Planning Commission - 08/14/1995 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 1995
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote,
Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell,
Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp,
Mary Jane Wissner
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner
Elinda Bahley, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chair Katherine Kardell.
Ismail Ismail was absent; all other members were present.
H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
• MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Foote to approve the Agenda as
published. Motion carried 6-0-0.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote to approve the Minutes of
July 24, 1995 as amended: page 6, last paragraph, change Edina to Plymouth.
Motion carried 6-0-0.
IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. KINDERCARE by Kindercare. Request for Zoning District Amendment in
the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 2.75
acres. Location: Hwy 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway.
Franzen indicated that the Planning Commission directed the developer, after
approving the concept plan, to go back and prepare the final plans for the
property. The 4 changes are reflected in the Staff Report. Staff recommended
approval according to the recommendations on page 2 and 3 of the Staff
Report, which are standard items required for all projects.
MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Clinton, to close the public
• hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Clinton, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Kindercare for Zoning District Amendment
based on plans dated August 11, 1995, and subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated August 11, 1995. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 3: Wissner moved, seconded by Clinton, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Kindercare for Site Plan Review on 2.75
acres based on plans dated August 11, 1995, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 11, 1995. Motion carried
6-0-0.
B. LAUKKA-JARVIS DEVELOPMENT by Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to amend the MUSA line, Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 42.2 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review on 15.2 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.2 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 43.2 acres into 48 lots. Location: South of Riverview
Road and east of Riverview Drive.
Franzen noted that at the last meeting the Planning Commission asked for the
developer to prepare a traffic study, and complete the detailed changes listed in
the Staff Report regarding landscaping, architectural diversity, sidewalks, tree
replacement and roads. These have been completed.
• Peter Jarvis from Laukka-Jarvis Development reviewed the revised changes for
the site. The changes include that the 52 lots are now 48 lots, 25 foot
setbacks are met everywhere and the free standing lot on the northeast corner
has been eliminated. One additional change not reflected in the Staff Report is
to have a sidewalk on only one side of the street, and an 8 foot bituminous
trail. This was a requirement of the Parks Commission.
Franzen indicated that the Parks Commission recommended that the majority
of the trees to be replaced should be hardwoods, specifically oak, maple and
ash, which are in the revised plans. The results of the traffic study are
reflected in the Staff Report. Staff recommended Alternative 1 listed in the
Staff Report.
Sandstad asked if the stop sign at County Road 4 and Riverview will be a 4
way stop. Gray replied that it's a possibility and could be more than 2. The
recommendation is eastbound westbound stop.
Foote asked if there are any plans to extend Mooer Lane. Gray replied that at
the current time there isn't a plan to construct a residential street on a right-of-
way. It would depend on what benefits there might be from doing that and
would likely be built when homes are built adjacent to it.
• 2
Rick Crosby,, residing at 10366 Concord Drive, noted that he is not
comfortable with the density transfer. He feels a more fair and reasonable
plan would be to put R1-13.5 on the bluff next to R1-22 and R1-44.
Nick Gatto, residing at 10253 Concord Drive, expressed concern about the
traffic pattern. He lives right on the corner of Concord and Homeward Hills.
His driveway is on a steep slope and he's concerned about the increase in
traffic by the blind corner. He's also concerned about the safety of his 3 small
children as a result of the increase in traffic. He doesn't understand how the
Engineering Department came up with half the traffic to go down Riverview
and half to go up Concord. He was also concerned about people not staying
within the 30 mile per hour speed limit.
Gray noted that once the straightening out expansion of Riverview Road takes
place, it's going to make a big difference in the traffic.
Kardell suggested neighborhood newsletters or neighborhood watch programs
to help with the speeding problem.
Sharon Clements, residing at 10299 Concord Drive, noted that she lives at
the other corner, and when she runs with her husband there have been many
times when she has had to step back to avoid being hit by cars at that corner.
• She feels that 18 more cars in that area will increase the traffic very much.
She is not in favor of removing trees to open up the blind spot at that corner.
Laura Blumel, residing at 10540 W. Riverview Drive, expressed concern
about the density and the fact that it's 6 to 7 units per acre. She is concerned
about there being only 10 feet between houses. This is an area where it's
supposed to be sensitive to the bluff yet there will be runoff in the area where
it will be susceptible to erosion. She questioned about anywhere else in the
City this type of zoning is permitted.
