliminary Plat of 35.57 acres into
196 lots and 2 outlots based on plans dated July 23, 1996 and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 9, 1996. Motion carried 6-0.
C. THE HILLS OF EDEN PRAIRIE by Venku Corporation. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
on 14.84 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 14.84 acres, Site
Plan Review on 14.84 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 14.84 acres into 51 multi-family
units. Location: Willow Creek Road.
Franzen introduced David Pavelka, representing Venku Corporation. Pavelka
reviewed the proposal to develop the property with 51 townhomes. He noted they
are expecting the people who rent these units to be empty-nesters or young, two-
income couples who desire to live somewhere that they don't have to maintain a home
and a yard. He described the various floor plans that will be available in the different
styles of units. He showed building renderings of what the units will look like. Since
these will be rental units, their goal is to have residents who will live there for
relatively lengthy periods of time. They have a tree loss percentage of approximately
27%,but they have designed the project to have the homes clustered in the center to
preserve as many of the trees and natural site amenities as possible. This was also
done to lessen the impact of the traffic and protect the abutting neighborhoods to the
• south. They have a two acre wetland and a high hill between the development and the
residential property which they believe will be an adequate buffer.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, August 12, 1996
Page 4
• Pavelka stated that Bryant Lake Drive has the capacity to handle the traffic which will
be generated by the development. He believed there was a need for townhome rentals
in Eden Prairie and the project was a viable one which would provide people access
to major roadways without having to drive through residential neighborhoods. He
stated that John Baxter of Schoell&Madsen,Ken Eidel, and Barb Krueger of Steven
Scott Property Management were present to answer any questions from the
Commission.
Franzen reviewed the staff report and stated that the proponents must provide the
Commission with"compelling"reasons why the Guide Plan should be changed. He
discussed the options for different site plans as identified in the Staff Report. He
noted that the proposed development would not adversely impact the traffic on
Bryant Lake Drive, and there is a sight problem at the curve in the road. There
would need to be some regional road improvements made to Bryant Lake Drive
intersections. There should also be a signal at the ramp from County Road 62 onto
Shady Oak Road, as this becomes very congested during rush hour traffic. The
project will require significant alteration to steep slopes and tree mass, and will have
to be done carefully to avoid damage to the natural features and surrounding areas.
Sandstad inquired how a Guide Plan amendment would affect Wooddale Church and
• Franzen responded that a Guide Plan change would not impact the church property.
Guide Plan changes were based on density not the types of units proposed. Ismail
asked about the difference between this project and the project to the south. Franzen
responded that there was no Guide Plan change with that project but there was a
problem with transition between that development and the existing single family
residential neighborhood. There also was wetland area filled in the Crowne Oaks
project. The hill was also cut down 8'to improve the roadway at that time. Clinton
commented he believed 37 units would fit onto the property under the present
guiding.
The Public Hearing was opened.
John May, 7057 Crowne Oak Road, stated he represented all the twin home residents
(16) and some of the single family homeowners in the Crowne Oak development.
