Planning Commission - 09/11/1995 APPROVED MINUTES
• EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 11, 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.
Clinton was absent; all other members were present.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote to approve the Agenda as
published. Motion carried 6-0-0.
• III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Foote to approve the Minutes of
August 28, 1995 as published. Motion carried 6-0-0.
IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 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 ayes 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 this project was reviewed at the last Planning Commission
meeting. The primary issues are a reduction in traffic, transition on Cascade
Drive and storm water treatment. He introduced Dick Putnam, representing the
project.
Dick Putnam, of Tandem Development, presented the plan previously reviewed
by the Planning Commission, and the current proposal, using visual aids.
• The revised plan omits the convenience store/gas station. The restaurant is
• larger, but will not be a 24 hour operation. The multi tenant space would be
your normal dry cleaners, video store, and sporting goods store, which really
are not open late hours.
The Kindercare site plan is the same in the eastern portion of the site. The
driveway is 30 feet closer towards Dell Road, but is 150 feet away from the
intersection. The drainage ponds would work to pick up the water first from
the parking lot and building development, and discharge into the storm sewer
pipes. They are also able to keep some of the trees in the large island.
The parking went from 107 spaces to 134, which puts them in excess of any
other parking requirements for the use that they have. It's more parking than
required by the City. Franzen noted that the commercial plan does not have
excess parking. It meets City code for restaurant and retail use.
They have lowered the height of the buildings and brought up different roof
angles over the entrances so that it has variety to it. All signage was pulled off
the roof and put on the face of the buildings as required by City Code.
Building materials, in terms of brick, will remain the same. The heavy weight
asphalt shingle, gray and black combination, will remain the same, just a
different design on the building.
The Staff Report talks about relocating the ponding up in the proof-of-parking
• area on the Kindercare site. That's about the highest portion of the site on that
corner, and it doesn't work particularly well. The other problem would be
having to put significant fencing around it.
Erik Johnson, of RLK Associates, noted that there are a few options for the
pond. This plan shows a two pond system. One pond is located near the
Kindercare site, and one pond is located more near the Tandem portion of the
site. This drawing is set up with a 6 foot difference in elevation between the
Kindercare pond and the Tandem pond. The way this is designed is the
Kindercare site utilizes the storm water system throughout the parking lot and
drains down to a portion of the lot which would then drain into the pond. This
pond is large enough to act as a sedimentation basin to collect any runoff from
the parking lot.
Using the drawings, he illustrated the two options of how the ponds could
work.
Schlampp referred to the two pond plan, and asked if the west pond will pick
up the drain water from the west parking area. Johnson replied that the west
pond would pick up from the Tandem area, and the east pond picks up from
the east.
Schlampp was concerned about this being set up for a 10 year event, that if
they kept both ponds, it would allow them to go to a 100 year event.
Foote asked if they had any tenants lined up for this yet. Putnam replied that
they did have one, but that no longer is there.
Foote asked if their intention is to build prior to having tenants lined up.
Putnam indicated that getting the tenants is not the problem. The problem is
selecting the tenants. They have two or three prospective tenants for each type
of store.
Kardell was concerned about the total square footage of the revised plan versus
the old plan. Putnam replied that they are a couple of hundred square feet
under what was originally approved. The original proposal in August was
30,000 square feet, and this proposal is for 28,200 square feet. Franzen noted
the approved PUD was 28,300 sq. ft.
Wissner suggested an office building as a better land use like the Burnet
Reality building on Highway 5 because it has a residential look and would
generate considerably less traffic. Putnam replied that it would be possible.
Franzen reviewed the Staff Report with the Planning Commission highlighting
the five changes under Alternative II. Staff wants to make sure there is enough
horizontal distance back from Cascade Drive, and make sure they can preserve
• the larger trees because it provides a natural screen.
If the Planning Commission agrees with the two pond system and the buildings
as shown in this plan, it will take out a lot of natural vegetation that provides a
buffer. Staff would prefer that the developer find another location on the site
to put the pond system.
At the first meeting, the Planning Commission wasn't comfortable with that
transition, Staff felt it was important to add additional conifers beyond the 27
initial proposed.
Staff recommends increasing the roof height back to 28 feet because the lower
roof line makes it look more like a commercial mansard used for screening
mechanical equipment, than a roof intended to create a residential character.
Rick Koehler, residing at 7846 Donegal Cove, noted that the residents had an
opportunity to meet with Mr. Putnam and Mr. Ostenson, and he thanked them
for taking the time to do that. Most of the neighbors have recognized that
there is going to have to be something on this site as much as they want it to
remain in its natural state. The neighbors are concerned about Commercial use
not being the best for this site. There were concerns expressed about the
volume of traffic.
They would like restrictions put on the restaurant to limit their hours. He
suggested trying to do something different with this site, something unique
instead of just a strip mall. He likes the idea of an office building like the
Burnet Realty building. He agrees with raising the roof back up to 28 feet.
He suggested reducing the parking to save some of the trees. He feels that
28,000 square feet of building is very tight on this site, and suggested making
the building smaller rather than fitting it in. He would like to see a lot of
buffering along Dell Road. People from the Jamestown development to the
east expressed concern about whether or not there will be enough vegetation
buffer along the eastern side of Kindercare.
Barbara Boyle, residing at 18322 Cascade Drive, noted that the plan for the
turn-around on her driveway is not acceptable. She described where she feels
the turn-around should be located. She was concerned about the snow build up
to read the meters on the north side of her building, and the dangers of the
snow plows in the winter. She is opposed to the existing trees being removed
because they provide a barrier. She requested that the turn-around be
completed prior to any construction on this site.
Mary McKinsey, residing at 18320 Cascade Drive, was concerned that this
site is going to be another strip mall instead of creating something unique.
This strip mall is neither needed or wanted by the residents. The suggestion of
. an office building or professional building is very acceptable to her. She likes
the concept of the Burnet Reality building. Since Ahis site is at the entrance of
Eden Prairie from the west, she would like to see something much more
creative rather than another strip mall.
She was also concerned about the restaurant being a bar and grill type
restaurant which will rely on Highway 5 traffic. She does not want a bar in
the area with children riding down the sidewalk. She asked the Planning
Commission to carefully consider these comments of what the people really
want, rather than going ahead with something that is neither wanted or needed.
Wade Dillon, residing at 7932 Cimarron Lane, expressed concern about
having ponds because it will take away the vegetation and screening for
Cascade Drive. He was concerned about the traffic at Dell Road and Highway
5. He feels that if there were an accident, emergency vehicles would not be
able to get in at that juncture while the road isn't completed. He thinks that a
video store will generate a lot of traffic, and is concerned about a restaurant
with a liquor license. If the restaurant is successful, the parking will be
inadequate. He urged the developer to work on this plan more and maybe
come back with a professional building on this site.
Mary Mckinsey commented that the revised plan moves the entrance to the
commercial area much closer to Dell Road. This is almost exactly opposite her
• driveway which she shares with a neighbor, and is not acceptable to her.
Dick Smith, residing at 18322 Cascade Drive, was confused about whether
they are talking about a one pond plan or a two pond plan. Kardell replied that
this is only a discussion for a concept plan for 2 ponds.
Dick Smith was concerned about Cascade Drive being widened and there being
no stop light coming off Dell Road. He was concerned about loosing the big
oak trees instead of leaving them as buffers.
Franzen noted that the tree inventory is done by the developer and will be
verified by the City Forester, Stu Fox.
Jody Heyman, residing at 7859 Dover Cove, noted that she took around the
petition, and the petition states that they are opposed to any Commercial
development. 80% of the people in the area signed it. She was concerned that
it is still a Commercial development even with the petition. She is in favor of
Office development.
Paul Johnson, residing at 8060 Crescent Court, commented that whatever is
put on this site will remain for a very long time. He would not be opposed to
some type of Office, and Commercial complimentary to the Office.
Putnam indicated that they have an approved plan that the City told them to do.
The City had them put in storm water sewers and build ponds. They are only
. trying to do what they have been told, and if they want to see Office it can be
done. They would like to get the construction moving on the Kindercare, and
would like the okay to do that at this point.
Mike Derickson, residing at 7954 Cimarron Lane, expressed concern about
the traffic and the increased square footage and parking. They still have that
concern within the current proposal because of the curve and the width of that
road. He feels that Office use does have an appeal in a broad sense. He was
concerned about the strong aroma coming from the restaurant at that
intersection. He was also concerned about the noise from the restaurant, and
asked if there were any numbers on the traffic flow of that sort of
development.
Jim Ostenson, Tandem Development, commented that back in 1990 they were
challenged to put together a plan that empty nesters and young couples could
buy rather than rent. That was approved by the Planning Commission and it
included a Commercial component. It seemed that Commercial services would
be appropriate at the time. They went and developed the property according to
that. The Jamestown area was done exactly the way it was approved five years
ago, and the plan they came in with is almost identical with the same use.
They are working on another plan in Eden Prairie where it was Neighborhood
Commercial in the early planning stages. They wanted to put in an office
building and were told absolutely not because it has already been approved
Neighborhood Commercial.
He urged the Planning Commission to make a recommendation that they be
able to move on through the planning process to find out where this eventually
ends up.
Jeri Pedrocelli, residing at 17857 Cascade Drive, commented that in 1989
this was approved for a Commercial Residential area, yet no one made an
attempt to design Cascade to accommodate Commercial traffic. She was
concerned about the safety issues on Cascade as a result of heavy traffic. She
feels the right thing to do is what the community wants and the safety of the
community.
Dick Smith commented that no signs were put up on that property back at the
time that these decisions were being made. This way the people who bought
those homes and townhomes would be aware of the plans. He noted that he
never would have bought his home if he knew what was going on across the
street.
Wade Dillon commented that when there is a kink in a plan you fix it. The
Commission needs to look at this plan and see that something is not right.
Maybe the idea was right at the time, but now it's not right anymore.
Franzen noted that the traffic analysis of the amount of traffic that the daycare
generates is about the same amount of traffic as the restaurant and the retail.
It's about 50% of the traffic. It makes sense to look at improvements for a
turn lane on Cascade Drive, and the interim improvement on Dell Road.
Sandstad commented that there are some reasons for developing the property as
commercial and thought the plan was generally consistent with the PUD.
Schlampp commented that the developer has done what he was supposed to,
and he feels it is his obligation as a Commissioner to commend him on that.
He has made all the changes that were asked of him. He supports going ahead
with the Kindercare.
Foote agreed with Schlampp. However, he doesn't like the restaurant. He
would like to see Office in place of the restaurant. He supports Kindercare
moving along at this point. He has no problem with the rest of the
Commercial use. He would like to see the whole building moved to the north.
He understands Barbara Boyle's situation and supports putting that turn-around
on the west side. He supports Alternative III, but does not feel the developer
can be ready in time.
Ismail noted that he was not here for the meeting of August 14th and will
abstain from giving an opinion.
Wissner commented that the Kindercare could proceed now that they know the
road situation will improve. She has a concern about a restaurant such as
Dixies, which would be open late hours, and knows there would be a parking
problem. She would like to see another type of restaurant. She is not in favor
of a strip mall. She supports Alternative III.
Kardell commented that she is comfortable with some type of Commercial use
for this site because it is at the intersection of two major roads. She is not
comfortable with moving this ahead with Alternative II. She is comfortable
with going towards something consistent with the original PUD, which did
include an Office component, and reduce the scale of the retail. She is not
opposed to a restaurant. She was concerned about the Kindercare and the
traffic on Dell Road. She supports Alternative III, and wants some retail use
mixed with some Office use, and that is consistent with a Neighborhood use.
Wissner asked if there could be a limit on the size of the restaurant. Franzen
replied that the Planning Commission can control the size of the restaurant as a
condition of the PUD amendment and rezoning.
Foote noted that he favors one pond in place of two because it preserves more
trees, and the building moved to the north, and all the conditions in Alternative
III.
Sandstad commented that he would like to limit the hours of operation for the
site. Franzen replied that would go into the developer's agreement and deed
restrictions of the property.
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Schlampp to continue the public
hearing until September 25 with the 5 conditions outlined in alternative III, and
an additional one: 1) moving the retail buildings to the north; 2) revise the
NURP pond situation to increase the screening and transition on the south side
Commercial, not necessarily to create two ponds but take another look at that
and give a better buffer on the south side; 3) the proof-of-parking on the north
side; 4) provide 54 eight to ten foot high conifers along Cascade Drive; 5)
revise the exterior building elevations to increase the roof height to 28 feet; 6)
the right turn on Cascade Drive and leave the land use as proposed.
Motion carried 3-2-1 with opposition by Foote and Wissner, and one
abstention by Ismail.
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
Sandstad noted that he is going to make a recommendation that the City and
MnDOT get together and review plans for pedestrian trails and/or sidewalks
along Highway 169. Almost everyday he sees elderly people trying to cross
Highway 169 at 5:45 in the afternoon. He was concerned about the safety of
pedestrians because it is an unsafe condition. He indicated that he would like a
response on what the plans are. All of the Commissioners supported his
recommendation.
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
None.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. PRESENTATION BY SOUTHWEST METRO ON THE TRANSIT HUB
Kate Garwood, of Southwest Metro, updated the Planning Commission on the
current status of the transit hub which is located near the intersection of
Technology Drive and Prairie Center Drive. Southwest Metro is in the process
of applying for a grading permit with the City Council to begin surcharging
dirt on the property in anticipation of future construction of the transit hub.
Foote asked if this transit hub is going to eliminate any stops on Valley View
Road, Shady Oak Road, or Eden Prairie Center Drive. Garwood replied that it
may. They will see how their customers want it used. They will check on the
customers once a year and see how it's going.
• Foote asked if they have done any surveys as to whether this is needed.
Garwood responded that they have in several ways.
Garwood described the different type of things that will be available at the transit
hub. She also discussed the different uses that the Parks Department may want
to use on the site on the weekends such as an art fair or farmer's market. This
would probably happen when they are closed and will require security. It will be
another opportunity for the site to be used for the public. They have been trying
to make this as much of a community site as possible.
Sandstad asked if the Eden Prairie commuter buses would be shifted to this site.
Garwood replied that it's possible.
Ismail asked for a clarification of what a transit hub is. Garwood indicated that
it will house their offices. It will have a passenger waiting area in the building.
They intend to meet the needs of 1996 and the year 2000. An area will be
available for "kiss and ride" which is two workers in the same household who
drive to the hub together. They will provide airport parking there and customers
will take a bus to the airport. There is a need to provide other means of transit
for the three communities.
Schlampp commented that he could not approve this because of the substantial
amount of runoff and the other existing problems.
Garwood noted that there is a site in Carver County where they are doing
10 mitigation. They are asking the Planning Commission to approve a surcharge
correction plan. The entire site has very poor soils. The entire site needs to be
corrected. They had enough preliminary engineering to identify where it should
be located.
Southwest Metro will be back before the Planning Commission to talk about the
specifics of the plan, but they would like to get the soil surcharge plan approved
now. This way they can get some surcharge for this year and the following nine
months.
Kyle Williams reviewed where the new Technology Drive will be, as well as the
surrounding intersections.
VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS
At the next meeting on September 25th, the Planning Commission will be
revisiting the Dell Road and Highway 5 project and the concept for one level
houses on Pioneer Trail and County Road 4.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
• MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Wissner to adjourn the meeting. Motion
carried 6-0-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M.
9
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 11, 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
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL
H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. MINUTES
IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 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
A. PRESENTATION BY SOUTHWEST METRO ON THE TRANSIT HUB
VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
i