Planning Commission - 08/08/1994 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 8, 1994
COND41SSION 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;
Donald R. Uram, Planner; Elinda Bahley,
Recording Secretary
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.
Acting Chair Tim Bauer took a moment to recognize the loss of Eden Prairie
Councilmember Richard Anderson who passed away recently.
11. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Schlampp, to approve the Agenda as
published. Motion carried 6-0-0.
III. MINUTES
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton to approve the Minutes of the June
13, 1994 as amended: on page 5 after holding the Public Hearing for the neighbors
concerning the Hartford Place issue, Sandstad stated that he didn't see any reasonable
way to insert residential on the lake between two warehouses. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Schlampp to approve the Minutes of the
July 25, 1994 meeting as published. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Bauer abstaining.
• 1
• IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. HARTFORD PLACE by Ryan Companies. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 5 acres, from
Office to Medium Density Residential on 43.20 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 7 commercial
lots, 250 townhouse lots, 24 single family lots and 3 outlots, Rezoning from
Office to R1-13.5 on 13.69 acres, Rezoning from Office to RM-6.5 on 35.20
acres, and Site Plan Review on 88 acres. Location: Rolling Hills Road and
Prairie Center Drive.
Franzen stated that the plan in the packet was an overall development plan
divided up into seven different areas representing different requests of the
developer for rezoning to commercial, single family and multi-family. The
purpose was to separate the issues such that the decisions made would provide
framework for the developer to proceed with the preparation of final plans.
Bill McHale, representing Ryan Companies, reviewed their project with the
Commissioners using visual aids. He stated that they have made a lot of
changes since the last time they met with the Planning Commission as a result
of neighborhood meetings. He distributed hand-outs to the Commissioners
which reflected the number of neighborhood meetings and attendances. He
• stated they are in total agreement with the Staff Report. He and all the
members of the team including several other consultants were present to
answer any questions for the Commission. He highlighted all the current
changes that have been made noting that they rearranged single family homes
to create 50 foot conservancy easements. He said they have also changed
setbacks by realigning the road to increase the backyard separations from 30
feet to 80 feet. He stated they created a landscape buffer area and preserved
all the significant trees in the area. They created two eight foot berms, one
between Gelco and one between the Fieldcrest homes area and Nedegaard. He
said they have lowered cul-de-sacs by approximately six feet to reduce
elevation impact. They added a four foot chain link vinyl fences.
Regarding the Mark Smith site, he stated they reduced the units from 70 to 58.
The setback from Office was increased to 150 feet. He said they added a
fence to preserve the lake side and kept out the animals.
Regarding the Pulte site, they maintained existing berms and the planting
between the wetlands and the Carriage Court homes. They maintained the
views of the residential and the berms will not change. They reviewed the
north section of the site to take care of building setbacks that wouldn't be
visible. He stated that they maintained the existing berm between Fieldcrest all
• 2
the way to the wetlands. They have increased the eight foot berms as proposed
to 12 feet. Regarding the commercial area, he stated they added screening.
Richard Koppy, RLK, representing the developer, referred to questions one
through five that all development proposals have to answer with regards to
comprehensive plan changes. He explained why their plans meet the
requirements that the City has. He feels their guide plan change has a minimal
impact on the balance of land use in the City. Using a proposal diagram, he
showed why he believes the transition is compatible with the existing land
uses. He stated that land value was a big concern from Gelco and the
residents. He talked with the City Assessor and their rule of thumb is
residential use or even a multi-family use next to a similar residential use is
going to preserve the land values much more than an office next to a
residential land use. He said traffic will be reduced by their plan compared to
the old Hartford plan by 50 percent. There will be less impervious surface
areas that will help the water quality. He stated that the structures covered in
the original Hartford plan was 1.5 million square feet of office space. All of
the structures in their plan will have a reduction of approximately 35 percent.
The storm sewer and draining system will be improved significantly. He said
the residents that move into the homes will have easy access to retail stores and
other services very close by Eden Prairie Center. In summary, he believes that
their proposed zoning changes and land use changes are justified and would
like the Commissioners to evaluate it accordingly.
• Referring to the overall site plan on the screen, he referred to the three ponds
on the site. He said one point is the pre-sedimentation basin that will take
much of the Pulte side drainage into it and allow some of the sedimentation
and oils to dissipate and settle out. The pretreated water will go into the
wetlands. From there the water will go out on to Prairie Center Drive and
into the existing storm sewer system already in place. The other point, on the
easterly side of the Pulte development, it will take again the easterly half of the
Pulte development into the presedimentation pond. From there it will go into
the wetland, and from there it will go into the large NURP pond. In essence,
water will be treated twice. On the Nedegaard site, their drainage goes
directly to the NURP pond before it goes into Anderson Lake. On the Mark
Smith site, their drainage goes into that same pond. On the Ryan retail site,
their drainage goes into that pond. That pond is already existing and they are
going to use the NURP applications which the site requires and make sure that
pond fulfills the standard that the City expects.