They have hired the law firm of Larkin Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren to review the
project and assist them in raising the proper concerns. They have submitted a letter
dated August 9, 1996 from the law firm. They wished to recommend Alternative#3
in the Staff Report because this is the right plan for the property. The Guide Plan has
been in effect for twenty years and the City has the responsibility to carry out the
guidelines set forth therein. Zoning must be in conformance with the Guide Plan and
the burden of the proponent is to show compelling reasons why there should be a
variance from the Guide Plan. The project is significantly more dense than allowed
by the Guide Plan and the City Code. They do not feel that the proponent has
• demonstrated a compelling reason to change the Guide Plan. A plan could be
developed which meets the criteria of the Guide Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and
the City has an obligation to adhere to these standards. They believe that 3.5 units per
acre is too high, and requested the Planning Commission to consider Alternative#3.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, August 12, 1996
Page 5
• Mary Clay, 7041 Crowne Oaks Road, stated she represented the single family
homeowners in the neighborhood. They do not oppose the development of this
property and wished to compliment the Pavelka family for the cleanup job they have
done of the salvage yard area. She stated when they moved into this area it was
guided for low density and they feel that the proposed project does not comply with
the Guide Plan because the density proposed is too high. Crowne Oaks was
developed at a density of 1.5 units per acre. The proponents do not plan to put units
on all of the land in the development which will make the density actually higher than
the proposed 3.5 units per acre. She was concerned about the impact of the
development on the wetland, and the significant amount of tree loss which will occur
on the site. The knoll on the southwest corner will be taken down 20' which will
impact the transition. They feel that the building issues can be addressed by reducing
the density, leaving the transition intact, and increasing the lot sizes, which will
preserve more trees. Traffic is also a major concern, and there is the blind corner
which is also a problem. None of the 51 lots will meet the minimum lot size required
in the code, and they would like to see the project developed in conformance with the
Guide Plan.
Jim Deanovic, developer of Crowne Oaks, stated he did not see the hardship the
proponent was claiming. When he did his development,he reduced his density and
• increased lot sizes. They should not have a variance granted because no hardship has
been demonstrated. He believed a better plan was needed.
Dan Grote, 7061 Willow Creek Road, stated they were pleased with the Crowne
Oaks development and felt that an exemplary job was done in creating this
neighborhood. The traffic from the proposed development would be exacerbating an
already dangerous situation as the roadways in this area need to be upgraded.
Significantly increasing the hardsurface coverage will impact the wetland areas
because of the increased runoff which will occur, and this will adversely impact
wildlife. He was opposed to the proposed development because he believed a much
better plan with less impact could be devised. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) says there is no problem from the spillage which occurred on the site,but
he was concerned about runoff from this area which may not have been properly
treated coming across the spillway and impacting his water supply. He does not have
City water but uses a well. He requested the Commission to adopt Alternative#3 as
he believed it was the best selection.
Donald Sorenson, 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated the major issue was that the
developer has requested a PUD designation which allows a developer to create a
development without going through the regular zoning requirements. A PUD has a
minimum area requirement of 15 acres, and the proposed project is only 14.84 acres,
which means it does not qualify for the PUD designation without a variance. He
described the degree of the variances which have been requested by the proponent.
• There are only four units in the entire development which would be unaffected by the
variances from ordinance standards. The proponent also has not proved or
demonstrated a hardship and is endeavoring to change the Guide Plan and zoning in
order to put more units on the site. He discussed the actual amount of land area
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, August 12, 1996
Page 6
• within the proposed development which could be built upon and arrived at a figure
of 9.58 acres,which would make the density actually 13.5 units per acre which would
permit a maximum of 28 units to be constructed. He discussed the tree loss potential
which could result from the proposed development and noted the entire hill was
covered with trees. He discussed the grading and drainage plans and the amount of
natural vegetation which would be lost. He believed tree replacement would be
inadequate to compensate for the loss of the oak trees on the site. He was concerned
about the traffic and parking problems which would be created by the development,
and discussed emergency vehicle access and snow storage problems which would be
created by the configuration of the streets.
Sandstad stated the City of Eden Prairie has one of the toughest ordinances for tree
replacement in the State of Minnesota. He did not support the project because there
was no compelling reason to support the Guide Plan change. Foote concurred with
Sandstad, stating the Site Plan has significant problems and he believed the proponent
should be required to adhere to the same standards of similar projects in the area. He
did not support the Guide Plan amendment, and thought the density should be
reduced. Wissner concurred, and complimented the proponent on cleaning up the
property,but did not find any hardship demonstrated to support the requested Guide
Plan change. Ismail inquired if the proponent had met with the neighborhoods to
inform them of his proposed plans, and suggested that he should do so to determine
what plan would be acceptable to them. Ismail did not support the Guide Plan
amendment. Habicht concurred,noting there was too much development on too little
acreage. He encouraged the proponent to develop a plan with lower density and less
tree loss. He believed this could be a good concept if it were at a lower density.
