Planning Commission - 06/13/1994 MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 13, 1994
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: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner.
I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Acting Chair Tim Bauer. Absent were
Katherine Kardell and Lisa-Marie Gualtieri; all other members present.
H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
• MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Sandstad, to approve the Agenda as published.
Motion carried 6-0-0 with Kardell absent.
III. MINUTES
MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner to approve the Minutes of the May
9, 1994 meeting as published. Motion carried 6-0-0 with Kardell absent.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. HARTFORD PLACE by RLK Associates, Ltd. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 10 acres, Regional
Commercial to Medium Density Residential on 8 acres, Office to Medium Density
Residential on 54.30 acres and from Office to Low Density Residential on 13.69
acres, PUD Concept Review on 110 acres, PUD District Review on 88 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 88 acres into 6 commercial lots, 302 townhome lots, 25 single
family lots and 3 outlots, Rezoning from Office to Community Regional Service
on 10 acres, Rezoning from Office to RM-6.5 on 54.30 acres, Rezoning from
Office to RI-13.5 on 13.69 acres, Rezoning from Commercial Regional Service
to RM-6.5 on 8 acres and Site Plan Review on 88 acres. Location: Rolling Hills
Road and Prairie Center Drive.
i
Franzen reviewed the staff report with Commission stating that in 1979 the
Hartford site on Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Center Drive, was originally
approved for 1.2 million square feet, office and commercial. The developer
would like this site to now be zoned for a mix of commercial, townhouses, and
single family dwellings. There is the question of whether or not the berm should
be preserved and if there should be a fence constructed along Anderson Lakes to
protect the nesting habitat.
Bill McHale, representing Ryan Companies, stated they have held several
neighborhood meetings. They are proposing about 200,000 square feet for retail
use, such as a pet supply store, a video store, an arts and crafts store, etc. There
will be 220 townhome units built by Centex at $100,00.00 plus. There will be
single family homes built ranging from $175,000 to $300,000. He stated that
after meeting with the neighbors the most important issue are the berms. He said
their plan leaves the berms in place.
Richard Koppy, RLK, representing the developer, stated they have met with
neighbors over the past few weeks working on numerous recommendations of
plans. He showed the Commission plans for the site and handed out comparison
sheets from the 1979 proposal to their revised proposal of 1994. He stated that
after reviewing the square footage, the impervious surface is less. They are
meeting the highest water standard for the project with ponds similar to NURP
standards. They are relandscaping the top of the berms with conifers. He stated
• that they are working very closely with the residents to the best of their ability.
He said nine plans are going to go through changes. He showed the Commission,
using slides, pictures and maps, and reviewed all the changes. He pointed to the
area where the existing berms would be maintained and new berms would be
added on the site plan. They are trying to control the height of new homes so it
doesn't have the magnitude of a real large home overlooking a real small home.
He said that adding landscaping through out the existing homes will maintain
privacy. They are attempting to maintain the grade line and add landscaping
without any effect on the existing berms. They are going to add other berms to
create privacy for the existing homes. The wetland pond will be enlarged and the
existing berm will be maintained. He stated that traffic will not have an impact
on surrounding roads. The highest traffic was in the morning, higher than the
afternoon peak. The lunch peak then was a typical noon peak with traffic falling
off from that point in both directions. Weekend volume is not as high as in the
weekday peaks.
Schlampp questioned the approximate lot sizing for the new homes. Koppy
replied that according to Dave Newman from Nedegaard Development, it would
be roughly 1/3 of an acre. Schlampp also asked about people wanting to walk
around the lake and Koppy stated there is a trail on the north side of the lake.
Schlampp asked if homeowners had washout problems close to the berm. Koppy
said there were not. He stated that the ponds will be pre-treated to meet with the
• normal standard using the best management for storm sewer. Schlampp asked
about the controversy of using wetland before sedimentation. Koppy stated they
will build this system in a way that any storm water going into the wetland goes
into the sedimentation pond first. There will be no sedimentation into the
wetland.
Foote asked about the purpose of the chain link fence. McHale stated that the
purpose is to keep people and pets away from the nesting habitat along Anderson
Lakes.
Franzen stated Staff does not support taking the berm down unless an alternative
mass planting plan accomplishes the same level of screening.
Schlampp expressed concern about access to the other side of the fence. He asked
how emergency vehicles or persons could get to the lake if a six foot fence
surrounds the entire lake.