He stated they are trying to take a series of small wetlands and combine them
into two large wetlands locations. This permit for wetlands mitigation was
approved in the Fall of 1993. Hartford secured the permit and is contracting
to complete the work. It goes forward regardless of their project. They are
• 3
taking that plan and making sure their plan coordinates with that. One
stipulation of the permit has 200 trees being planted around those ponds for
additional erosion control. They are taking those 200 trees and integrating
them into their plans.
Janine Krone briefly explained what they did with the berming on the proposed
plan. She stated that after meeting with the neighborhood a number of times,
they realized what was very important was that they keep the existing berming
as much as possible. The area that borders Fieldcrest and Highland terrace
homes, and then the area by Carriage Court, those berms were left exactly as
they are today. The only place on the plan along the south border that berms
were changed is at the end of Center Way where the berm is sitting out in the
middle of the site. They propose to move it back and make one continuous
berm with the minimum of 12 feet high. They plan to add a berm between the
Carriage Court homes and the new townhomes, and then between the proposed
commercial outlot and the townhomes. All the berms to the south and between
the commercial plan will have triple rows of conifers. Other berms on the site
are between Gelco and the Mark Smith site, and NCS on the Mark Smith site.
Between Nedegaard and Gelco, those are the other significant berms that are at
least six feet tall ranging from four to six on the Mark Smith site, eight feet on
the Nedegaard site, and six feet at Prairie Lake Drive. She noted that the
berming on the Mark Smith site was to create a good buffer. Final berming
. would be placed on the site according to the site street master plan. It will be
three to four foot berms with plantings along the roadways and parking for the
commercial areas.
Janine Krone showed slides reflecting examples of different properties built by
the developers.
Dave Newman, representing Nedegaard Construction, reviewed his project
with the Planning Commission. He stated they have 14 acres for 25 single
family lots. He said the homes will range in value from $300,000 to over half
a million dollars. The density is 1.8 units per acre. The average lot size is
18,000 square feet in size. He said they have made a lot of changes as a result
of three meetings with the neighbors. They are proposing to retain existing
vegetation adjacent to Northmark Circle. This will provide screening new
homes for some of the residents. Where natural vegetation does not exist, they
are proposing an eight foot high berm, double and triple rows of coniferous
plantings that will be 8 to 12 feet high, and three inch shade trees. Where no
berm is possible, the quantity and size of plant material are increased to a 12
foot minimum height for conifers. They are proposing a 50 foot conservancy
easement along the property line. They have included buffers for those
residents that will see the tops of homes.
• 4
Foote questioned why the berm stops. Newman replied it's where the
vegetation starts and that's where they are going to start supplemental conifers.
Clinton asked what the five homes behind the berm will see. Newman replied
that once this is constructed they will see a berm in their backyard. Some of
the homes will see the berm and the vegetation they will be planting.
Casey Hill, Director of Operations for Pulte Homes, reviewed their project
with the Planning Commission. He stated that their site is divided up into two
sections. One section will be 120 townhomes. They will range from 1100 to
1200 square feet. The units themselves are maintenance free with vinyl siding.
The townhomes are affordable and high quality for the first time home buyer.
They will be professionally managed with Homeowners Association. They will
be fully landscaped as outlined on the plans, as well as a sprinkler system. He
said that 65% of the buyers are 20 to 35 years of age. 80% of them are
unmarried with 20% having small children at home under the age of five. He
said the buyers may be educated college graduates that understand the
importance of benefiting owning their own home, and will exhibit a great deal
of pride for their community. They will actually participate in the
Homeowners Association and would like to serve on the board. The covenant
laws on the site will protect them from investors coming in and pushing for
rentals. It will not be allowed.
He reviewed the proposal for the second section. He said it will have the same
maintenance free exterior, Pulte landscaping, and sprinklers through out the
area. There will also be a personal managing association separate from the
previous one. 80% of the buyers will be over 50 years of age, retirees. There
will be one and two level townhomes. He highlighted some of the changes
made as a result of neighborhood meetings. He said they have added some
brick on the exterior of the garages, and a number of gables have been added
on the roofs and on the end of the buildings. There are 25 foot minimum
setbacks required by the City and they have 60 - 100 foot setbacks. They have
increased the berm height to an average of 12 feet, four feet higher than their
previous submission.