Clinton stated he did not support the Guide Plan change and could find no reason to
support the project as proposed. He stated he would consider a plan with a lower
density and something that addressed the pollution on the site.
Sandstad commented that with a transfer of property a buyer expects to have an
environmental analysis done, and that has not been done in this case. John Baxter,
Schoell and Madson, stated he had done an environmental survey on the property and
the major problem was the gasoline storage tank area which had been addressed.
They did not test the car storage area because the fluids were left in the vehicles until
they were crushed, and that occurred in the area of the storage tank. During
construction the soils which are not used on the site will be taken off the site, cleaned,
and disposed of. There is spotty contamination but it is not to the degree that one
might suppose.
MOTION:Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote to recommend denial of the request
of Venku Corporation for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density on 14.84 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural
to RM-6.5 on 14.84 acres, Site Plan Review on 14.84 acres, and Preliminary Plat of
• 14.84 acres into 51 multi-family units as submitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, August 12, 1996
Page 7
Habicht commented that he thought perhaps the developer should have the
opportunity to revise the plans and resubmit them to be reviewed again. Franzen
commented that the Commission wanted to send a message to the proponent that they
wanted a lower density, and perhaps they should reconsider allowing the developer
to redesign the project and submit it for further review,rather than just denying it.
Sandstad commented he would continue it as long as the proponent understood that
he would have to comply with the guide plan. Pavelka stated he was unsure at this
point what he was going to do, He requested the Commission continue the project
to allow him to confer with staff to determine what he would need to do to comply
with the Guide Plan.requirements. Sandstad withdrew his motion; Foote
withdrew his second.
MOTION:Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote to continue the request By Venku
Corporation for Hills of Eden Prairie to develop the property in conformance with the
Comprehensive Guide Plan, with an adequate transition to surrounding uses, with
minimal impact on natural features and minimal traffic impacts. Motion carried 6-0.
D. MITCHELL BAY TWIN HOMES by Noecker and Associates. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential on 1.54 acres,Zoning District Change from RM-2.5 and R1-22 to RM-6.5
on 1.54 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.54 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 1.54 acres,
Board of Adjustments and Appeals variances. Location: Terrey Pine Drive.
Randy Noecker,the proponent,reviewed the proposal and showed the plans. There
are several variances in the project which have been incorporated into the project in
the way that they believed would have the least impact on the neighborhood. The
units will be large and have three-car garages on each home. He discussed the
landscaping plan and the screening from adjacent properties.
Sandstad asked if the proponent had renderings illustrating the view from the eastern
location which show the side-loading garage. Noecker responded he did not. There
is a berm along the roadway which is about 2-3' above curb height and it is about 5-6'
above street level. Franzen stated the side elevation will be a gable with all siding and
no windows. Noecker stated units 3 and 4 will not be significantly different from
units 1 and 2. Unit 4 will have a double garage with the third stall used for extra
storage space.
Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted that staff recommended approval subject
to the stipulations in the staff report. Wissner inquired what would prevent people
from cutting down the existing trees on the site. Franzen responded that a
conservation easement over these trees should be required.
Sandstad discussed the potential for shifting the units slightly on the property so that
• units 3 and 4 would be more in alignment with units 1 and 2. Since there are no
uniform setbacks presently existing along this street he did not have a problem with
not meeting ordinance setbacks in this instance if it would give the buildings a better
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, August 12, 1996
Page 8
alignment. Discussion ensued regarding the possibilities for relocation of the building
footprints to achieve a more aesthetic site plan.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Jerry Hollenback, a Minnetonka resident,representing his in-laws who live at 16865
Terrey Pine Drive, was concerned about the exterior finish of the proposed units on
the west side. He commented they would also like to have some spruce trees planted
between the units and the adjacent homes to provide year-around screening.