Charlie Gravelle, 8650 Black Maple Drive, expressed concern that the existing
berm blocks views from his home and to commercial buildings which are 75 feet
tall. He is also concerned with the new proposal generating more traffic than the
approved plan. He feels it takes away from the quality of life which is why he
bought his home. He's concerned about high priced homes being very large and
the lot size being only 1/3 of an acre. He explained that the City-went to great
lengths to change and approve a zoning such that if structures were built in this
• area they would be significantly further away from existing houses and/or berms
in place. That was the pretense under which they bought their homes in that area.
George Bentley, 14292 Golf View Drive, said he was asked by the neighborhood
to speak to this issue. He expressed their concern about down grading the zoning.
He does not feel it's the highest and best use of the land. He is concerned about
the impact it will have on the lake without protection of the nesting habitat. He's
also concerned about proper buffering and berms because of the change in land
use. He opposes the trail, as suggested by the developer, all around the lake
because it would have a negative impact for the wildlife.
Connie Graff, 11574 Carriage , stated that her backyard is the wetland. .
She's concerned that the proposed grading will drain water into the wetland or
into her home. There is going to be soil erosion going into the wetland changing
the water quality of the wetland. The change from office to residential changes
traffic patterns from morning to 5 p.m. until 11 p.m.. She also expressed
concern for the safety of the children. She felt the tot lot at the site of Prairie
Center Drive will be very dangerous.
Lisa Helt, 10600, Northmark Drive, stated that her concern is that Lot #5 will be
zoned for single family homes. She said they did not buy their home for the
beauty of the home, but for the beauty of the lot. Her home is on a cul-de-sac
• and she has beautiful views of the wildlife and trees. When she purchased the lot,
the approved plan showed a building over 200 feet away, not that several homes
would be very close to hers.
Mark Bordhert, 10860 Fieldcrest Road, is concerned about losing his isolated
backyard and seclusion. He does not want children running through the yards or
dogs running over the hill. The sight line protects him from the approved and
existing office buildings. He also showed concern of traffic patterns and the
wildlife habitat.
George Edwards, 11250 Lanewood Circle, is concerned that removing the berms
would disrupt his privacy and disturb the wildlife such as the deer that he has in
his backyard. He stated that the only major park in the area is Nesbitt Park and
the children in the area will take shortcuts through their yards which he feels will
disturb his privacy.
Jan Curtis, 11069 Hyland Terrace, is concerned about her already existing power
interruptions and outages, that with the added amount of residents in the area this
will increase greatly. She has been told that there are already too many people
living there. She likes the distance between homes and low density she has with
the neighborhood. She also expresses a concern about the traffic conditions and
removing the berms.
Dorothy Latterel, 11084 Highland Terrace stated that her concern is for Lot#13.
• She wanted to know if Lot #13 is a wetland or a building under the current plan.
Franzen replied that there is a wetland on the property. There was a plan
approved in 1979 to build a commercial building on the property. Before there
were wetland regulations all of these buildings on this plan could be built and
wetlands filled with no mitigation. If anyone wanted to build this plan today,
wetlands could not be filled according to state law.
Pat Francisco, 10900 Fieldcrest Road, is concerned about the reducing the berm
behind their home and feels they should change the height consistent with the
1979 approval.
Craig; Peterson, Gelco Corporation, 10700 Prairie Drive, showed concern of any
changes interfering with the corporate image of Gelco. He stated that the original
plan was corporate and that Gelco prefers it stay that way with corporate
neighbors, not residential neighbors.
George DeBeck 10635 Northmark Drive , stated he is concerned about 1/2 million
dollar homes being built near his home worth $110,000. He said he was looking
for a middle class neighborhood, a feeling of a community rather than what these
new homes will represent.
• Tim Bailey, 10845 Hyland Terrace, expressed concerned for the property value
of his home and all other existing homes.
Carla Miermauer, 10898 Hyland Terrace, stated that, contrary to her neighbors,
she was in favor of the project as proposed by the developer and believed it would
be a better plan for the area.
Sandstad stated that he didn't see any reasonable way to insert residential on the
lake between two office buildings.
Kardell said she was disappointed that the plans have not been revised according
to letters written to the developer weeks before this meeting. She indicated
conceptual support for a commercial housing mix but was uncomfortable with the
site plan, and lack of transition to the south. She supported additional affordable
housing.
Wissner stated she is not totally against the concept of housing and commercial.
She stated that it would be nice to be able to live close to shopping and to have
some more residential homes in the retail area with good public transportation.
However, there still needs to be an effective transition to the south, whether it be
keeping the berms in place or an equal alternative.
