Loading...
Planning Commission - 04/12/1993 0 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 129 1993 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMNIISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Ken Clinton, Cynthia Clish, Katherine Kardell, Doug Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner. STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, Senior Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary I. ROLL CALL: Clish and Kardell absent. H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Bauer to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0-0. on. MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 1993 PLANNING COMIVIISSION MINUTES Wissner noted that Sandstad was absent from the meeting. MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Clinton to approve the Minutes of the March 8, 1993 Planning Commission meeting as published and previously amended. Motion carried 3-0-2. Bauer and Sandstad abstained. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. SOWLES PROPERTY by US Homes. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 12.06 acres, Planned. Unit Development Concept Review on 83.55 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review within the RM-6.5 Zoning District*on 12.06 acres with waivers, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 50.92 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 12.06 acres and Preliminary Plat of 83.55 acres into 162 single family lots, 32 multi-family lots, 5 outlots and road right-of-way. Location: North of Pioneer Trail, East of future Dell Road. 1 Lee Johnson, representing Orrin Thompson Homes, stated that the property was currently owned by Larry and Dan Sowles. The proponent was requesting rezoning to develop 162 single family homes and 32 multi-family homes with a 2.3 unit per acre density. Johnson noted that Outlot A would be deeded to Centex Homes which would provide them with an additional buildable lot. A portion of the Centex Homes wetland area could be used for backyards of the Orrin Thompson Homes. Outlot B could become a buildable lot for Orrin Thompson Homes. Johnson stated that the original farm house and out buildings would be demolished and the Dan Sowles home would remain in place. A deep wooded hole on the site contains a DNR designated wetland. A portion of the wetlands to the west would be deeded to the Bearpath project. The trunk water main and sewer, which is also needed for the Bearpath project, would be available from three locations. Johnson stated that the 1st Phase of the project would be the single family homes adjacent to the Fairfield South project. The wooded are has steep slopes going down to the water. The walkout elevations for the homes on these slopes would match the elevation of the homes on the flat surface. Sandstad'asked if the cul-de-sac was a public road to the adjoining cul-de-sac. Johnson replied yes. Johnson reported that the sidewalks would be installed per requirements from the City and 8 foot path would be constructed along Pioneer Trail. The grading for the project would be done to allow for the preservation of as many trees as possible. The tree loss for the project was estimated at approximately 20%. Johnson noted that additional trees would be placed along Dell Road as part of the replacement plan. Johnson stated that the proposed house plans were being currently constructed in several other suburbs and selling well. Architectural diversity was available with the proposed home designs. Johnson presented a slide presentation of a similar project which was currently under construction in Rosemount. Johnson believed that project to be well designed and would like to make comments on the Staff Report after Staff and public comments were given. Franzen reported that minor changes needed to be made in the plan details as the project moves forward. The Planning Commission needs to determine if the project should be all R1-9.5 or a mix of R1-9.5 and R1-13.5. Franzen noted that the Staff recommendations were designed for approval of either a mix or all R1-9.5 lots. Bauer noted that Fairfield South was approved but not built and asked if any homes had been sold adjacent to this proposed development. Dan Blake, representing Centex Homes, stated that none of the homes in Fairfield South had been sold at this time; however, homes in Fairfield North had been sold. Johnson stated that the proponent agreed in general with the landscape recommendations. Johnson noted that 30 feet was provided along Street I. Johnson stated that access would be provided to the N.U.R.P. ponds. The proponent was willing to provide access easements but, would propose that the access easements not be located in the backyards. The proponent 2 proposed to have the wetland outlots be owned by the property owners. Covenants would be provided. Schlampp asked if the DNR had given approval to sell the wetland areas. Franzen replied that a letter had not been received from the DNR at this time. Franzen added that the DNR mainly wants to make sure that the property is maintained. Schlampp asked how deep the slopes