Foote stated he would rather see the units as far away from the Lakeshore as possible.
Discussion ensued regarding different ways to relocate the buildings on the site to
avoid having the blank wall adjacent to the roadway. Wissner commented that
landscaping could be used to alleviate this situation. Franzen commented that homes
on Terrey Pine Drive are approximately 100' from the lake and something similar
could be done with this project. He believed that units 3 and 4 could be located in a
more parallel arrangement to units 1 and 2. Noecker stated he was agreeable with this
suggestion and noted that if they can locate the units deeper into the lot they can
straighten them out and improve their appearance.
• MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote to close the Public Hearing and
recommend approval of the request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low
Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 1.54 acres, Zoning District
Change from RM-2.5 and R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 1.54 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.54
acres, and Preliminary Plat on 1.54 acres, Board of Adjustments and Appeals
variances for Noecker and Associates, with the lake setback being within 130' for
buildings 3 and 4, a 15 foot sideyard setback to the west, a 10' setback between
buildings,remain within 5'of the front yard setback and landscape screening along the
west property line. Motion carried 6-0.
E. ST.ANDREW'S BLUFF by Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia. Request
for Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 4.3 acres, Site Plan Review on 4.3 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 4.3 acres into 10 lots. Location: Baker Road at St. Andrew's
Drive.
Marty Campion, a civil engineer representing Jasper Development Corporation
reviewed the project and requested that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of their request. They agree with the staff recommendation as presented in
the staff report.
Sandstad asked what the grade changes would be between the units and the wetland
and what would be done to stabilize the soils in this area. Campion responded the
change will be along the south property line with gradual changes down to the
wetland. They propose to construct a 15'tall retaining wall which will be tiered in
three, 5 foot sections.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, August 12, 1996
Page 9
Kipp reviewed the staff report and stated staff recommended approval subject to the
stipulations in the staff report. Foote asked if there was a plan for a stop light at this
intersection, and Kipp responded not at this time.
The Public Hearing was opened.
No one present wished to speak.
Jim Jasper,Jasper Development Corporation, showed four elevations which represent
all ten units and explained how they will be mixed on the site. He did not have the
elevation from the front. Ismail asked about the elevation view from Baker Road and
Campion responded that the proposed access is just beyond the center median on
Baker Road. Wissner inquired if each unit would be different and Jasper responded
that they will vary the colors, landscaping and brick to give each unit an individual
appearance. Most residents will want to have some unique feature to distinguish their
unit from the others.
Sandstad requested the developer to provide a front elevation view prior to City
Council review of the project. Foote inquired about unit prices, and Jasper responded
that the base price for a non-walkout unit will be about$200,000 and they will go up
from there.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Habicht, to close the Public Hearing.
Motion carried 6-0.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Ismail, to recommend approval of the
request for Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 4.3 acres, Site Plan Review on 4.3
acres, and Preliminary Plat of 4.3 acres into 10 lots located at Baker Road at St.
Andrew's Drive based on plans dated June 7, 1996, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 9, 1996,including the stipulation
that the proponent provide an accurate front elevation rendering of the 6-unit building
prior to City Council review. Motion carried 6-0.
F. REALITY INTERACTIVE by Oppidan Investment Company. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Industrial on 6.42 acres, Planned
Unit Development Concept Amendment on 100 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review with waivers on 6.42 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2
on 6.42 acres, Site Plan Review on 6.42 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 20.5 acres into
1 lot and 2 outlots for construction of a 40,000 sq. ft. building. Location: Equitable
Drive.
Kipp introduced Keith Ulstad,principal with Oppidan Investment Company. Ulstad
reviewed the proposal and described the companies which will be using the building.