Franzen noted that the cluster homes that Centex built are on 5000 to 8000
square foot lots. There is also an older part of Eden Prairie off of Summer
Hill Drive that have a 10 foot setback in between the buildings.
Blumel was concerned that there is not a good transition. She noted that it's a
poor move to put a much higher density of houses at the beginning of the
traffic pattern because all this traffic then moves through the loop. She also
expressed concern about the donated property. She resents the fact that
they're making a change in her neighborhood to get some access to a natural
resource. She would like that area protected.
• 3
Franzen noted that there City is no density transfer from the flood plain. If a
full transer occurred, there would be 108 units in the upper flat portion of the
property. There is partial density transfer off the bluff only.
Colin . residing at 12173 Riverview Road, agrees with Laura Blumel.
He is opposed to the increased density and it doesn't make sense in terms of
the traffic. He commented that Concord is not a straight road, that it curves
in and out and there are always parked cars there. Most of the cars travel
down the middle of the road and it's more of a danger for the children.
Robert Gertinger, residing at 10326 Concord Drive, was concerned about
the traffic issue. He was also concerned about the amount of houses, and the
houses being so close together. He noted that people are not going to use
Riverview Road no matter how many lanes are put on.
Jarvis indicated that it was not their intent to develop the low area below the
bluff. Their idea was to consolidate development on top of the bluff and
preserve the bluff and flood plain. The neighbors are talking about high
density, but they are forgetting the fact that 44 units could be developed on
this property including under the 13.5 combination of 13.5 and 22.5.
Foote feels this is an extremely responsible way to develop adjacent to the
bluff area. He noted that traffic is a problem everywhere, and that the people
who live in the area are the ones who are speeding. He likes the idea of
staying off the bluff, putting houses on top of the bluff, and saving the trees.
He supports the project.
Schlampp agreed. It's a good development, and the improvement on
Riverview Road will alleviate a lot of problems. He supports the project.
Sandstad stated that the project is very much improved from the first time
around. It works on every basis that they compared it to, and he supports the
project.
Clinton noted that there isn't anything they can do to stop the speeders when
the speeders are the people from the neighborhood. He supports the project.
Kardell indicated that she supports the project.
MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton, to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 2: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Laukka-Jarvis Development for
• 4
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to amend the MUSA line, Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 42.2 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review on 15.2 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.2 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 43.2 acres into 48 lots. Motion carried 6-0-0.
C. DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5 COMMERCIAL CENTER by Tandem
development and Kindercare. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural
to Neighborhood Commercial, Site Plan Review on 4.47 acres, Preliminary
Plat of 4.47 acres into 2 lots, Planned Unit Development Concept Review and
Planned Unit Development District Review on 4.47 acres. Location: Dell
Road and Highway 5.
Franzen noted that the Planning Commission looked at this project 3 weeks
ago. The Commission continued the item so that a traffic study could be
prepared and to resolve those issues regarding architecture, landscaping, and
lighting details. The developer has a written narrative of what they will
commit to regarding proof of parking, trash and mechanical screening and
detailed plans have been changed. A traffic study has been completed.
Dick Putnam of Tandem Development, reviewed the revisions of his project
with the Planning Commission. The project is composed of 2 parts, one is the
Kindercare development on the west end, and the second portion of the project
is a commercial neighborhood area comprised of 3 buildings. One is a
proposed Holiday store with a small gas operation located in the southwest
corner of the site with it's back to Cascade Drive. The middle of the building
is intended for a video store and a multiple type commercial tenant such as a
sporting goods store and dry cleaners. The third building is a proposed family
type restaurant, and at this point they have no tenant.
Putnam noted that the buildings have pitched roofs with brick and stucco, glass
exterior, and an asphalt shingle roof. All of the mechanical equipment is
behind the roof so it's not seen from any angle. The trash enclosures are all
interior to the building. They have provided a loop driveway system so you
can enter at either location. This also saves the trees on the median down the
center of the roadway, and this is why they have 2 sites. They have revised
the landscaping plan to reflect the addition of trees for screening. They have
also adhered to the 25 foot lighting standard.
Dennis Hanson of RLK Associates, reviewed the traffic study. He noted that
the purpose of the study was to determine the trip generation that the project
would produce, and determine the impact on the roadway system of the traffic
projects, and investigate improvements that might be necessary to these traffic
impacts on the road systems surrounding the site.
• 5
that the trattic study says that the tratnc is higher hian she appioveu YUD anu
that there is some traffic turning conflicts between the commercial and
residential uses and Cascade Drive. Based on that information, there is a need
to revise the concept plan to reduce traffic.
Barbara Boyle, residing at 18322 Cascade Drive, noted that she and Rick
Kohler are the 2 designated spokespeople for the neighborhood coalition. She
lives in the very first unit on Dell Road, the west unit in the first twinhome
directly across south from the location of the proposed Holiday 24 hour gas
station and convenience store. The focus of their opposition is on the issue of
increased traffic and noise, decreased public safety and potential effects on the
environment.
They have been lead to believe that the developer intended to meet with each
of the first 4 units just off of Dell Road because of the impact they will feel
when this commercial center is built. After meeting with Mr. Putnam, she
noticed inconsistencies. She was told that they will not notice that a
commercial center is there. According to Mr. Putnam, he did not meet each
of the 4 individuals in the first 4 units like he said he would. She feels that as
perspective buyers, they should have been aware of the full extent of this
proposed commercial center through sales materials in area homes.
She was also concerned about the difficulty she would have backing out of her
driveway once this commercial site is built. She noted that she was taken off
guard when Mr. Putnam demonstrated how she would have to back out of her
driveway on to the City sidewalk as the solution.
Rick Kohler, residing at 7846 Donnelly Cove noted that he represents the
people that were present in the room. He talked about what the City's duties
are with respect to zoning like this. He said that Minnesota law is to represent
interests of public health, safety and welfare of citizens. The people present
tonight are part of the public and they do not want this project there, and there
have been over 200 households who signed a petition stating this. This
represents 80% of the neighbors that are directly effected by this.
He expressed concern about the potential gas leakage on the east side of
Mitchell Lake. The area is residential and the commercial development
doesn't fit in the overall scheme of this area. There are currently 16 gas
stations operating in Eden Prairie, and there are 7 gas stations within a mile
and a half of this corner. The City Council also approved a gas convenience
store about a mile to the south where there's been discussion about when Dell
Road is going through. This will make 8 gas stations within a mile and a half
of this corner. There is a convenience store down the road where Super
• 6
America is, a Blockbuster and a dry cleaners. None of the things proposed to
go in this commercial center are needed.
He expressed concern about a gas spill on the wetland near this project, about
the tree loss, about the noise issue, about the lighting from the service station
itself, and about the headlights from cars in the wintertime. He noted that the
present proposal is inconsistent with the original approved PUD. The
developer and Holiday have been made aware that the neighborhood doesn't
want this project. This tells him that this project is not for the neighborhood,
but for the traffic on Highway 5.
Wade Dillon, residing at 7932 Cimarron Lane, expressed concern about the
traffic study conducted, and asked what the criteria is for A, B, C to be
determined.
Hansen commented that A is very good service, very little delay in traffic
passing through the intersection. It then goes down on a scale. B is the next
level which represents a little bit of delay in traffic that might go through the
intersection. C is where you might encounter up to 30 seconds in delay to get
into the intersection. Thirty seconds is normally considered tolerable.
Mike Derickson, 7954 Cimarron Lane,, directed his comments to the traffic
issues. He's a marketing manager who has experience with the operation of
convenience stores. He commented that of all the 16 retail outlet stores in
Eden Prairie, they are all connected to a brand name. He does not feel
Cascade fits in with this. He looked at how far the ingress and egress is from
the nearest residents, and the closest was Tom Thumb on Dell Road to be
about 70 feet.
He expressed great concern about the curve in the road being a big issue. He
also was concerned about the health hazards of the gases from cars idling
there. There will be an average of 375 customers coming a day and
purchasing gas, but that doesn't include the customers using the convenience
store or the fast food.
Mark Nelson, a representative from Holiday Stores, noted that the numbers
they have used is an estimate based on all the customers for the day, including
the gas and the convenience store together. The transaction number is the
total number. They do not expect to have fast food in the store.
A resident asked what the gross sales per gas are versus what the gross sales
of the convenience store are. Nelson replied that is privileged information.
i 7
Nick Olson, residing at 18258 Cascade Drive, expressed concern about
property values decreasing. He asked what time do they expect gas deliveries
to be at that location. Nelson replied they are usually during off peak hours,
usually mid to late afternoon.