were. Johnson replied that the walkouts would be at an 880 elevation. Johnson added that the slopes were 3 to 1. Schlampp asked how drainage would be controlled once the silt fences were removed. Johnson replied that the backyard drainage would be directed to the pond and the front yard drainage would be directed to the street. Schlampp asked if the drainage from the ponds would be by pipe or free flowing. Johnson replied by pipe. Schlampp asked what size of a pipe would be used. Johnson replied that the size of the pipe had not been determined at this time. Johnson added that the drainage would increase approximately 15% and would go through the NX.R.P. ponds. Johnson further commented that a lift station would be installed for emergencies. Schlampp asked what type of retaining walls would be installed around the existing homes. Schlarnpp added that no details had been provided. Johnson replied that the retaining walls would be designed in accordance with City Code requirements. Johnson added that they were not at that detailed stage of the planning process yet. Sandstad asked how the trees would be maintained once the homes were sold. Johnson replied that the trees would be protected by covenants. Franzen replied that conservancy easements were used to protect slopes which meant also served to protect the trees because they could not be removed within the easement area. The conservancy easements had become self policing. • Wissner asked if a fine was given if trees were removed. Franzen replied that additional tree loss on a project from the homeowners was always anticipated by Staff and is included in the calculation of tree loss. Tree loss is calculated on pad not house size and takes into consideration decks and expansion. Sandstad asked Johnson if the proponent would be comfortable with a conservancy easement. Johnson replied that he did not believe that it was necessary since the proponents protective covenants stated that same thing. Sandstad asked Johnson if he had considered R1-13.5 lots to the west. Johnson replied that he believed the plan as proposed was a nice development. Johnson added that by reducing the number of lots the remaining lots would cost an additional 2 to 3%. Johnson also noted that the product being constructed would be the same. Johnson stated that the lots to the west were 130 feet deep and if they had to be 100 feet wide this would result in the lose of 3 to 5 lots. Johnson noted that the homes proposed were 46 feet wide and he could not see this size home on a 100 foot wide lot. Johnson stated that he had not seen values of adjacent properties be lowered by these types of developments in other suburbs. Johnson added that additional landscaping or berming could be used to create the transition. Johnson also noted that a portion of the Fairfield South project was zoned R1-9.5. 3 Wissner stated that she was not against the R1-9.5 zoning but was concerned about the aesthetics of abutting to the Fairfield North and South projects. Bauer asked how much flexibility the buyer had to change the floor plan. Johnson replied there was a lot of flexibility. Bauer stated that if even one homeowner had purchased a lot in Fairfield South abutting this property anticipating R1-13.5 zoning there would be no question that it should be zoned R1-13.5; however, a representative from Centex Homes has stated that none of the lots have been sold. Bauer applauded affordable housing being introduced. Bauer believed that both developers were very reputable and would properly advise potential buyers of the situation. Wissner asked what the price ranges would be for the homes. Johnson replied that the base price would be approximately $110,000. Johnson added that typically no one bought a base price home, there were always additions. Wissner asked what the duplex price ranges would be. Johnson replied the duplex were one-story ramblers ranging in price from$130,000 to$170,000. Michael Beer, 16977 Bainbridge Drive, stated that his lot was approximately 15,000 square feet. He also note that the price range of the homes in the surrounding neighborhood were$225,000 and up. Beer stated that he wanted to see harmonious development. He noted that Centex Homes had design Executive homes to be constructed. Beer did not believe that it would be harmonious form $125,000 homes to be next to $225,000 homes. Beer asked how the construction traffic access would be handled. The neighborhood had many small children and he was concerned for their safety. Johnson replied that construction traffic would not be going through the Bainbridge Drive area. Chuck Camp, 16865 Bainbridge Drive, stated that his concerns were the same as those stated by Mr. Beer. Camp was also concerned about the speed of the traffic in general. Camp was concerned that Bainbridge Drive and Candlewood would be used as shortcuts. Bauer replied that the City responded well to these concerns. Sandstad replied that the roads would not be straight and, therefore, believed that speeds would be reduced. Franzen concurred that until some of the road connections were made that there could be extra traffic in the neighborhoods. Franzen also noted that the construction of the roads would be timed with the construction of the developments. Camp asked what the upper price range would be for the homes. Johnson replied that the upper range would be between $160,000 and $170,000. Schlampp asked Camp what the average price was for a home in his neighborhood. Camp replied $240,000 and up. Bud Baker, 9232 Cedar Forest, asked what the plans were to extend the bituminous trail to Lake Riley. Franzen replied that Bearpath and US Homes would construct a bituminous trail along the north side of Pioneer Trail. Franzen noted that the trail could be completed by the end of this summer. Baker stated that the speed limit on County Road 1 was 55 and asked if there was any possibility to reduce the speed limit or add a traffic light to slow the traffic down. Franzen 4 • replied that the City could make a request to the County. Franzen noted that the City had requested and been approved for a signal on the eastern portion of County Road 1. Baker asked when Dell Road would be constructed. Franzen replied that a portion of Dell Road would begin constructed this summer and should be completed within 1 year. Franzen added that a signal would come later; no signal was planned to be installed concurrent with Dell Road. Baker asked what could be done to control the speed of the traffic on Cedar Forest. Baker was concerned that the problem would become worse with the addition of over 150 homes. Franzen replied that Staff could ask the Engineering Department to speak with the County regarding speeds. Baker requested that the City consider initiating contact with the County regarding this matter. Baker asked if there was any plan for a park to service this PUD area. Franzen replied that the only park would be Lake Riley Park for which improvements were being recommended. Franzen added that the next closest park would be Miller Park. Baker asked if there was a park within walking distance. Franzen replied no. Bauer asked if this plan would be reviewed at the Park & Recreation Commission meeting. Franzen replied yes. Bauer recommended that Baker attend the Park&Recreation Commission meeting. Baker stated that he considered Lake Riley Park and Miller Park to be regional parks. Baker was concerned about the possible addition of a significant number of children with no form of recreational facilities available. Eileen Venable, 17349 Bainbridge Drive, believed that their street would become a thoroughfare from the golf course development. Venable also believed that Bainbridge would provide easy access to Dell Road and Scenic Heights Road. Venable asked if there was a way to not make a connection to Danton Way from Dell Road. Maria Ramsay, 17062 Bainbridge Drive, stated a concern about the increase in traffic. Ramsay believed that the transition lots should be R1-13.5. Ramsay stated that Cedar Ridge School was already over crowded. John Rogers who lived in a home adjacent to Fairfield South asked if the property would be built up or taken down. Johnson replied that a small berm would be constructed. Rogers stated that there would be 3 lots facing his lot. Dan Blake, Centex Homes, stated that he did not have any concerns with the project. Blake would like to see the 2 duplex homes to the southeast be considered for single family homes. Bauer stated that the R1-13.5 transition area was still important; however, the area was a smaller area. Bauer believed that Centex Homes would be responsible to disclose to any potential buyer the proposed zoning. Bauer believe that the northeastern corner of the project needed to be revised. Bauer recommended a continuance to look at the northeast corner and traffic issues. Wissner concurred that the northeast corner needed to be revised. Wissner applauded the development of R1-9.5 lots. Wissner wanted to make this a positive to positive development. 5 Bauer stated that he was in favor of the project because R1-9.5 development was being used as originally intended. Bauer stated that approximately 10 lots needed to be reviewed. Johnson stated that he was willing to go along with R1-13.5 zoning on the perimeter of the northeast corner. Johnson believed that the proposed accesses would be a plus for the existing neighborhood. Johnson added that it was always planned that Hanover Lane would be a through street. Johnson stated that he would like to keep the project moving. Bauer stated that he needed to see how the R1-13.5 lots would look in the northeast corner. Schlampp stated that he was uncomfortable with R1-9.5 lots abutting R1-13.5 lots. Schlampp believed that the transition was too abrupt as well as the whole eastern border. Schlampp stated that he would like to see more information from the DNR regarding the wetlands and the increased run-off. Schlampp requested information regarding what damage could be created from additional drainage and how the drainage would be controlled. Schlampp believed that the level of the wetlands would change and asked at what level they would be maintained. Schlampp believed that the DNR needed to sign-off on the project. Wissner asked what would happen if the DNR would not sign-off on the project. Schlampp replied that he was not sure. Schlampp added that he questioned who would maintain the wetlands. Clinton applauded the developer for the development of moderately priced homes. Clinton concurred that the transition for the northeastern corner needed to be addressed, the wetland issues resolved, a traffic study done. Clinton believed that it was important to pay attention to traffic safety issues. Gualtieri concurred that children without a park near could create a problem. Sandstad believed that a review of the connection of Danton Way to Dell Road should be reviewed further. Bauer believed that the Commission was still unclear in a direction on the eastern boundary. Wissner asked which lots on Fairfield South were zoned R1-9.5. Franzen replied the lots south of Outlot B were zoned R1-9.5. Blake believed that Mr. Rogers was more impacted than Centex Homes by the R1-9.5 zoning to the east. Schlampp asked Blake if Centex Homes was stating that lots were unsold in this area and Centex Homes did not object to R1-9.5 zoning. Blake replied that he believed what was being proposed was reasonable and the impact to the north and Mr. Rogers would be more significant. • 6 Bauer requested that the proponent return with two alternative plans. One plan would be Rl- 13.5 zoning in the northeast corner only and the second plan would be with R1-13.5 zoning for the perimeter lots from the northeast corner down to Outlot B. Johnson stated that he was willing to come back with the best proposal possible. MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Clinton to continue this Item to the April 26, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0. B. BLOCK BUSTER VIDEO/LIQUOR STORE by Northco Corporation. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial Zoning District on 10.54 acres, Site Plan Review on 10.54 and Preliminary Plat of 10.54 acres into three lots, and road right-of-way with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Location: Northwest Quadrant of the Intersection of County Road 4 and Highway 5. Franzen reported that petitions were distributed to the Planning Commission this evening. Bruce Carlson, Manager of Prairie Village Mall, stated that Northco Corporation had owned the mall for over 10 years. The mall has struggled over the years; however, the mall is currently 90% occupied with the Minnesota Fabric store which opened today. The proposal was to construct a small building which would accommodate the Eden Prairie Liquor Store and Blockbuster Video. Carlson stated that Blockbuster Video had 14 stores in the Twin City area. The building would be 10,750 square feet. Blockbuster Video would occupy 7,500 square feet and the Eden Prairie Liquor Store would occupy 4,200 square feet. Carlson believed that the Liquor Store would have a significant improvement in visibility with the move. Carlson stated that the City had hired an independent consultant to look at the site and the consultant had stated that this would be the best site available if the Liquor Store were to move its location. The exterior of the building would be brown brick to match the existing mall. The signage meets code. Sandstad asked about the color issue regarding signage. Carlson stated that Blockbuster Video had specific colors which they used for signage. Carlson believed that this issue could be dealt with in design. Carlson believed that parking and traffic were the main issues for residents and Staff. Carlson stated that he did not anticipate a parking problem and believed that additional traffic would be marginal and would not create a major problem. The building would be constructed to allow the traffic flow to continue as it currently does. The existing mall would not change. The existing pylon sign would be eliminated and 2 new sign would be placed 1 on County Road 4 and 1 on Highway 5. Vincent Driessen, representing Blockbuster Video, stated that Blockbuster Video was part of a national franchise chain but was locally owned and financed. This is a family video store which believes that community involvement is important. Blockbuster Video is larger than most video 7 • stores and believes strongly in customer service. Driessen stated that Blockbuster Video was anxious to become a member of the Eden Prairie business community. Wissner asked if Blockbuster Video had not had a store here before. Driessen replied that a store was here; however, they had experienced a bad experience with a franchisee. Carlson believed that the traffic and parking issues had been addressed. Carlson added that a small variance for Base Area Ratio was required. Franzen reported that 3 issues needed to be discussed; Base Area Ratio variance, traffic, and parking. Franzen stated that traffic in this location has always been an issue. Franzen said that Staff had compared parking with similar projects and believed that with 5.5 spaces per 1000 square feet this would be adequate. Franzen stated that a question would be if there was already a traffic problem would the City want to add more businesses. Franzen noted that