They requested to have an office use of 75%but have industrial zoning to retain the
warehouse designation. They are in agreement with the stipulations listed in the staff
report. The landscaping plan exceeds City requirements and he believed perhaps it
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday,August 12, 1996
Page 10
could be rearranged to meet the concerns expressed in the staff report. They have
been working on the exterior design of the building to comply with the tenant
requirements. Sandstad inquired if they have figured out the trail connection and
Ulstad responded there was provision for a trail up to the northwest part of the site
but he has not acquired the parcel on which this trail segment is to be located. Ulstad
stated that Equitable had been notified they will have to meet this requirement,but he
has not heard whether they will do so or not.
Clinton inquired when they expected to move into the new facility and Ulstad
responded possibly October. Reality Interactive is his only tenant thus far.
Kipp reviewed the staff report,noting that the Edenvale PUD was approved in 1982.
Staff recommended approval subject to the stipulations listed in the staff report. He
reviewed the waivers and the reasons for these requests noting that staff supports
these waivers given the history of the PUD.
Habicht inquired why the trail location had not come up at the time the Samson site
was approved and Kipp responded that it was not fine tuned enough to determine
exactly where the trail location would be. Habicht inquired if the landscaping deficit
in the rear would present a problem and Kipp responded he had some concern and
believed that it could be addressed by adding a few plantings and shifting others to
screen the rear of the building. Foote inquired about the future creek crossing and
Kipp responded that there was a bridge there now but was inaccessible due to the
location of the water. Final trail connections are planned when Highway 212 is
constructed.
The Public Hearing was opened.
No one present wished to speak.
MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Habicht, to close the Public Hearing and
recommend approval for Oppidan Investment Company for request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Industrial on 6.42 acres, Planned
Unit Development Concept Amendment on 100 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review with waivers on 6.42 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2
on 6.42 acres, Site Plan Review on 6.42 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 20.5 acres into
1 lot and 2 outlots for construction of a 40,000 sq. ft.building based on plans dated
July 22, 1996 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August
9, 1996 and the stipulation that the landscape plan be approved by staff. Motion
carried 6-0.
G. RESEARCH ADDITION by Research,Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 26.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 26.2
acres,Zoning District Amendment in the I-5 Zoning District on 26.2 acres, Site Plan
Review on 26.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 26.2 acres into 21ots. Location: Flying
Cloud Drive.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, August 12, 1996
Page 11
John Dietrich,RLK Associates,representing Research, Inc.,reviewed the plans. He
discussed the plat specifics regarding the request for site plan approval, and stated
that a portion of the property located in the southeast comer of the site was
condemned when Highway 169 was constructed, which constituted a hardship for
them now when they attempted to develop the site.
Franzen reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the
requests subject to the stipulations listed in the staff report, and was agreeable to
having the parking setback at 0'given the taking of property when Highway 169 was
constructed.
Claude Johnson,President of Research, Inc. stated they have requested a permanent
waiver for the parking area on the southeast comer of the site in part to preserve a
large oak tree on the site. Foote inquired how large the oak tree was and Johnson
responded between 36" to 40" in diameter. Ismail inquired what Research, Inc.
manufactures. Johnson responded that they were one of the first commercial
buildings in Eden Prairie and they manufacture high-tech products. Wissner stated
she had no objection to the 0'parking setback because the trees on the site provided
screening from the adjacent properties as well as the roadway.
• The Public Hearing was opened.
No one present wished to speak.
Sandstad stated he applauded the decision to build a building around a large oak tree.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Habicht,to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Research, Inc. for Planned Unit Development Concept
Review on 26.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 26.2 acres,
Zoning District Amendment in the I-5 Zoning District on 26.2 acres, Site Plan Review
on 26.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 26.2 acres into 2 lots based on plans dated
August 9, 1996 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August
1996. Motion carried 6-0.
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
None.
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
None.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
None.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, August 12, 1996
Page 12
VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Franzen commented that the next Planning Commission agenda would have three small public
hearings and the Eden Apple Orchard item for discussion.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-
0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.