Mark Smith reviewed his project with the Planning Commission. He stated
that his typical buyers will be empty nesters age 50 and above. They are
looking for the convenience of having shopping, work and home close to them.
He said this location is ideal for them wanting to be close to Eden Prairie
Center. They have reduced their units down to 58 units with the closest unit
150 feet from the Gelco Company.
Bill McHale stated that the plan before the Planning Commission will have less
traffic impact on the site than the one already approved. The transition to the
5
south is acceptable to Staff. The overall landscaping is twice the City Code.
The pervious acres have been doubled to protect the lake.
Franzen reviewed the Staff Report with the Planning Commission. With
regards to area #1 commercial, he stated that the developer's plan is to meet
City code requirements, create architectural compatibility, a design comparable
to Bachman's, Wal-Mart, and Brunswick Family Fun World. The developer
has agreed to use the City's decorative lighting, and landscape scheme along
Prairie Center Drive and Prairie Lakes Drive. The developer has also agreed
to develop a standard design for pylon signs on this site and area #2
commercial as well. The signs will be comparable to the sign details of the
Eden Prairie Market Center plan. Staff is supportive of this change in the
commercial plan.
Franzen stated that Staff's main concern with area #2 commercial are meeting
code requirements. They are also concerned that the type of products used to
build are consistent with what they have in the Market Center. He highlighted
Staff's list of conditions that are in the Staff Report. The Staff is supportive of
the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan from Office to Commercial and
the zoning change, based upon the Staff assessment.
Sandstad asked if the project moves forward, does the developer plan on
putting in the cart corrals that are standard for these commercial areas or not.
Franzen replied that this will be incorporated into the final plans.
Bauer showed concern for reserving short term parking.
Bill O'Reilly, 11145 Lanewood Circle, asked where is the access to the
parking; is it off Center Prairie Drive, off Rolling Hills Road, or off Prairie
Lakes Drive. Sandstad replied there will be access from all three. O'Reilly
asked if people will be able to get on Prairie Center Drive from the parking
lot. Sandstad replied it will be only for northbound right in and right out.
George Bentley, 14292 Golf View Drive, showed concern for the pathway or
bicycle path along Prairie Center Drive, and pedestrian access on this site. He
also showed concern for the designs of the buildings to be consistent with other
buildings within the area. He expressed concern for the architectural features
such as the circles as the City has required on other buildings.
Franzen stated that the plan is not at the point yet where they have a detailed
location of where sidewalks and trails are going to be. He said the Parks
Department looked at this issue and their recommendation is that along Prairie
Center Drive there will be a trail and sidewalks on both sides of the loop road
in the project. It will also have connections from the commercial site and the
6
residential site from within the project to tie into those trail systems and
project. He stated that Southwest Metro has written Staff a letter which talks
about having sidewalks throughout the area and also provisions for a transit
stop either within the parking lot or along Prairie Lake Drive or Rolling Hills
Road. He said that the developers and himself took a three hour tour of Eden
Prairie and they were shown different projects which reflect what Staff expects
of them with regard to architectural compatibility.
Chris Graff, 11574 Carriage Court expressed concern for the failure of
businesses in the commercial area.
Roslyn Nasco, Island Park Townhomes, expressed concern about the increase
of traffic on Prairie Center Drive with all the additional homes going into the
area. She suggested a mini cul-de-sac to be considered if a bus stop was to be
considered in which a bus can come in and make a stop versus them stopping
on Prairie Center Drive.
Franzen reviewed the Staff Report regarding area #3 with the Planning
Commission. He stated that the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan to a
residential use is more of a question of land use compatibility, land use
continuity, and land use transition. Staff does agree that an office building on
site would provide the most compatible and continuous land use. It would also
have less potential impact on wildlife habit. This site is closer to the Lake and
• doesn't have the grade change, distance or existing tree mass providing a visual
and physical separation as the single family site. Staff is receptive to
residential on this site because the density is lower than the ordinance
maximums, buffer zone is being provided, and a fence to protect the wildlife
habitat. The buffer uses a six foot high berm and double and triple rows of 12
foot high conifers planted along the common edge. The City has approved
other mixed use projects with residential between office buildings such as the
Park at City West apartment buildings. Staff supports the Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change and zoning to multiple family on this site based upon the
plan as proposed.
Sandstad stated that this is the toughest part of this project for him to decide.
He said it is very difficult to visualize this in completion, but he will keep an
open mind to the issues.
