Planning Commission - 03/14/1994 APPROVED MINUTES
iEDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, March 14, 1994 7:00 p.m. City Center Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer,Kenneth E. Clinton,Randy Foote, Katherine
Kardell,Douglas Sandstad,Edward Schlampp,Mary Jane
Wissner
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri
STAFF MENIBERS: Donald Uram,Planner; Recording Secretary Jan Nelson
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE--ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Doug Sandstad. Foote was absent.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Kardell,to approve the Agenda as published. Motion
carried 6-0-0.
III. MINUTES
Sandstad said his comments regarding the steep grade of the driveway for Item N.A. were
omitted. The following paragraph should be inserted as the third paragraph of Item N.A.:
"Sandstad said he was concerned about possible problems because of the steep grade of the
driveway."
MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Bauer,to approve the minutes of the February 28,
1994,meeting as published and amended. Motion carried 6-0-0.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
(Continued from February 28, 1994 meeting:)
A. JOYLAND by David Kraemer. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to
R1-13.5 on 2.76 acres and Preliminary Plat on 2.76 acres for three single family lots and
road right-of-way. Location: 14506 Staring Lake Parkway.
As described in the staff memorandum of March 9, 1994 from the Engineering Division,
Uram said a revised grading and erosion control plan directs drainage from the roof into
an existing catch basin located at the southeast corner of proposed Lot 1. He said the
driveway has been tilted to the south and east so that the water will run off to the side
rather than down the driveway.
PLANNING COMMISSION 2 March 14,1994
After asking for the exact location of the catch basin, Sandstad asked if a curb is
required for the driveway. Uram said there is none required.
David Kraemer,property owner,said he had offered to meet with the neighbors regarding
the property; however no one responded.
Jeff Verdoorn, 9009 Victoria,presented a letter from the neighborhood that summarized
their concerns regarding the proposed middle lot,including concerns that it does not
meet current City codes regarding frontage and concerns about the grade and width of the
driveway.
Uram noted that,while the City does not have control over the grade of a driveway,there
is a policy that says it should not be steeper than 12%,and this driveway does not exceed
that policy.
Ken Klink,9025 Victoria,said he is concerned because of the adverse effect this project
may have on his investment. His primary concerns were the disruption of the view from
the townhouses and other residences in the area, consistency in the neighborhood and
drainage. He asked about the considerations that went into recommending a flag lot.
Sandstad responded that a flag lot is one without conventional street frontage and is most
often approved when there is a need to preserve a natural amenity on the lot. He said the
Commission has approved many flag lots even though they do not meet other City codes.
Verdoorn asked what natural resources are being preserved by this project. Uram said
this project was designed to protect the natural slope on the lot and to protect against a
separate driveway going directly up the side of the hill from Staring Lake Parkway in
case the middle lot were to be developed with street frontage at a later date.
Clinton said he had concerns regarding the Engineering Staff memo that stated there was
no erosion damage because he has seen significant erosion in that area. He said he would
ask the question whether there should be just two lots on this project. Kraemer said the
engineering staff member walked the area in front of lot 2 where there is no erosion;
however,there is erosion on the other areas.
Bauer said his primary concerns are with the drainage issue and he thought the use of a
shared driveway was a beneficial use on this property in order to preserve the natural
slope. He said he struggled with visualizing the house on lot two and that staking would
have been helpful.
Schlampp said he was uncomfortable with the drainage issue and that changing the pitch
of the road might cause a potential problem.
• Wissner asked if Staff goes out to oversee the actual development. Uram said they do
that only in special circumstances.;however,they will probably pay more attention to
this project. He said there may have to be additional erosion control such as sodding and
fencing along the side of the driveway.
PLANNING CONUMSSION 3 March 14, 1994
MOTION: Kardell moved,seconded by Bauer, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0-0.
MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Bauer,to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of David Kraemer for Zoning District Change from Rural to
R1-13.5 on 2.76 acres based on plans dated February 22., 1994, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 25, 1994 and the Engineering
Memorandum dated March 9, 1994,and with additional erosion control measures to be
required around the driveway. Motion carried 5-1-0 with Clinton opposed.