Sandstad expressed concern about how the gas tankers will be able to enter the
site and make deliveries because it seems very tight. Nelson replied that they
have designed it in a way that it will be in and out of the westerly driveway.
Jodi Heyman, residing; at 7859 Dover Cove, was concerned about the
dangers of the curve on Cascade Drive. She commented that right now people
are allowed to park on Cascade Drive that have townhomes.
Richard Smith, residing at 18322 Cascade Drive, was concerned about the
tree loss if the street is widened.
Ed Requet, residing at 18292 Cascade Drive, noted that his house sits right
across the street from the west entrance to the proposed site. He expressed
concern about how often the trash will get picked up and where the trash
receptacles will be. He was concerned about the wildlife in the area and what
will control those animals from getting into the rubbish and the debris left
outside the facility.
• Putnam indicated that that's the reason why all the trash is kept inside the
building.
Wissner asked how often the trash is picked up. Nelson replied that it would
probably be 2 or 3 times a week.
Wissner commented that it's not acceptable as a street to be handling this kind
of traffic. She was concerned about the turnaround for the person on the end
because there is no way this person can back out into a street. She commented
that the widening of the road would take out more trees and the buffer at that
site. She was concerned about a convenience store at that location, and would
like the developer to pursue different uses with less traffic.
Clinton stated that he can not support the project because it was inconsistent
with the PUD. He was concerned about the traffic impact. He noted that it
does not meet the City code parking requirements. He recommended that the
developer find something that would be beneficial to the neighborhood and the
developer.
Sandstad commented that the transition is not that good to the south especially
if a turning lane is added. He likes the Kindercare use and the restaurant use.
i 8
Foote agreed with Sandstad. He likes the Kindercare use, but is not
comfortable with the restaurant or convenience gas use because that tends to be
open 24 hours with high traffic generation. He encouraged the developer to
come up with something unique on this property, but was concerned that in
doing so, they are going to create more tree loss.
Schlampp agreed with Foote. He thinks commercial development is
appropriate, but not an all night convenience store and gas station. He was
concerned about the amount of traffic that would be coming in and out. He
feels a commercial development in that area done in a residential way is
something to be considered.
Kardell noted that she is comfortable with the commercial use at that site, but
was concerned about the traffic impact and visual impact on adjoining homes.
She supports recommendation #2 in the Staff Report asking the developer to go
back and find another use for this property.
Putnam commented that he believes that whatever use they come up with for
this site, the neighborhood will be against it. He feels that they want it to
remain undeveloped.
John Millov, residing at 17727 , commented that the property is not
• zoned commercial so it doesn't cost $250,000 an acre. He suggested that the
homeowners investigate buying the 4.5 acres.
The Commissioners agreed that was a very good suggestion.
MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton to continue the public
hearing to September 11, 1995. Motion carried 6-0-0.
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
Clinton noted that he spoke to Mike about providing information to the
residents of the full process of the Planning Commission, and the need for the
Ellen Prairie guide plan maps in the Council Chambers.
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
None.
VU. NEW BUSEVESS
None.
• 9
VM. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Franzen noted that there are 3 items on the agenda for the August 28, 1995
meeting. One is Abra Auto Body, Pioneer Ridge 2nd Addition, and Amoco
Car Wash.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Sandstad to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 6-0-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 P.M.
10
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, August 14, 1995- 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Ismail Ismail,
Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Edward
Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner
Don Uram, Economic Development Manager
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL
H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. MINUTES
IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. KINDERCARE by Kindercare. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the
Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 2.75 acres.
Location: Hwy 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway.
B. LAUKKA-JARVIS DEVELOPMENT by Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to amend the MUSA line, Planned Unit
• Development Concept Review on 42.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District
Review on 15.2 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.2 acres, Preliminary
Plat of 43.2 acres into 52 lots. Location: South of Riverview Road and east of
Riverview Drive.
C. DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5 COMMERCIAL CENTER by Tandem
Development and Kindercare. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural
to Neighborhood Commercial, Site Plan Review on 4.47 acres, Preliminary Plat
of 4.47 acres into 2 lots, Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Planned
Unit Development District Review on 4.47 acres. Location: Dell Road and
Highway 5.
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS
IX. ADJOURNMENT