Craig Peterson, representing Gelco Corporation, expressed concern that this
project could have a negative impact on Gelco's depreciation and long term
value of the building. He does not feel it is a smooth transition. He is
concerned with their clients driving through a residential area as opposed to
giving them a corporate setting. It does not create a corporate image that they
hoped for when they purchased their building. He is also concerned with issues
7
from a liability standpoint as a result of their parking lot turning into a
playground. He is also concerned about their high volume of truck and semi
delivery traffic on Prairie Lake Drive which would not be ideal if there would
be residential property on both side of the street. He expressed concern for the
new residents that will hear their ground mounted air conditioning units being
run 365 days a year, 24 hours a day for their computer rooms.
Clinton stated that there are many examples around the Twin City area of
residential, commercial and office all being in the same area.
Sandstad asked if the City has looked into a noise barrier that could be
designed to eliminate the noise problem. Franzen replied the City has not, but
it is a good suggestion that they will check into.
Schlampp expressed concern for the lights that will run all night long in
Gelco's parking lot being a negative impact for future homeowners.
Kathy Bolter, 11128 Hyland Terrace, expressed concern about the preservation
of Anderson Lake and access to it for the community to continue to appreciate
the beauty of this lake.
Sandstad stated that he knows the Anderson Lake area very well. He said that
. he enjoys watching the bald eagles down there and he hopes considerations are
made to preserve the wildlife habitats.
George Bentley, 14292 Golf View Drive, expressed concern that a housing
project directly adjacent to the lake will negatively impact the environmentally
protected areas around the lake.
Charlie Gravelle, 8650 Black Maple Drive, expressed concern about the
impact on what would happen with the rest of the City in a whole if this zone
change to residential takes place. He is also concerned about the land use of
this parcel today and also 30 to 40 years in the future.
Dave Newman stated that they want the area behind Gelco protected. He said
they are aware of the air conditioning issue and landscaping the berm was
created to offset that noise.
Franzen reviewed the Staff Report regarding area #4 with the Planning
Commission. He stated this is a situation of single family next to single
family. He said the developer's response to the neighborhood concerns for the
view lines has a composite plan for buffering. That plan retains existing
vegetation off the proposed cul-de-sac. He stated where they don't have any
trees, it will go to large trees, 12 foot conifers and five inch shade trees. He
8
said where a berm can be put in they have smaller trees ranging from eight to
ID 12 feet in height. He said it will look similar to the area along County Road
4. It will provide immediate privacy and screening of site lines will take
longer. Staff is supportive of this change in the plan based upon the plans that
they have.
Schlampp asked how big are the conifers. Franzen replied they will be 12 feet
at the time of planting. He said where there isn't a berm the trees will be 12
feet tall, and where there is an eight foot berm the smallest conifer will be
eight feet and the smallest tree would be three inches per shade tree.
Lee Mayer, 8947 Preserve Boulevard, asked what the red lines are that come
off the corner of the cul-de-sac. Krone replied they are ornamental conifers.
Lisa Helt, 10600 Northmark Drive, expressed concern for the same site lines
and setback as included in the existing plan. She said this was their
expectation when they purchased their homes and ask that the Commission
consider this when making their decision. She stated she would like to see the
site remain commercial. She said that if the proposal goes through she would
request the same buffer zone which was 100 feet to any impervious surface
since that's what they saw when they purchased their home. She is also
concerned about the screening of these homes.
• Sandstad asked her if she considered the thought that these homes in the
$300,000 to $500,000 range will increase the value of her home as opposed to
the site becoming office. Helt replied she has given that thought but her and
her husband did not buy their home with the intent to sell it. They very much
like where they are and have no plans on moving, so it is not much of a
consideration for them.
Cheryl Bond, 10665 Northmark Drive expressed concern about the existing
Northmark Circle area. She is concerned about the water drainage in her
backyard.
Bob Tschantz, 10630 Northmark Drive invited the Commissioners to come out
and talk with the neighbors to get a better understanding of why they prefer the
office versus residential.
Barry Pearson, 10754 Fieldcrest Road, expressed concern for the zoning and
the lower elevation of the project. He said they purchased their home because
zoning was very appealing to them. He said if they put up two story homes
next to them, they're going to be in a hole looking up at these houses even
with a berm. He suggested restricting that property to one story homes.
9
• Charlie Gravelle, 8650 Black Maple Drive, expressed concern about the
setbacks and site lines on this site.
Schlampp asked if the parking lot lights being on all night long would have an
impact on their favoring commercial rather than residential. Gravelle replied
that the parking lot would be the same distance away as the lighting in
someone's home. He said the only difference is that everyone is going to be in
their homes at the time same time looking into each other's home.
Franzen reviewed the Staff Report regarding area #5 with the Planning
Commission. He stated that since the approved plan with the existing berm
would have allowed the view of the top two stories of the office building, a
view of the top portion of the roof of the townhouses may be acceptable. If
the additional caliper inch requirement for City code does not provide the
effective screen, then additional landscaping may be required under the
provision of the site plan review ordinance which requires a transition where
there is a difference in densities. He said that Staff's recommendation for area
#5 should be amended to meet the caliper inch requirement and additional plant
materials as required by Staff. Staff would recommend a triple row of plants
along the entire south line of area #5 with plant sizes ranging from 8 to 12 feet
high for conifers and 3-6 inches for shade trees.
• Franzen reviewed the Staff Report regarding area #6 with the Planning
Commission. He stated that since the transition is significant between the east
portion of Pulte West to the homes along Fieldcrest and Hyland Drive, the size
of the plant materials in this location should be a range of 10 to 12 foot high
conifers and 3 to 6 inch shade trees planted in triple rows. The area adjacent
to the Hyland Terrace townhouses is a smaller transition and plants should be
three rows deep, however, the size of the plant materials can vary from 6 to 8
foot high conifers and 2 1/2 - 4 inch shade trees. The transition to the single
family homes on Laneburough Drive is significant and there should be a 3
layer deep of plant materials with a minimum size of 12 feet for the conifers
and 3-6 inch shade trees. For the area adjacent to the quad homes on Carriage
Court, there should be a triple layer of plant materials with plant materials
ranging from 6 to 8 foot high for conifers and 2 1/2 - 4 inch diameter for
shade trees. Sixty percent of all trees may be at the smaller size, with 10
percent allocated to each size up to the maximum recommended. He stated
that Staff supports the plan.
Franzen reviewed the Staff Report regarding area #7 with the Planning
Commission. He stated that the 50 foot buffer zone, 9 foot high berm and
mass plant materials in a triple row with 6-8 high conifers and 2 1/2 to 4 inch
shade trees is needed since the homes are close to future commercial. This
berm and plantings should be completed concurrent with the Pulte Home site,
10
so that the plant materials would have a chance to mature before the
commercial site is zoned. The proposed planting plan along the north side of
the wetland area is weak and would benefit from additional plant materials.
The Staff would recommend a triple row of plant materials varying between 6
- 8 feet in height for conifers and 2 1/2 to 4 inches in diameter for shade trees.
Distance and plantings will create the transition. The plants should be installed
current with construction of the townhomes.
George Bentley, 14292 Golf View Drive expressed concern about what type of
interior pedestrian circle has been proposed for within the project, and for one
on the north side of the road by the lake. He is also concerned about access to
the park system and trail connections.
Ron Hart, expressed concern for a park facility for children. He stated that as
a homeowner the quality of life can be better maintained by houses and
investments would be better.
Sandstad asked if the Parks Commission has considered this issue. Franzen
replied that this has not been reviewed by the Parks Commission. The Parks
Commission reviews projects after the Planning Commission recommendation.
He stated that the Parks Commission Staff has recommended a trail connection
from this site.
• Roger Jacobson, 10890 Fieldcrest Road, expressed concern for the zoning to
remain the same as when he purchased his home, and for the line of site
blocking the view of any commercial building. He also asked for clarification
about the berm situation behind that area.
Janine Krone replied that the only place where there is a new berm is along
Center Way and it will just be graded enough to connect with the existing
berm, therefore, existing and adjacent to his property would stay unless it was
being made higher other than the large one that sits back.
Katie Baltzer, expressed concern for the value in her home depreciating. She
is also concerned about the project bringing in more traffic and congestion.
She feels her community is getting more of the lower end housing that
generates crime.
Roslyn Nasco, 11080 Northland Terrace, expressed concern about the views
she will see from her home. She suggested that the berm be left the way it is
to be created as a conservancy easement such that it will be left natural.
Patrick Francisco, 10900 Fieldcrest Road, asked whether or not a decision will
be made without final plans, and when will there be final plans.
11
Bauer replied that when the Planning Commission has a very large project like
this, major issues are reviewed and resolved at a conceptual project level first.
Then plans are referred back to the developers for revisions. Final plans are
required before the Commission will vote on rezoning.
Mark Orchard, 10160 Fieldcrest Road, expressed concern about the increase of
traffic while going to work in the morning. He is also concerned about the
project's impact on the wildlife.
Nancy Francis, 11536 Carriage Court, expressed concern for the accuracy of
the property site line.
Franzen replied that everyone is welcome to come in and Staff can help
determine where they're correct property line is located.
Bob Dunbar, 11270 Lanewood Circle, wants to know why there is a berm
behind the unit near the cul-de-sac.
Janine Krone replied that it is not a berm, that it is his existing tree cover.
She said the reason they did not propose a new berm is because you have to
have very large trees that are already screening the property 100%. The plans
are only on one side of the berm. There is no berm on the other side.
• Harry Baltzer, 10128, Hyland Terrace, suggested that the homes on the south
border of the project should be in the same price range as the homes that they
will back up to.
Janelle Edwards, 11250 Lanewood Circle, expressed concern about the berm
behind her only being 6 1/2 feet tall and from her deck she'll be seeing two
story townhomes. She is also concerned that the property value of her home
will decrease with the distance of townhomes from her home. She stated that
where there is lower housing there is a lot of crime, but with offices there
isn't.
Dorothy Latterel, 11084 Hyland Terrace, expressed concern for the large trees
that are being left, whether there is any choice for the people that buy those
homes to leave the trees or to cut them down as they wish.
Franzen replied that the City would prohibit the Association from cutting trees
down or trimming trees unless they are diseased. He said the trees are to
remain as they are.
Charlie Gravelle, 8560 Black Maple Drive, expressed concern about parcel #7
needing to be developed in order to make this plan pliable, yet he sees no plan
12
for that parcel.
Bill O'Reilly, 11145 Lanewood Circle, expressed concern of whether or not
this project is the appropriate use of this land.
Naomi Manke, 11072 Hyland Terrace, stated that she would prefer that the site
remain for office buildings as it was told to her when she purchased her home.
She expressed concern about the berm being removed and for the wildlife in
that area. She is concerned that the lower priced townhomes will decrease her
property value.
Clinton expressed concern about the residents believing that $80,000
townhomes are for low income families and that this will increase crime. He
said he prefers to call it affordable housing. He stated that an $80,000 home is
a lot of house for a single person and they have to be making over $35,000 a
year. He said they are trying to look at establishing a neighborhood where
people can live in Eden Prairie. He said by pricing homes at $120,000 would
bring a loss of people out of Eden Prairie so when they deliberate on projects
they have to consider that loss.
Foote stated that he does not see the plans for site #3 working out because
landscaping alone is not an appropriate buffer, so it would have to remain
office. He said he agrees with Staff regarding site A. He is recommending
• that the developers lower the height of the homes. He expressed concern about
the increase in traffic for the additional 160 unit proposal on site #5 and #6.
Wissner stated that she does not support site #3 as residential. She said she
agrees with Foote about lowering the height of homes, density on site #4 and
making them one level homes. She said she is supportive of affordable
housing on site #5 and A. She feels it is important for people to remain in the
community after having grown up in Eden Prairie and not have to move away
because of unaffordable housing. She said she supports the idea of having
shopping and the working place accessible to your home.
Clinton said he supports what all the Commissioners said about site #3. He
said when the developer comes back he would like him to address the issue of
accessibility to the lake.
Schlampp said he supports all the comments made by the Commissioners but
he feels there are a lot changes that need to take place.
Bauer said he supports what the Commissioners said about site #3. He agrees
with the recommendation of some of the lots being designated as one level and
is in favor of residential on site A. He said he would like to see some
13
changes on site #5 and A. He expressed concern about another 2 1/2 hour
session on this in two weeks that it would be very frustrating.
Franzen asked the Planning Commission to clarify their recommendations for
the Staff and developer. The Commission stated the following:
1. Area #3 should be Office.
2. Area #4 should be single family but site lines should be re-evaluated to
either look at one-story homes or a 100 ft. structure setback with
increased buffer.
3. Area #5, A, #7 could be multiple, but homes along the south property
should be one story.
4. Area #1 and #2 are acceptable for commercial based on the Staff
Report.
Franzen noted that a 100 feet setback or one-story homes will likely require
PUD waivers for reduced front yard setback. He added that if the City expects
the developer to do changes not typically required next to existing single family
homes, the City should be prepared to show flexibility in code waivers to help
them accomplish the desired result.
• MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton to continue the public
hearing to August 22nd. Motion carried 6-0-0.
B. EDEN PRAIRIE MALL EXPANSION-PHASE H by Homart Development
Company. Request for PUD Concept Review on 80 acres, PUD District
Review with waivers on 80 acres, Zoning District Amendment on 80 acres,
and Site Plan Review on 80 acres.