MOTIONL Kardell moved,seconded by Bauer,to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of David Kraemer for Preliminary Plat on 2.76 acres for three
single family lots based on plans dated February 22, 1994., subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 25, 1994,and the Engineering
Memorandum dated March 9, 1994,and with additional erosion control measures to be
required around the driveway . Motion carried 5-1-0 with Clinton opposed.
B. RICHARD THOMPSON ADDITION by Richard Thompson. Request for Preliminary
Plat on 2.215 acres into 2 single family lots. Location: 6387 Craig Drive.
Uram said this is a proposal to relocate the lot line so that Mr. Thompson can sell his
existing home and build an additional house at the bottom of the hill. Thompson has
• purchased a lot on Chandler Court in order to provide access to the building pad. Uram
said there is a drainage and utility easement along the north edge of the lot off Chandler
Court which is meant to protect the wetland area.
Bob Fetterman,6359 Country Road,said he owns an adjacent site next to the wetlands
area. He said his back yard is under water now,and this home will drain even more into
his backyard.
Doreen Seal, 6368 Chandler Court, said there has been no maintenance on the Chandler
Court lot in the past three years so she was concerned about what it will look like after
development. She said she is also concerned about the lowland area for the driveway and
if there will be a culvert under the driveway to help the drainage. She said there is a need
for a street light there.
Joseph Pobiel,6360 Chandler Court,said half of his backyard is underwater,and he is
concerned that more water will run off from this project onto his property. He was also
concerned that the unused portion of the property would be maintained.
Uram said the amount of runoff from a single family home will be negligible compared
to the drainage problems that have been described. Uram asked if the neighborhood had
talked to the Engineering Department about the drainage problems in the area.
Fetterman said they have been told several stories about the drainage situation,and noted
that they have tried to drain it,but it doesn't seem to work.
PLANNING COMMISSION 4 March 14, 1994
Bill Putnam,6411 Craig Drive,asked if the extra lot will be developed and the woods
cleared. Thompson said he has not been able to maintain the property because it is wet
and that he will not clear the woods on the lot.
Bea Oertel, 6371 Country Road, said she had water backed up three inches by her house
and that the drainage is a big problem.
Bauer said he was uncomfortable with the idea that there was a project before this one
that created a substantial problem. He said Staff should take a look at the other
development to see what is causing the drainage problems. Uram said that is an issue
that needs to be addressed;however,it is above and beyond the consideration of this
subdivision.
Sandstad asked if this proposal will have an impact on the drainage of this area that has a
problem already. Uram said runoff from a single family home will not have an impact.
Bauer said it was distressing to hear that they have talked to staff and have not gotten
results. He said he would like to have that checked out.
Clinton said he thought we should look into the problems brought forth by the neighbors.
Schlampp said he thought we should continue the hearing and go to the Engineering
Department and the Watershed District to get a determination of whether the area is
. wetland or a spring. He said it was very important to thoroughly investigate the problem
because some remedies might compound the problems that exist.
Sandstad said he thought the project was reasonable as it is,however he would titre to be
certain that it will not aggravate an existing drainage problem in the area.
MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell,to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0-0.
MOTION: Bauer moved,seconded by Kardell, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Richard Thompson for Preliminary Plat on 2.215 acres based
on plans dated March 11, 1994,subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
March 11, 1994,and with the condition that Staff investigate the drainage problem in the
area and provide a definitive statement that this project will have no additional negative
impact. Motion carried 5-1-4 with,Schlampp opposed.
MOTION: Bauer moved,seconded by Sandstad,to direct Staff to work with the
Engineering Department to visit the neighborhood and meet with the residents who have
expressed concern to analyze the problem in the area and report back to the Commission
in the next few months with the results.
Schlampp said he voted against the original motion.,not because there is a problem with
. the project but because there is a problem if the lot is on a wetland since it could not
legally be built on. Uram noted that they have not received any calls or letters of
concern about the project from the Watershed District.,the DNR or the Corps of
PLANNING COMMISSION 5 March 14, 1994
Engineers. Schlampp then asked if this is a DNR wetland. Uram said it is not classified
as a DNR wetland.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried 6-0-0.
C. PIONEER RIDGE by R. H. Development,Inc. Request for Zoning District Change
from Rural to R1-13.5 on 6.9 acres and Preliminary Plat on 6.9 acres for 16 single family
lots. Location: Mitchell Road and Pioneer Trail.
John Helmer,the project developer,reviewed the request for 16 single family lots.
Uram said they have met with Centex Homes and are trying to coordinate the
development of all three projects in this area in order to design the street connections.
Schlampp asked what price the homes will be. Helmer said they will probably be
$200,000 and up.
Al Krause, 15911 Cedar Ridge Road, said he was concerned about traffic that will now
be channeled onto Corral Lane which is only a 24-foot road.
Sandstad asked about the status of the Sandy Pointe and McGraw developments. Uram
said Sandy Pointe is almost complete,but McGraWs property is still being used as a
business and is not anticipated to be developed in the near future.
• Wissner asked if it would be necessary for the road to go through to Corral. Uram said
he thought it would provide a benefit to the Corral Lane neighborhood since it would
provide an additional access route for the area.
Ryan Gideon,representing Centex Homes, said they are involved in the project to the
west of this one and they would like to have the road connecting to their development
shifted to the north in order to provide their project with a better layout for development.
Helmer said they would have no difficulty with that.
Jennifer Schroer, 15820 Corral Lane,said she was very concerned about the increased
traffic that would occur on their street if a street is put through to Corral Lane. She said
they like it as a cul-de-sac and would prefer to have another row of single family homes
along the north edge of the project.
Bob Waldron, 15710 Corral Lane,said he thought it was important to maintain the
integrity of their neighborhood and that he did not believe any of the neighbors wanted
access to County Road 1.
Ken Lindeman, 15901 Corral Lane, said he is satisfied with the way traffic flows now.
He said he was concerned about a natural waterway on one of the lots.
Kathy Lindeman, 15901 Corral Lane, said the lot with the water problem received a
variance so that the house could be put closer to the lot line in order to avoid an area with
a drainage problem.
PLANNING COMMISSION 6 March 14, 1994
Bauer said he didn't see that the configuration of this parcel lends itself to anything other
than what is proposed,and there does not seem to be another answer regarding the
roadway through.
Wissner said she thought the two accesses to County Road 4 seem to be very close
together. Uram said the access point to County Road 4 is set due to the construction on
that roadway.
Schlampp said he thought a lot of concerns could be addressed by making the street
through the project a cul-de-sac and widening it. Uram said that if it ends in a cul-de-sac,
variances will be required because of the width of the lots.
Sandstad asked if there is any possibility of removing the connection to the Centex
project. Uram said he would not recommend that.
Kardell said a cul-de-sac is usually used in circumstances where we are trying to preserve
certain natural features. She said she would favor anything that improves the traffic
circulation in neighborhoods.
Clinton said he is concerned with the integrity of the Commission if we now reverse our
opinion and recommend a connection into the cul-de-sac that we previously
recommended should be a cul-de-sac. Uram said that Staff originally recommended that
the street be pushed through and that the concerns then were for through traffic from
Mitchell Road to County Road 4.
Sandstad noted that if the road out to the west is moved to the north,the cul-de-sac would
be reduced. He said he thought we should take another look at this situation and see if it
can be improved upon. Uram said the Commission needs to make a decision on whether
a through street is necessary because the developer put that on at the recommendation of
Staff. Uram said he thought it could be worked out without a cul-de-sac and suggested
that the project be scheduled for the City Council,but have it continued for two weeks
for Planning Commission review of revised plans.
MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Clinton,to continue the public hearing to the
March 28, 1994 meeting and to publish the project for the City Council meeting on April
4th. Motion carried 6-0-0.
D. PURGATORY CREEK ESTATES by Post Construction. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change from Open Space to Low Density Residential on 2 acres,Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2 acres and Preliminary Plat on 4.98 acres for
7 single family lots and 1 outlot. Location: 12381 Sunnybrook Road.
Barry Post,property owner,and Peter Knaeble,project engineer,reviewed the proposal.
Knaeble said the project meets the requirements of the shoreland ordinances,has an 11%
40 tree loss and they have reduced the proposed wetland fill to .3 acre. There is a 50-foot
sanitary sewer easement on part of the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION 7 March 14,I994
Schlampp said he was concerned that we have already disturbed the wetlands with the
sewer and now we are going to disturb it again. He said he does not like to fill wetlands.
Uram said this issue is the primary one for discussion on this project;however, Staff
believes that the project is reasonable and they have agreed to mitigate the wetland fill.
Uram said another issue is the conservancy area which is encroached in one section. As
a trade-off,Posts are giving Outlot A to the City for preservation.
Lovene Russell, 12101 Sunnybrook Road, said she disapproves of filling in wetlands and
that wetlands should be preserved.
Scott Wallace, 12465 Sunnybrook Road,said this project will run into an area that is in a
100-year floodplain. He said the mitigation proposed is not in the same area,but is on
the other side of Homeward Hills. He noted that the project will block the neighbors'
view of the conservancy area.
Lee Smith, 12500 Sunnybrook Road, asked who will monitor the development and how
closely it will be monitored.. She was concerned about the amount of fill as it seems to
keep changing. She noted that the proposed Lot 4 is on the sewer easement.
A discussion followed regarding the sewer system connections in the area.
Smith said there were 90 loads of fill hauled in to the project in 1991 in violation of code
that has not been removed despite the City's request to remove it. She said the land is
used to stockpile construction garbage which is occasionally burned as "recreational"
fires and there is a general disregard for ordinances and laws by the residents and owner
of the property.
Bob Classe, 12491 Sunnybrook Road, said he has concerns regarding possible water
problems and problems with his septic system as a result of this project.
Gerard Wersal, 12645 Sunnybrook, showed a picture of the fill that had not been
removed. He said there is no similar cluster of homes along Sunnybrook and there have
been no variances regarding the wetlands. He said the Metropolitan Council has
recommended denial of the project and he thought the project should be redesigned so
that there is no need for encroachment on the wetlands.
Libby Hargrove, 12640 Sunnybrook Road,said this will increase the parking problems
that now exist on Sunnybrook Road as well as increasing the traffic on the road. She said
the land is adjacent to a City park which has a very small parking facility. She said
parking on the sides of this narrow dirt road presents a traffic hazard for the residents.
Dean Longsyo, 9448 Creekwood, said he owns the lot to the west of the project. He said
the density of the project seems high,and he was concerned that there are no elevation
• drawings to see how it would affect his lot. He said he is also concerned about filling
wetlands and about the sewer system.
PLANNING COMMISSION 8 March 14, 1994
At the request of Sandstad,Uram reviewed the regulations regarding wetland mitigation.
He said mitigation is required for two times what they are filling and it must be done
somewhere within the Watershed District. He said the approval process for projects
involving mitigation is quite lengthy and there is ample time for public input.
Knaeble noted that this project should not cause any more parking on Homewoard Hills
Road and that the seven-lot project will be an improvement over the current rental
property. He said the homes will be built by a first-class builder and that the entire
development will be monitored by several governmental bodies because of the wetland
issue.
MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell,to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0-0.
Schlampp noted that,while he is opposed to filling wetlands,there are Iaws that say this
is a possibility if it is done correctly and that the proponents are operating within the
water conservation act.
Wissner said she was concerned about where we stand if the homes are approved and
then the homes develop water problems. She said she thought a couple of the homes
could be eliminated to help keep problems from developing down the road.
Kardell said she thought the homes would be an improvement over what exists there
now She said she was disturbed that the concerns of the neighbors have not been
addressed; however,those are not necessarily related to this project. She was concerned
about possible inaccuracies in the staff report regarding the sewer connections and said
she would prefer to see a less dense project.
MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Clinton, to continue the request of Post
Construction to the March 28, 1994 meeting.
At this point,the proponents requested that the project go forward to the City Council.
Bauer withdrew his motion with the consent of Clinton.
MOTION: Bauer moved,seconded by Wissner,to recommend to the City Council
denial of the request of Post Construction for Zoning District Change from Rural to
R1-13.5 on 2 acres based on plans dated March 11, 1994,and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 11, 1994. Motion carried 5-1-0 with
Schlampp opposed.
MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Wissner, to recommend to the to the City
Council denial of the request of Post Construction for Preliminary Plat on 4.98 acres for
7 single family lots and 1 outlot based on plans dated March 11, 1994,, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 11, 1994. Motion carried 5-1-0 with
Schlampp opposed.
