Planning Commission - 09/25/1995 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 25, 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 Vice Chair Kenneth Clinton.
Kardell was absent; all other members were present.
H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Foote to approve the Agenda as
published. Motion carried 6-0-0.
• III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote to approve the Minutes of
September 11, 1995. Motion carried 6-0-0.
IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PIONEER RIDGE 2ND ADDITION (1995) by Rottlund Homes.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential on 12.18 acres, Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 19.03 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review on 12.18 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 12.18
acres, Preliminary Plat of 12.18 acres into 43 single family lots. Location:
County Road 4 and Pioneer Trail.
Franzen referred to a letter from Rottlund Homes asking that their project
be withdrawn. Staff sent letters out to the residents within 500 feet of the
property advising them that this project would not be discussed at this
meeting.
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote to close the public
1
hearing and return the development plans to the proponent without
prejudice. Motion carried 6-0-0.
Sandstad commented that he thinks there is a market for housing of this
variety and hopes to see more of it in the future.
B. 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 Development
Concept Review and Planned Unit Development District Review on 4.47
acres. Location: Dell Road and Highway 5.
Franzen reviewed the history of the last three meetings involving this
project, including the views of the Commissioners and the residents.
Franzen commented that he tried to come up with a plan that would meet
the expectations of the groups involved, but said it was not possible
because there is such a diversity of expectations. The neighborhood varies
from no development, to office and a daycare. The developer says he has
an approved PUD and wants to develop accordingly. Planning
Commission wants more office and less commercial.
This project started in July with a review of the underlying assumptions
that the Commission and the City Council made in 1990 when this site
was approved for Neighborhood Commercial and PUD. The Commission
and the Council looked at the general feasibility of the use in that location,
and how big the development should be. The Commission and the
Council decided about 30,000 square feet of Neighborhood Commercial,
which included a daycare center and a gas station/convenience store, was
an acceptable use. Project details such as lighting, traffic, and City code
requirements were not reviewed because a rezoning was not requested at
the time. At the first meeting, in July this year, it seemed like
Neighborhood Commercial made sense. Neighborhood residents said that
the traffic was too high,lights are too bright,not a big enough buffer zone,
with concerns about the drainage, and safety. The Commission said that
Neighborhood Commercial might work, but needed more information to
make a decision. They asked the developer to prepare a traffic study.
The developer came back in 30 days with a traffic study. The
Commission looked at it and felt that the traffic was too high. They
wanted a different land use mix and to improve the buffer zone, and they
sent the project back to the developer. The Commission did not give any
indication at the time if Neighborhood Commercial could still be a good
use of the property.
• 2
• Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 1995
Another 30 days went by and the developer came back with a revised plan.
They took out the gas station/convenience store because the direction from
the Commission was the traffic was too high, but the plan still had a
problem buffer zone along Cascade Drive. The Commission seemed more
comfortable with a Neighborhood Commercial and voted 3 to 2 to continue
the item for 2 weeks with the assumption that Neighborhood Commercial
could be an acceptable use if the buffer zone was improved.
The revised plans indicate that the building is 28 feet in height. The
treatment pond along Cascade Drive is removed to save trees. The
driveway is moved back to the original position. A turn-around is added
for the first townhome unit in from the corner. A buffer zone of trees has
been added on the north and south size of Cascade Drive.
Regarding the accuracy of the tree inventory and the tree loss calculations,
there are actually fewer trees than originally thought. However, the tree
loss percentage has increased from 36% to 38%. To reduce tree loss the
building should be moved 10 feet to the west. There are five large oak
trees in the back Staff wants to preserve.
Dick Putnam, Tandem Development, reviewed the revised plans with the
Planning Commission. He showed photographs depicting the screening.
He noted that the mechanical equipment is completely screened.
Eric Johnson reviewed the revised site plan with the Planning Commission.
Franzen reviewed the three alternatives outlined in the Staff Report. Staff
recommends alternative #1 which is approving the development plans as
revised.
Foote was concerned about how many square feet a family restaurant is.
Franzen replied that a family size restaurant is between 5000 to 6000
square feet. Buca and Dolittles are around 6000 square feet. The
proposed restaurant is 5000 square feet.
Rick Koehler, residing at 7846 Donegal Cove, commented that the
neighbors are very concerned about the size of the restaurant. He feels the
parking is inadequate for a restaurant of 5000 square feet. A restaurant of
• 3
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 1995
this size is not Neighborhood Commercial. It is Regional Commercial,
drawing trafficfrom Highway 5. There is going to be a high volume of
traffic coming from outside the neighborhood. There are concerns about
drinking and driving with small children around. A petition went around
with over 100 signatures indicating that they want an office building like
the Burnet Realty building instead of a restaurant. This type of use will
eliminate traffic late at night. He was concerned about the deciduous trees
loosing their leaves and not providing enough screening.
Mary McKinsey, residing at 18320 Cascade Drive, commented that she
would like to see an office building like the Burnet Realty building. She
commented that there is another strip mall exactly 7/10 of a mile from the
corner of Cascade Drive and Dell Road. She doesn't feel they need two
strip malls within a mile of each other. She was very concerned about the
access on Cascade Drive. She looked at all the strip malls in Eden Prairie
and not one has an access on a residential street. She feels the concept has
changed and the Planning Commission should not feel obligated to approve
something that was approved five years ago. Things have changed
drastically and many of the residents would not have bought their homes
five years ago if they knew of these plans.
Wade Dillon, residing at 7932 Cimarron Lane, noted that his property
is in visual contact of where the daycare center is going to be. He asked
if they ever considered putting an office on this site.
Putnam replied that they didn't consider it because it wasn't part of the
original PUD. He commented that he lives across the lake from Burnet
Realty and it gets a tremendous amount of use on the weekends with lights
on late at night.
Dillon expressed concern about the high volume of traffic at night. He
does not feel a 5000 square foot restaurant would be a neighborhood use.
He urged the Commission to consider an office building at this site. He
was also concerned about the safety issues until this development was
completed.
Ken Pedrocelli, residing at 17857 Cascade Drive, expressed anger that
there was no disclosure given on this issue. This is a residential area and
they are trying to make it a commercial area. It's not going to fit. He
was concerned about the value of his home decreasing.
• 4
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 1995
Richard Smith,residing at 18322 Cascade Drive,was concerned that the
only access to the mall is from a residential street.
Jim Keppel, residing at 18288 View Lane, was concerned about the
restaurant use because he will no longer be able to sit out on his deck
because of the noise. He noted that he would never have purchased this
home if he know of these issues. He was concerned about the additional
noise as a result of the restaurant.
Barbara Boyle, residing at 18322 Cascade Drive, noted that when Mr.
Putnam described where the trees will be planted, the barrier will be an
advantage to them at their front door. However, they will not be visible
from the photograph Mr. Putnam showed because it's away from the
driveway. She was concerned about the small blue spruce tree being
moved.
Shari Morris, residing at 18232 Cascade Drive, noted that she moved
from White Bear Lake to Eden Prairie because of the location. It took her
two years to move and the reason was the location and what she wanted.
• It was the wetland and the peace and quiet. She was very angry because
a disclosure was never given about the future site. She was concerned
about the value of her home decreasing. There is not one strip mall in
Minneapolis and St. Paul with an entrance off a residential street.
Kathy King, residing at , was concerned about the views
people will have from their homes once this site is developed. She was
also concerned about the safety of the children in the playground at the
daycare center. She expressed concern about the curve on Cascade
causing traffic problems as a result of people parked there. She suggested
eliminating parking on that street.
Johnson commented that they are proposing a berm area behind the
daycare center to help with the screening. On top of that will be 10 and
12 foot conifer trees along the property line. This will create 16 feet of
screening. Regarding the playground, Kindercare is proposing a six foot
tall vinyl fence along the property line.
Jodv Heyman, residing at 7859 Dover Cove, commented that she was
behind Barbara Boyle and her husband the other night. When the Boyle's
turned into their driveway,they almost rear-ended them. She said she was
• 5
• Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 1995
concerned that there was only 10 feet for them to make the turn. She was
also concerned about there being only one entrance into the strip mall from
a residential street. She feels this is not reasonable.
Bob Smith, residing at 1769 Ascot Court, commented that quality of life
is what brought him to Eden Prairie. He expressed concern about the
restaurant having a bar when there are 11 children in his cul-de-sac. He
was concerned about the safety of the children.
Mike Derickson, residing at 7954 Cimarron Lane, commented that he
is still concerned about the traffic issue and the use of this land. He was
concerned about the precedent that Kindercare is setting because it's a
narrow road to enter. He was also concerned about the aroma coming out
of the restaurant. He would like to see a berm maximized to dampen the
noise. He asked if there were any filters of some kind to prevent the
aroma.
Franzen noted that there are certain health code requirements they have to
meet. He doesn't know if there's a requirement regarding aroma.
Schlampp indicated that a realty office is open until late hours and will
also cause a disturbance. He doesn't believe that a group of people can
dictate to the developer as to what can go in there, nor can they dictate to
them what type of restaurant. He feels it's a good plan for development
and he supports it the way it stands.
Sandstad commented that he was part of the Commission in 1990 and felt
that it was a reasonable use at the time. He understood that this phase
could have been done in the reverse, but they chose to build the homes
first. The only concern that he shares with the neighbors is parking on
Cascade Drive, and that has to be eliminated from this roadway. He feels
the project works as a commercial site. It's not a mistake. It's on a state
highway with a four lane road that is heavily traveled.
Ismail commented that he is not comfortable with the project itself. He is
comfortable with the Kindercare but does not support a restaurant use.
Foote noted that he doesn't have a problem with the Kindercare on this
site. Most of the residents would like to see nothing on this site. That's
impossible unless they want to buy the property. He doesn't have a
6
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 1995
problem with commercial, but he has a big problem with a restaurant. A
restaurant of this size can not fit into a residential area. If it was
significantly smaller and if he had total control of what type of restaurant
it would be, he could support it. He can not support the project as it is
with a restaurant. He can support an office building in place of the
restaurant.
Wissner expressed concern about the safety issues at the intersection, the
access to the residential, the curve in the road, and the traffic coming in
and out of the Kindercare center. She does feel a lot of people will be
using the daycare center and she sees it as a positive area. She can not
support a 5000 square foot restaurant. This is not Neighborhood
Commercial. She supports a professional office building.
Clinton commented that one concern he has is that there has been a
proposal from the residents that an office building be put in. He feels that
a real estate office would not eliminate the problem of traffic. He feels
that a 5000 square foot restaurant does not fit the definition of a residential
or neighborhood restaurant. He supports the Kindercare, but is not in
. favor of the plan as it stands.
MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote to recommend
Alternative#3, deny the project, for the following reasons: the proposal is
inconsistent with the approved PUD, traffic impact on the adjoining road
system are high, the site does not preserve the natural features of the
property, the project does not meet CIty requirements for lot size and
setbacks, the project does not provide an adequate transition and buffering
to the surrounding residential neighborhood.
Ismail suggested discussing the possibility of denying only half the project.
He asked if denying the whole project means that the daycare is also
denied. Franzen replied that the development proposal was presented at
the Planning Commission as a package deal. Both of these sites are linked
together in terms of the common architecture, landscaping, buffering,
sidewalks and trails. If you decide to split the project and just approve the
daycare, what you're leaving in place is the approved PUD Concept for
convenience gas, retail and restaurant use. If you want to make a motion
• Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 1995
on the project to approve the daycare center you should be more specific
about what land use you want to see for the remainder of the property.
Foote asked if that would eliminate the liquor permits. Franzen replied
that he would have to check if any of the neighborhood type restaurants
have a liquor license.
Wissner commented that she does not want to approve the whole thing as
it stands. She feels the office is appropriate use of the property. She
would like to see something else explored on this property regarding an
office, but likes the Kindercare. This could also mean Commercial with
a smaller restaurant. She would like to see a little bit more information
on a professional building and the traffic that it generates. Wissner then
suggests an alternate motion.
MOTION 3: Wissner moved to recommend approval of the Kindercare
part of the property, and denial of the retail and retaurant PUD
Amendment and rezoning.
Ismail suggested they approve the daycare center, and the rest of the
property be continued for future study.
Sandstad commented that the developer has revised these plans for several
meetings already, and they have a right to a response on the basis of their
submittal. He is not certain that this group agrees on what should be done.
Franzen stated that there are three possible motions. Alternative #1, the
Commission can deny the whole project. Alternative#2, the Commission
can approve the project with the stipulation that the restaurant be reduced
to the original PUD size of 2600 square feet, and the remaining 2400
square feet becomes general retail, and the Kindercare. The Commission
discussion suggests the restaurant should be changed to a professional
office building. The possibility of a third alternative would be for
approval of the project which includes the Kindercare, the general retail,
but the direction, to the City Council is the restaurant building should be
office. The Commission should recommend an office zoning for that
portion of the property. Wissner then suggested an alternate motion.
MOTION 4: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend to deny
the project as submitted.
8
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 1995
Schlampp was concerned that this project would come back to the
Commission for review of an office building. Franzen replied that the
motion could say that the architecture, site plan, and parking would not
change, only the use of the building changes. The developer doesn't have
to redraw anything. The Commission seems satisfied with the architecture
and the site plan. The Commission only needs to indicate that the use of
the building should be office.
Wissner withdrew her motion. Wissner expressed concern about office as
a three story building not fitting into the surrounding area architecturally.
Wissner asked if it was feasible to take 5000 square feet and make it an
office complex. Putnam replied no.
Franzen commented that if you zone a small portion of this property for
office, you might have parking on another parcel, but you require a cross
parking agreement. If you want to zone the whole property for office, you
have a different set of requirements than you do for retail. With the
amount of parking shown at 134 spaces, about 26,000 square feet of office
is possible.
• Clinton stated that they have 4.47 acres being divided into two lots. The
restaurant and retail is Lot A, and the other one is Lot B. Lot A would be
redefined for the concept of an office building as part of the
recommendation for the motion, and Lot B would be the approval of the
Kindercare as the second part of the recommendation.
MOTION 5: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote to recommend that Lot
A be a professional office building, and Lot B would be approval of the
Kindercare.
Sandstad commented that this will eliminate any retail.
Jim Ostenson, commented that they are operating under a PUD approved
five years ago saying they want commercial there. Nothing has really
changed since 1990 except the new houses are there. The property has
been developed exactly the way it was approved in 1990. They are simply
coming in now with Phase 4 of a four phase project. They did not request
any changes from what was approved before. He understands there to
have to be reasons for denial, and these aren't really good reasons. They
would like the Commission to take action so they can go to the City
• 9
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 1995
Council.
Franzen stated that the Commission can recommend whatever land use
they feel is appropriate for this property. They are not necessarily bound
by any past actions the Planning Commission or the City Council on the
land use or the PUD of the property. They have an obligation to the City
Council, the developers, and the residents to make an advisory
recommendation on what they think the correct land use for the property
is.
Schlampp commented that some of the members would like to see the
proposal as it is. Others would like to deny it. If the ayes outweigh the
nays, and the proposal is denied. After this particular vote, then the
Commission can attach specific recommendations to the City Council.
MOTION 6: Schlampp moved, seconded by Sandstad to approve the
development as submitted. Motion failed 2-4-0 with opposition by
Clinton, Foote, Ismail and Wissner.
i V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
Commissioner Sandstad asked for an official response from the City regarding
what steps will be taken by the City to provide a safe pedestrian route across
Highway 169 at Anderson Lakes Parkway.
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
None.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. PURGATORY CREEK RECREATION AREA REVISED ENTRY
PLAN
Bob Lambert, Parks and Recreation Director, reviewed the concept plans
with the Commission using sketches. They are trying to create a place in
Eden Prairie's downtown that would attract people to come to the trail
system. The major purpose of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area is
three fold. One is to preserve the marsh and to improve the marsh for
wildlife. The second is to improve the water quality that comes from
10
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 1995
Purgatory Creek, and the drainage system in the major center area and end
up in Staring Lake. Third is to provide some recreation opportunity for
the residents of the community.
The Planning Commission's recommendations would be forwarded to the
City Council. The City Council would make a decision on which of the
concepts they like. Once the Council has decided on the final
configuration, Brauer and Associates will provide a more detailed plan of
that final configuration. That plan will be forwarded to the Watershed
District to be included in the permit process for the project that will be
initiated in the Fall of 1996.
Sandstad commented that he supports the dueling restaurant concept. He
likes the idea of public art being displayed especially if they are done by
locals. He also likes the combination of the pavilion and the warming
house.
Lambert noted that the Parks Commission recommended the restaurants,
and they also talked about the art and having outdoor sculptures. They
also liked the idea of the little drop-off and some small parking of 15 to
20 cars, and a small pavilion to have a wedding reception or skating.
Foote asked about the timetable of this construction. Lambert replied they
are looking at going through this winter with permits and start construction
a year from this December.
Foote noted that with a number of projects commencing at about the same
time, including the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area, the Transit Hub, and
realignment of Technology Drive,he is concerned that all this activity may
create a traffic problem, and that this should be evaluated.
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote to recommend
endorsement of Concept C with the pond size, restaurants, pedestrian or
local art features along the trails, and a pavilion. Motion carried 6-0-0.
.
B. DIVERSITY TRAINING FOR MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS
Judy Schuck, representative from the Human Rights Commission, gave a
brief presentation to the Commission. She noted that the Human Rights
11
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25, 1995
Commission has decided to offer diversity training to all the Commission
members of the various Commissions at Eden Prairie as part of their work
plan. The staff members have already been trained. They are offering two
sessions on two consecutive Wednesday nights, October 25th and
November 8th, from 6:30 P.M. to 9:30 P.M.
The head of the Human Rights Resources Department at the University of
Minnesota will be speaking the first night on topics such as change in
demographics, social perception, and the use and abuse of power. The
second evening will be more of an interactive session where they will all
be involved in their own personal awareness and ideas such as privilege,
and what they can all do as a diversity changing agency.
Starting next Spring when the new Commissioners are brought on board,
this will be part of their orientation. There is a registration form in the
packets asking for people to sign up on a volunteer basis. All Commission
members are urged to attend.
VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS
•
None.
A. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Foote to adjourn the meeting. Motion
carried 6-0-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M.
12
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 25, 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. PIONEER RIDGE 2ND ADDITION (1995) by Rottlund Homes. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium
Density Residential on 12.18 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review
on 19.03 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 12.18 acres,
Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 12.18 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 12.18
acres into 43 single family lots. Location: County Road 4 and Pioneer Trail.
B. 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
VH. NEW BUSINESS
A. PURGATORY CREEK RECREATION AREA REVISED ENTRY PLAN
B. DIVERSITY TRAINING FOR MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS
VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS
IX. ADJOURNMENT