Bill Moston, representing the Eden Prairie Mall expansion, reviewed his plans
with the Commissioners. He stated they are requesting rezoning and site plan
approval for a 116,000 square foot two-level addition to the mall. He said
they are looking for approval to reduce the parking ratio to 5.0 cars per 1000
square feet. He said the building will be constructed 100% face brick and
glass in compliance with code. He said it will be two separate tenants, one on
top, one on the bottom.
Sandstad asked when they anticipate construction to begin. Moston replied in
the Fall of this year.
Larry Jensen, representing the Eden Prairie Mall expansion, stated that in order
• 14
to give them ability to lease the interior mall properly they need to incorporate
•
the retail uses. He said they need to incorporate people into the mall and by
doing so they will greatly enhance their ability to lease the interior shopping
center. If they do not do that, the leasing of the interior on spaces will
continue to decline. He stated that Kohl's is going to significantly enhance
their ability to create a traffic flow. He said they are currently about 25%
vacant.
Franzen stated Staff recommends approval according to recommendations.
Foote asked if this is going to be one big retail store. Moston replied it will
be two retails, one on top and one on the bottom.
Wissner asked what the exterior material is going to be. He said they are
using face brick that will be compatible, maybe mix in a little split face block
to give texture. He said the only place they are having a problem with is in
the entrance because the owner wants special design.
Sandstad said he would like to thank Staff for their suggestion to reduce
parking to industry standards.
MOTION 1: Foote moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 6-0-0.
• MOTION 2: Foote moved, seconded by Clinton to move to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Homart Development Company for
PUD Concept Review on 87.13 acres based on plans dated August 5, 1994 and
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 5, 1994.
Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 3: Foote moved, seconded by Clinton to move to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Homart Development Company for
PUD District Review with waivers on 87.13 acres based on plans dated August
5, 1994 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August
57 1994. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 4: Foote moved, seconded by Clinton to move to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Homart Development Company for
Zoning District Amendment on 87.13 acres based on plans dated August 5,
1994 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 5,
1994. Motion carried 6-0-0.
• 15
• C. MCDONALDS PLAYLAND ADDITION by McDonalds. Request for PUD
Concept Amendment and PUD District Review on 1.5 acres, Site Plan Review
and Zoning District Amendment on 1.5 acres for a playland addition.
Location: Prairie Center Drive Highway 169.
MOTION 1: Schlampp moved, seconded by Foote to continue the public
hearing for a minimum of two weeks. Motion carried 6-0-0.
D. EDEN PRAIRIE FORD EXPANSION by Eden Prairie Ford. Request for
Zoning District Amendment and Site Plan Review on 4.5 acres. Location:
Valley View Road.
Gary Tushie, representing Eden Prairie Ford reviewed his proposal with the
Planning Commission. He stated Ford wants to build a one story 3700 square
foot area on the existing asphalt area. This will enable them to take the new
car preparation out of the existing building and put it into the new building.
This preparation includes washing the cars, cleaning the cars and getting them
ready for the new car purchasers. He said the exterior will be the same face
brick as on the existing building and the colors will be the same. They will
have glass paneled doors.
Schlampp stated he's concerned with the drainage from washing the cars.
Tushie replied that the washing will be inside the building so it goes into the
• sanitary system.
George McQuire stated this proposal will take away the congestion of traffic
that surrounds the existing building. He said new cars are parked parallel
around the existing building waiting to be prepped because there is only one
and a half bays inside that are currently used for prepping new cars. The new
building will have eight bays inside.
Foote asked who owns the piece of property to the northwest of the site.
George McQuire, General Manager of Eden Prairie Ford, replied that Eden
Prairie Ford owns the property.
Foote asked if they have any plans for this property.
McQuire replied they do not at this time.
Franzen stated that Staff recommends approval according to the
recommendations on page 3 of the Staff Report.
Sandstad asked how high this site is compared with Valley View Road.
• 16
McQuire replied approximately five or six feet higher.
MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Schlampp to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Schlampp to move to recommend
to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Ford for Zoning
District Amendment on 4.5 acres based on plans dated August 5, 1994 and
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 5, 1994.
Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 3: Wissner moved, seconded by Schlampp to move to recommend
to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Ford for Site Plan
Review on 4.5 acres based on plans dated August 5, 1994 and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 5, 1994. Motion carried
6-0-0.
E. BEARPATH 4,5, AND 6TH ADDITIONS AKA/CROSSROADS
ADDITION by William H. & Dorothy A. Gilk. PUD District Amendment on
463 acres, PUD Concept Review on 51 acres, PUD District Review with
waivers on 51 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 45.73
acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 5.61 acres and
• Preliminary Plat of 51 acres into 46 single family lots, 18 multi-family lots and
road right-of-way. Location: Dell Road and Highway 212.