PLANNING COMMISSION 9 March 14, 1994
E. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORE by Homart Development. Request for PUD
Concept Review on 75 acres,PUD District Review on 75 acres with waivers for exterior
building materials,building and parking setback,Zoning District Amendment in the
C-Regional Service Center Zoning District, Site Plan Review for construction of a 90,000
sq. ft. Kohl's Department Store, and Preliminary Plat of 42 acres into 2 lots. Location:
East side of Eden Prairie Center.
Dick Yackee,Homart Development, introduced the project and the development team,
Greg Hollenkamp,representing Kohl's Department Store,reviewed the plans for the
project.
Bauer asked about the material on the dock wall. Hollenkamp said it is block in the same
banding as that on the main building.
Sandstad asked if the current Eden Prairie Center building meets codes for exterior
material. Uram said it met the codes in place in 1976 and that this proposal is consistent
with the original structure.
Uram asked what their timetable for development is. Yackee said they want to open on
October 15th with an alternate opening date of April 15, 1995. He said they had come
before the City Council to have a grading plan approved so that the pad can be ready by
April 15th.
• In response to a question from Clinton, Yackee described the process required to develop
the pad for this project.
Schlampp asked how many parking spaces are being removed. Yackee said the original
plans included parking for anticipated expansion and that it exceeds the requirements.
Kardell said she did not see the issue of tree replacement addressed in the
recommendations and she thought there should be some requirements for trees. Uram
said the landscape plan will be reviewed. Sandstad asked that the Commission see the
landscape plan sometime in the next three months.
Gualtieri suggested that the issue of adequate lighting of the parking area also be
addressed.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Kardell,to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0-0.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Kardell,to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Homart Development for PUD Concept Review on 75 acres
based on plans dated March 11, 1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated March 11, 1994. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Kardell, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Homart Development for PUD District Review on 75 acres
PLANNING COMMISSION 10 March 14, 1994
with waivers based on plans dated March 11,, 1994,and subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated March 11, 1994. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Kardell, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Homart Development for Zoning District Amendment in the
C-Regional Service Center Zoning District based on plans dated March 11, 1994, and
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 11, 1994. Motion
carried 6-0-0.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Kardell,to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of 14omart Development for Site Plan Review based on plans
dated March 11, 1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
March 11, 1994. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Kardell, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Homart Development for Preliminary Plat of 42 acres into 2
lots based on plans dated March 11, 1994,,and subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated March 11, 1994. Motion carried 6-0-0.
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
• VII. NEW BUSINESS
VH1. PLANNERS' REPORTS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Wissner,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried
6-0-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, March 14, 1994
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Katherine Kardell,
Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Community Development; Michael D.
Franzen, Senior Planner; Donald Uram, Planner
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE --ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
M. MINUTES
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Continued from February 28, 1994 meeting:
A. JOYLAND by David Kraemer. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on
2.76 acres and Preliminary Plat on 2.76 acres for three single family lots and road right-of-way.
Location: 14506 Staring Lake Parkway.
• B. RICHARD THOMPSON ADDITION by Richard Thompson. Request for Preliminary Plat on
2.215 acres into 2 single family lots. Location: 6387 Craig Drive.
C. PIONEER RIDGE by R. H. Development, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural
to R1-13.5 on 6.9 acres and Preliminary Plat on 6.9 acres for 16 single family lots. Location:
Mitchell Road and Pioneer Trail.
D. PURGATORY CREEK ESTATES by Post Construction. Request for Comprehensive Guide
Plan Change from Open Space to Low Density Residential on 2 acres, Zoning District Change
from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2 acres and Preliminary Plat on 4.98 acres for 7 single family lots and
1 outlot. Location: 12381 Sunnybrook Road.
E. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORE by Homart Development. Request for PUD Concept Review
on 75 acres, PUD District Review on 75 acres with waivers for exterior building materials,
building and parking setback, Zoning District Amendment in the C-Regional Service Center
Zoning District, Site Plan Review for construction of a 90,000 sq. ft. Kohl's Department Store,
and Preliminary Plat of 42 acres into 2 lots. Location: East side of Eden Prairie Center.
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VHL PLANNERS' REPORTS
IX. ADJOURNMENT