a Base Area Ratio variance has not been granted for commercial use. Dick Brown, 7685 Heritage Road, questioned the merit of a Base Area Ratio variance. Brown asked if traffic was limited why you wanted to build a store there. Brown believed that the building would obstruct the view at this intersection. Brown questioned Carlson's statement about a minimal impact on traffic; then where will the customers come from. Brown believed that parking was a problem and the access to the facility was terrible with only 1 entrance. Brown stated that the parking lot was currently full of water and questioned where the drainage would go and what would the mall do with the snow in the winter. Brown questioned if Walgreens had been considered in the extra traffic in the area. Brown stated that he was opposed to any additional to the mall. Barbara Anderson, 17247 Round Lake Road, stated that she had seen businesses come and go over the years. Anderson said that the parking lot is in terrible condition. Anderson was opposed to any addition to the mall. Anderson believed that the variance would set a precedent and give this mall an unfair advantage over other facilities. David Barczak, 16368 Sheldon Avenue, questioned the area to be rezoned as shown on the map mailed out. The shaded area included part of the Church parking lot. Sandstad replied that the Church would not be affected; the shaded area extended further than necessary. Barczak stated that Wagner Way was already difficult to get in or out of. Barczak noted that there were already other video stores within walking distance. Barczak asked what height the new signs would be and if they would be visible from the existing homes. Tom Lauby, owner of the video store at Prairie Center Mall, stated that he had left a mall in Eden Prairie because outside signage was not allowed. Lauby said that he had moved to a new mall which was only 10% full. Lauby believed that any business which could locate in this location would do well. Lauby stated that if Blockbuster Video moved in he would have to close his doors. 8 Carol Scott, 7691 Heritage Road, concurred with what had already been said. Scott said that currently you could see from County Road 4 to Highway 5 and believed that a building in this location would create a safety problem. Scott questioned why existing empty spaces in Eden Prairie could not be used. Kevin Novotny, manager of Pizza Hut, stated that there was a lot of vacant space in Eden Prairie. Novotny believed that the Prairie Village Mall was 75% full at best. Novotny stated that the Prairie Center Mall had a lot of vacant space. Novotny believed that Blockbuster Video would do well anywhere in Eden Prairie. He stated that parking and traffic were already heavy. Novotny further believed that Walgreens would add a lot of traffic to the area. Novotny said that in the pizza delivery business you need to be able to get to your customers quickly and the intersection of County Road 4 and Highway 5 is already a problem. Novotny requested that Alternative 2 of the Staff Report be considered. Sandstad read into the record a letter from Lois Bohnsack. Jim Connelly, manager of Panorama, believed that the City should not grant Blockbuster Video anything that the City would not grant another local business. Connelly stated that he had worked under City regulations. Connelly believed that there was ample vacant space in the City already. Connelly believed that this location was the ideal retail space in Eden Prairie. Blockbuster Video does between $70,000 and$100,000 of revenue in 1 month. Connelly noted that the average sale would be$5.00 and believed that at this rate a significant amount of traffic would be created. Connelly believed that the Blockbuster Sign would be a major beacon after is dark. He said that he accepted the fact the Blockbuster Video would be in Eden Prairie; it was a question of fairness to all businesses. Connelly stated that he had been in Eden Prairie for a long time paying taxes. Carlson stated that the mall only had 2 vacant spaces at this time. Carlson said that the potholes in the parking lot were being filled. Carlson noted that Blockbuster's peak hours would be after the dinner hour. Competition occurs everywhere. Carlson stated that he had not complained to the City when Walgreens wanted to come in across the street. Lauby stated that he had seen the manhole in the parking lot of the Prairie Village Mall come up during a heavy rain. Lauby believed that the sewer system should be dealt with before further construction considered. Clinton stated that he remembered when the Walgreens store was being reviewed and the concerns raised at that time regarding traffic. Clinton questioned why the City would consider building in this location. Clinton noted that business competition was not a concern for the Planning Commission to deal with. Bauer believed that the only alternative was Alternate#3 in the Staff Report. Bauer said that he could not approve a plan which did not meet City Code. • 9 Wissner questioned if the City really wanted to have a Liquor Store with its name on it on this prominent corner. