Planning Commission - 10/14/1996 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, October 14, 1996 7:00 p.m.
�ONINUSSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell,
Douglas Sandstad,Mary Jane Wissner
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. ALBIN CHAPEL by Albin Chapel. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 2.47 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.47 acres,Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning
District on 2.47 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.47 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres into 2 lots and Code
Amendment to allow funeral homes as a permitted use in the Office Zoning District. Location: Rowland Road
and Old Shady Oak Road.
Continued Public Hearing:
B. EDEN BLUFFS by Baton Corporation. Request for PUD Amendment on 44 acres,PUD District Review on
1.53 acres,Zoning District Amendment in RM-6.5 District,Site Plan Review on 1.53 acres,and Preliminary Plat
for 1.53 acres. Location: Sherman Drive at County Road 1.
Continued Public Hearing:
C. BEARPATH 7TH ADDITION by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Change from Open Space to Low Density Residential on 68 acres,Planned Unit Development Concept Review
on 420 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 68 acres,Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 68
acres,and Preliminary Plat of 68 acres into 38 lots. Location: North of Bearpath Trail and south of Rice Marsh
Lake.
D. VICTORY LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION by Victory Lutheran Church. Request for Zoning District
Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 5.9 acres and Site Plan Review on 5.9 acres. Location:Eden
Prairie Road at Berger Drive.
E. BARTUS ADDITION by Dan Bartus. Request for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on.44 acres. Location:
Baker Road at St.Andrew.
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
Rescheduling of Planning Commission Dates
�VIII. PLANNERS'REPORTS
a. Flying Cloud Airport Design Framework Manual- Scott Kipp
b. Average Setback Code Change
C. PUD Minimum Area Code Change
IX. ADJOURNMENT
APPROVED MINUTES
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 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, Al Gray, City Engineer,
and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL
Chair Clinton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Kardell and Habicht
were excused.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to approve the Agenda as published.
Motion carried 5-0.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Wissner,to approve the Minutes of the September
23, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting as submitted. Motion carried 5-0.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ALBIN CHAPEL by Albin Chapel. Request for Planned unit Development
Amendment Review on 2.47 acres,Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning
District on 2.47 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.47 acres,Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres
into 2 lots and Code Amendment to allow funeral homes as a permitted use in the
Office Zoning District. Location: Rowland Road and Old Shady Oak Road.
Franzen noted staff had received a letter requesting this item be continued until the
October 28, 1996 Planning Commission meeting to allow the proponents time to
address the concerns raised by the Planning Commissioners during the initial review
of this project.
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner,to continue the request for Albin
Chapel for Request for Planned unit Development Amendment Review on 2.47 acres,
• Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.47 acres, Site Plan
Review on 2.47 acres,Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres into 2 lots and Code Amendment
to allow funeral homes as a permitted use in the Office Zoning District until the
October 28, 1996 meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion carried 5-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, October 14, 1996
Page 2
B. EDEN BLUFFS by Baton Corporation. Request for PUD Amendment on 44 acres,
PUD District Review on 1.53 acres,Zoning District Amendment in RM-6.5 District
on 1.53 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.53 acres, and Preliminary Plat for 1.53 acres.
Location: Sherman Drive at County Road 1.
Kipp commented the proponent met with the Eden Bluffs Association and held a
neighborhood meeting to address the concerns raised by the neighborhood residents
at the Planning Commission meeting of September 9, 1996. In addition, the plans
were revised based on the Staff Report and neighborhood input.
Jan Zedlik,Baton Corporation, stated they met with the Eden Bluffs Homeowners
Association and answered questions. They held a neighborhood meeting and had
been asked to put boulders at the end of one of the driveways. They met with their
landscape architect and had endeavored to incorporate this feature into their plans.
City Engineer Al Gray met with them to address the drainage concerns. She noted
they were submitting their original proposal with additions requested by the
neighborhood residents.
Kipp reviewed the staff report and the landscape plan has been revised per the
stipulations in the staff report. They are in the process of obtaining a cross access
• easement and this needs to be finalized prior to building permit issuance. These plans
will be required to conform to the 1992 Uniform Building Code. Sandstad inquired
if staff had looked at the existing townhomes or just reviewed the records. Kipp
responded that they looked at their records and the inspection reports but had not
inspected the buildings themselves. Sandstad inquired if staff had drawn any
conclusions regarding what might be the cause of the deterioration, and if not,
requested that staff look into this issue.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Jerry Marx, 10961 Old Wagon Trail, stated he flew over the area and took pictures
of the site. He felt that the buffering should be increased as it was presently
inadequate. He passed pictures he had taken from the air around to the Planning
Commissioners.
Richard Schultek, 422 West County Road D,New Brighton, stated he worked for
Wooddale Realty, and was selling townhomes that were located to the west of the
subject property. He believed the landscaping plans should be available for residents
to view. Zedlik responded that the renderings they have, do not reflect the addition
of the boulders,but she illustrated where they would be located on the site plan.
Erik Isum, 10676 Jackson Drive, inquired about the manhole and when it was
installed. Gray responded that the old pipe going into the manhole was blocked off
and there were only two pipes going out which is what should be there. There will
be limited drainage into the wetland.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, October 14, 1996
Page 3
Foote inquired why the evergreens along the border were of different heights and
Kipp responded that it was done this way to present a more natural effect. Foote
inquired how close to the property line unit 2 was and Kipp responded that a 10 foot
setback was allowed in this zoning district. The garage was located about 18 feet
from the property line and there was a 10 foot grading and drainage easement in this
area also. The location of the existing house is 10 feet from the property line so there
will be 20 feet between them.
Sandstad stated he believed sufficient improvements had been made to the plans so
that he could move the project forward. Ismail stated he was disappointed in the
memo from the Building Inspector as it did not really address their questions. He
concurred that the project should be moved forward. Wissner stated she wished to
be sure no one representing the Townhome Homeowners Association was present,
and no one spoke up. She believed the project was acceptable with the additional
landscaping and stated she would support it. Foote stated he would like to see more
room between the townhomes and single family but the proposed plan was a
compromise and he supported the project. Clinton commented most of the issues had
been resolved and he was supportive of the present plan as proposed.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote,to close the Public Hearing. Motion
. carried 5-0.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend approval of Eden
Bluffs by Baton Corporation for PUD Amendment on 44 acres, PUD District Review
on 1.53 acres,Zoning District Amendment in RM-6.5 District on 1.53 acres, Site Plan
Review on 1.53 acres, and Preliminary Plat for 1.53 acres based on plans dated
September 19, 1996 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
October 11, 1996. Motion carried 5-0.
C. BEARPATH 7TH ADDITION by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open Space to Low Density Residential on
68 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 420 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 68 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 68
acres, and Preliminary Plat of 68 acres into 38 lots. Location: North of Bearpath Trail
and south of Rice Marsh Lake.
Jeff Anderson, the attorney representing Bearpath Limited Partnership introduced
Rod Hardy and John Vogelbacher. Anderson stated that during a previous review the
Planning Commission had been concerned about the location of the lots and the
degree of tree loss and they have revised their plans to address these concerns.
John Vogelbacher stated they are requesting a waiver for access to Lot 6 to encroach
10 into the shore impact zone.
Sandstad commented he liked the revisions and believed the proponents had done all
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday,October 14, 1996
Page 4
that had been asked of them except for changing the access to Lot 6 and eliminating
the waiver.
Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted that the proponents had reduced the
amount of tree loss to 35%by revising their plans. The tree replacement plan needs
to be completed prior to review by the Park Commission. Also, revision of the
preliminary plat to eliminate the waiver for the access to Lot 6 needs to be done.
Clinton inquired about the length of the driveway for Lot 6 and Vogelbacher
responded that it was necessary to have if this long to put the house in the proposed
location.
The Public Hearing was opened.
] Robert Rose, 18708 Erin Bay, stated that when he was looking for a home to
purchase he had contacted the City to inquire about the plans for the western side of
Rice Marsh Lake and had been told that it was to be public open space. He had been
informed that this project was a"ghost project"by City staff because Highway 212
was scheduled to go through this area. It was stated that they had only set this area
aside until it was determined what uses should be made of this land. He believed that
someone should be held accountable for what was said at City Hall. There are flags
on the site and trees are tagged and it needs to be decided what is really going to be
done with this area.
Doug Kelso, 18744 Erin Bay, stated that in July of 1983 when they had looked at
building their home in this location he had been told that there would not be any
development on the other side of the lake and it was an open space. On that basis he
made the decision to build his home in its present location. He asked the Planning
Commission to look at what the Engineering Department has been saying to people.
Highway 212 is not a dead issue and it could be a big problem in the future.
Larry Zieske, 18803 Magenta Bay, stated he was very opposed to the rezoning of the
land and wished to see the preservation of the area as a wild and natural area. He had
been told that the land would remain as a natural area. He also felt that Highway 212
was a viable roadway and not a dead issue. The current request is motivated by the
developers needs,not what the community needs. He believed the overall philosophy
regarding this land needs to be answered by the DNR, specifically regarding crossing
the creek. If this land is rezoned it would be a breach of what had been said by City
staff. He noted that it would be impossible to connect the lots on the northern portion
of the site to the remainder of the development once Highway 212 is built.
Tom Winegarden, 18762 Erin Bay, was concerned that the Planning Commission
seemed to be encouraging this development and it was unethical as he believed this
project was set aside as a wildlife area and if homes go into this area the ridge will be
covered with buildings and a forest will be lost along with the natural habitat. It
should stay a natural area. He was angry and opposed to this project and intended to
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, October 14, 1996
Page 5
devote time and energy to mobilizing the political process to get this project stopped.
Dan Seeler, 18831 Magenta Bay, stated he purchased his home three years ago in
Winfield Development, and he went to the City to find out about the land across the
lake during the purchase process. He was told it was designated as park area and
there were no plans to develop this area. He expressed concern to staff regarding this
proposal and was told that there was no intention of this project being developed but
the owners were trying to properly value the land by making this proposal. At the
September 23, 1996 Planning Commission meeting he discovered there was
something planned for this area and he believed misinformation was being
disseminated which was designed to keep this proposal in a low profile. He believed
there was more going on with this proposal that development on the lake.
Steve Campbell, 19067 Magenta Bay, stated he had been promised by his builder as
recently as 10 months ago that the area across the lake would remain as open space.
He stated he concurred with the sentiments expressed by the previous speakers.
Roger Croy, 18862 Erin Way, stated he had been told this area would not be
developed and he agreed with his neighbors that the development should not proceed.
• Nick Ayoon, 181 Fire Point, stated he was ashamed to hear how many people had
been misled by staff. They had been told that this was an open space and it was not
consistent with the plans of Eden Prairie to develop this area. He asked that the City
take responsibility for the misinformation dispensed by City Staff.
Franzen stated that in 1993 the Guide plan showed open space and Highway 212.
The Highway 212 plans show no access to land on the north side of 212, so if the
road is built there would be no homes between the highway and Rice Marsh Lake.
With this scenario, there would be more open space than would be if it were
developed as single family residential only. He described other projects similar to this
one which were put together to get the state to purchase the land before it was
developed. The City code requires notification of residents within 500 feet of a site
being proposed for development, and in this instance staff determined that a larger
area should be notified because the 500 foot dimension falls in the middle of the lake.
The 150 foot setback requirement from the lake was part of the Shorland Ordinance
and will contain a trail which will be built no matter what else is constructed in this
area.
Wissner commented that in 1993 this property was not included in the initial
application but the proponents owned the land. There are no guarantees that land will
never be developed. Franzen commented that his opinion on if the land would
idevelop for residential was based on previous decisions of the State of Minnesota to
purchase highway land for development in Eden Prairie and previous developers who
chose to plat outside of the corridor.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, October 14, 1996
Page 6
i
Anderson stated that they do not see Highway 212 being built and feel they have the
right to develop their property. If MnDOT wanted to buy the land they would be in
a position to negotiate a sale. MnDOT has not done anything with this and at last
review completion of Highway 212 was scheduled for the year 2015. Their only
option is to go forward with this plan in a way which benefits the landowners and the
community. They have tried to address the concerns expressed by the Commission.
Their intent is to build this project and they will move forward with the approval
process. He noted they would prefer not to have the creek crossing but they could
not find another option which was acceptable. They are sensitive to what the
residents are saying but they have the right to develop their property.
Foote commented he was disturbed by this type of project as he held the Highway 212
right-of-way to be sacred. If it was a "ghost" project, he could not support it.
Wissner inquired ifthe project was approved, when would MnDOT become involved
and Gray responded that the City expected that MnDOT would purchase the
property. He understood that MnDOT had made an offer for the property. Highway
212 will be constructed as platted and that is what people can expect to see there.
Anderson stated that if the State were to condemn the property or issue an injunction
to stop the project that is one thing,but they are prepared to pursue the project to
• completion. It would be easier to sit down with MnDOT and work out a solution.
Foote inquired if MnDOT would have to have City approval before they purchased
the property and Gray responded that MnDOT could purchase the property at any
time. Approved high-value residential property would be a good negotiating tool for
Bearpath and give them greater profits.
Vogelbacher asked what the role of the Planning Commission was and the function
of that body. They are going forward with the plan and this is the plan which has the
least amount of impact on the adjacent land and the least amount of tree loss. Homes
are designed to fit in around the existing trees. He noted they have the right to use
this property and they have the best plan before the Planning Commission who have
an obligation to take action. They believe this is the best use of the land and the
project meets the Code requirements.
Sandstad stated he was concerned about this project because they have not had any
proposals in the Highway 212 corridor. He was considering the implications of
approving a project on land which the State may be forced to acquire in the future.
He was concerned about the legality of approving a project which was wholly
included in the Highway 212 Corridor, and while he appreciated the improvements
made by Bearpath which were requested by the Planning Commission, he felt that
they should step back and consider the further implications of the proposal.
• Clinton commented that the project could be continued for two weeks to allow them
to get more information. He was concerned about whether there was a negotiation
between Bearpath and the State of Minnesota. Wissner agreed and suggested they
obtain a written opinion from legal counsel on this issue as she did not want to
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, October 14, 1996
Page 7
•
approve something that could have significant ramifications in the future. Foote
commented he would not approve the project at all unless Lot 6 was deleted from the
plans.
Ismail stated he was uncomfortable about the citizen comments in reference to City
staff and allegations of mis-communication. He would like to have more information
regarding the Highway 212 issue and the legality of approving such a project.
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner,to continue Bearpath Th Addition
by Bearpath Limited Partnership for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open
Space to Low Density Residential on 68 acres,Planned Unit Development Concept
Review on 420 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 68 acres,
Rezoning fromRural to R1-13.5 on 68 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 68 acres into 38
lots until the Planning Commission meeting on October 28, 1996 to allow time for a
legal brief to be written regarding the issues involved with this project and the
Highway 212 Corridor. Motion carried 5-0.
D. VICTORY LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION by Victory Lutheran Church.
Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 5.9
acres and Site Plan Review on 5.9 acres. Location: Eden Prairie Road at Berger
Drive.
Kipp reviewed the staff report and noted that staff recommended approval of the
request.
Orlando Narc, representing the church, showed building renderings and additional
photographs of the existing building. Wissner inquired about the roof on the addition
and Narc responded that it will have just enough pitch to provide drainage.
The Public Hearing was opened.
No one present wished to speak.
Foote commented he supported the project.
MOTION: Wissner moved, Ismail seconded, to close the Public Hearing and
recommend approval of the Victory Lutheran Church expansion for Zoning District
Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 5.9 acres and Site Plan Review on
5.9 acres based on plans dated October 11, 1996 and subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated October 11, 1996. Motion carried 5-0.
E. BARTUS ADDITION by Dan Bartus. Request for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5
on .44 acres. Location: Baker Road at St. Andrew.
Kipp reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, October 14, 1996
Page 8
0
request and noted the proponent agreed with the stipulations recommended in the
staff report.
Dan Bartus requested approval of the proposal and stated he will dedicate the
easement as required in the staff report. Kipp noted that staff had received calls
regarding this proposal but no one objected once they were told it would be a single
family home.
Ismail commented there would be no entrance from Baker Road but noted that the
lowest elevation of the home was close to the street elevation. Bartus stated that
there would be a four foot retaining wall on the property. Kipp stated this was not
a floodplain issue and there was an existing outlet going to the east and if there were
a flood event there was a curb overflow one foot below the elevation of the proposed
house, which would provide for drainage on the site.
The Public Hearing was opened.
No one present wished to speak.
Ismail commented he liked and supported the plan.
0 MOTION: Ismail moved, Foote seconded, to close the Public Hearing and
recommend approval for Bartus Addition by Dan Bartus for Rezoning from Rural to
R1-13.5 on .44 acres based on plans dated October 11, 1996 and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 11, 1996. Motion carried 5-0.
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
Sandstad stated he wished to request approval to attend a seminar on the Land Use Laws and
Franzen responded he would put in a request for this.
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
None.
VII. NEW BUSINESS -Rescheduling of Planning Commission Dates
Franzen noted that the Planning Commission meeting of November 11, 1996 was on
Veteran's Day and City Hall was closed. The meeting could be rescheduled for Tuesday,
November 12th and staff has reserved the Council Chambers for that date. Otherwise, four
projects will have to be continued until the second meeting in November. The consensus of
the Planning Commission was to meet on November 12, 1996.
Franzen noted that traditionally the Planning Commission has decided not to hold the second
meeting in December because it falls too close to the holidays . The consensus of the Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday,October 14, 1996
Page 9
Commission was that this meeting would not be held.
VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS
A. Flying Cloud Airport Design Framework Manual
Kipp reviewed the purpose of the manual and its intent which was to create a
framework for cohesive design at the Flying Cloud Airport which would provide more
uniformity whenever a hangar was constructed or rebuilt. Sandstad inquired if there
was any leverage in the manual that could be used to coerce people to follow these
guidelines when they did not want to. Kipp responded that if MAC backed the
guidelines it would give them more leverage but it will bring some uniformity to the
airport if implemented because building permits are required. Compliance with the
manual is 100% voluntary but major building proposals will still involve the City
review process.
Ismail inquired who had building code jurisdiction at the airport and Kipp responded
that the City did based on Uniform Building Code. The manual was intended as a
recommendation only. Foote inquired if buildings at Flying Cloud had to go through
the City and Kipp responded that they had to obtain building permits from the City
which will require inspections to be done. Sandstad commented that buildings at
Flying Cloud did not have to abide by the Uniform Building Code unless it was a
public building because Flying Cloud Airport is federal property.
Kipp commented that MAC continues to monitor noise levels at Flying Cloud Airport
and the noise abatement signs are in place requesting pilots to use the southern
departure route if possible. He noted that the numbers were encouraging.
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend approval of the
Flying Cloud Airport Design Framework Manual dated July, 1996 and noted that this
action in no way reflects the City's position regarding the expansion of the runways.
Motion carried 5-0.
B. Average Setback Code Change
Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted that this reflects the actions of the Board
of Adjustments and Appeals. Staff recommended approval of this change.
MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Wissner, to recommend approval of the
Average Setback Code change. Motion carried 5-0.
C. PUD Minimum Area Code Change
Franzen reviewed the staff report and described the benefits of the changes to the
City. He noted that developers will have to meet the intent of the Subdivision 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, October 14, 1996
Page 10
section in order to qualify as a PUD. The Planning Commission would have to make
the determination regarding whether a project would qualify for PUD status under this
subsection. Foote inquired why 5 acres was the area proposed. Franzen responded
projects less than 5 acres are too small to offer something in return to the City . The
City has approved zoning related variances on most projects less than 15 acres, and
a reduced area would eliminate additional review by staff and the Board of Appeals.
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote,to recommend approval of the code
change to reduce the minimum size of a PUD from 15 to 5 acres. Motion carried
5-0.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Ismail moved, seconded by Foote,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.