Franzen stated that Mr. Gilk will not provide the City with a letter of official
withdrawal of his requests for consideration. We have been advised by legal
counsel that the Commission should make a motion to recommend denial of the
project.
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton to move to recommend to
the City Council denial of the request of William H. and Dorothy A. Gilk for
PUD District Amendment on 463 acres, for PUD Concept Review on 51 acres,
for PUD District Review with waivers on 51 acres, Zoning District Change
from Rural to R1-13.5, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5, and
Preliminary Plat of 51 acres into 66 single family lots, 18 multi-family lots and
road right-of-way based on plans dated July 22, 1994. Motion carried 6-0-0.
F. NOISE ORDINANCE
Steve Durham, Assistant Planner, reviewed the requested revision of the noise
ordinance with the Planning Commission. He said there is a need for the noise
ordinance to be revised because it has been outdated based on the way the
noise is measured. He reviewed the problems and the significant changes that
17
the staff has worked on in the past six months to create a noise code which will
be meaningful, measurable, and enforceable.
Bauer stated that he is opposed to the City Attorney item of suggesting to move
this out of Chapter 11 to Chapter 9 to prevent any "Grand Fathering " clauses.
He expressed concern of whether or not any of the changes would be in
violation of this ordinance.
Durham replied that it would be.
Sandstad stated that the ordinance that is proposed is a low impact ordinance
and the City is relying heavily on the MPCA.
Clinton expressed concern under the violations section determining the
maximum distance. He asked for it to be defined.
Durham stated that the first page and a half are the existing noise standards in
Chapter 11 that will be deleted and put into Chapter 9.
Sandstad stated that if the unwanted sound in the daytime in the residential area
is under the limit for C-60 decibels in a half hour test period, they are legal
whether it's wanted or not.
• Laura Blummel stated she supports the revised noise ordinance. She said she
is affected from Valley Fair having fireworks displays and from the noise from
the airport. She said it is very outdated and highlighted significant changes
that she feels will benefit all of Eden Prairie.
MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton to adopt the drafted
ordinance. Motion carried 5-1-0 with Kardell absent and Bauer opposed.
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
None.
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
A. Sign Ordinance
Foote raised a concern about the sign ordinance as a result of viewing
campaign signs which were not at proper locations. He said he asked the
property owners if they gave their permission and they replied that they did
not.
18
VH. NEW BUSINESS
He said there is a neighborhood meeting coming up on the 16th of August being held
at the Super Valu headquarters to review an expansion plan. He said they are inviting
people on both sides of the lake to give a summary of what's going on.
VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS
None.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Foote to adjourn the meeting. Motion
carried 6-0-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 P.M.
19
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, August 8, 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, Donald R.
Uram, Planner
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL
H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. MINUTES
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BEARPATH 4, 5, AND 6TH ADDITIONS AKA/CROSSROADS ADDITION
by William H. &Dorothy A. Gilk. PUD District Amendment on 463 acres, Pud
Concept Review on 51 acres, PUD District Review with waivers on 51 acres,
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 45.73 acres, Zoning District
Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 5.61 acres and Preliminary Plat of 51 acres into
46 single family lots, 18 multi-family lots and road right-of-way. Location: Dell
Road and Highway 212.
B. HARTFORD PLACE by Ryan Companies. Request for Comprehensive Guide
Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 5 acres, from Office to
Medium Density Residential on 43.20 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 7 commercial lots, 250
townhouse lots, 24 single family lots and 3 outlots, Rezoning from Office to Rl-
13.5 on 13.69 acres, Rezoning from Office to RM-6.5 on 35.20 acres, and Site
Plan Review on 88 acres. Location: Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Center Drive.
C. EDEN PRAIRIE MALL EXPANSION - PHASE H by Homart Development
Company. Request for PUD Concept Review on 80 acres, PUD District Review
with waivers on 80 acres, Zoning District Amendment on 80 acres, and Site Plan
Review on 80 acres.
D. MCDONALDS PLAYLAND ADDITION by McDonalds. Request for PUD
Concept Amendment and PUD District Review on 1.5 acres, Site Plan Review
and Zoning District Amendment on 1.5 acres for a playland addition. Location:
Prairie Center Drive and Highway 169.
E. EDEN PRAIRIE FORD EXPANSION by Eden Prairie Ford. Request for
Zoning District Amendment and Site Plan Review on 4.5 acres. Location:
Valley View Road.
F. NOISE ORDINANCE
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VM. PLANNERS' REPORTS
IX. ADJOURNMENT