Clinton said he's concerned about the traffic out of the development during the
. peak hours of traffic and if the City road system can handle the traffic. He feels
the developer should look into off peak traffic. He is also concerned about the
shore line issue to protect Anderson Lake's nesting habitat. He feels a need to
look more closely at the additional office buildings and if the City needs to
maintain the current inventory in the guide plan.
Schlampp feels they need another neighborhood meeting to resolve traffic,
screening and transition issues. Schlampp also questioned the developer if
stormwater pretreatment is to NURP standards. Dick Kopy replied no, but is
equivalent to NURP standards.
Bauer said he appreciated the resident who stood up and said she agreed with the
project. He wants to hear from the people who are in favor of affordable
housing. He suggests they close this public hearing and recommend that the
developer continuing working with the staff and the neighborhood. Bauer was
uncomfortable with the transition to the south and recommended keeping the
berms.
Foote was uncomfortable with the plan for mixing office and residential so close
together. He felt it was not the correct land use and office may be better next to
the lake on those sites. Isolating Gelco between housing doesn't make sense.
Franzen responded to Mr. Bentley's concern over down zoning the property and
. highest and best land use. Franzen stated several sites in the major center area
have been changed to lower density housing. He added that the loss of some
office land would not affect the guide plan balance, because the inventory of
remaining office sites is high. Franzen noted that Staff had recommended to the
developer before application that the berms should remain in place or an equal
alternative proposed. In his opinion the alternatives proposed are not acceptable.
Regarding the PUD arrangement of housing next to office is not uncommon, it's
just that this plan does not provide a transition between uses. If an acceptable
transition is not possible, than residential is the wrong land use along the lake.
Franzen then asked the Commission for general direction on the PUD, if a mix
of commercial and residential is acceptable and under what conditions. It is
important for Staff and the developer to be very clear about plan changes.
Franzen recommended that after hearing neighborhood input and general
discussion that the public hearing be closed and direct the developer to provide
revised plans to the City Staff and the project be scheduled for Commission
review after it is determined to be complete. He recommended that the
Commission also require that the developer hold another neighborhood meeting
at least two weeks in advance of any Planning Commission meeting.
The Commissioners in general did not have a philosophical problem with a mixed
commercial-residential plan but noted several issues that require resolution before
the next meeting including: pretreatment of storm water to NURP standards,
• protect the nesting habitat, keep the berms in tact along the south property or a
plan acceptable to Staff and the neighborhood, provide transition between office
and residential within the PUD that works, if not, the plan should remain office
along the lake, revise the commercial plans according to Staff Report and letters
to developers.
MOTION l: Schlampp moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 6-0-0.
V. MEMBERS REPORTS
A. Housing Committee
Clinton stated that they don't have a formal set of minutes but they have had three
meetings. They are looking at what things need to be done to lower the cost of
housing.
B. Summer Scheduling of Planning Commissioners
The Commissioners discussed their vacation schedules for the summer as to who
will be present and who will not during July and August.
• VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
0
None
VH. NEW BUSINESS
None
VM. PLANNERS REPORT
Franzen stated there are many new projects coming up such as a single family project on
Duck Lake Road and Duck Lake Trail. He said Norwest Bank wants to add on to their
building. McDonalds Restaurant on Highway 169 wants to add a play structure outside.
International School has a revision to their plan for a parking lot and baseball field. Eden
Prairie Center wants to add a building. He said they will also see restaurants for the
Eden Prairie Center site. They are looking at a Lee Ann Chins and an Uno Pizzeria.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Wissner to adjourn the meeting. Motion
carried 6-0-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
•
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 13, 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: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL
H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. MINUTES
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. HARTFORD PLACE by RLK Associates, Ltd. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 10 acres, Regional
Commercial to Medium Density Residential on 8 acres, Office to Medium Density
Residential on 54.30 acres and from Office to Low Density Residential on 13.69
• acres, PUD Concept Review on 110 acres, PUD District Review on 88 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 88 acres into 6 commercial lots, 302 townhome lots, 25 single
family lots and 3 outlots, Rezoning from Office to Community Regional Service
on 10 acres, Rezoning from Office to RM-6.5 on 54.30 acres, Rezoning from
Office to R1-13.5 on 13.69 acres, Rezoning from Commercial Regional Service
to RM-6.5 on 8 acres and Site Plan Review on 88 acres. Location: Rolling Hills
Road and Prairie Center Drive.
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS
IX. ADJOURNMENT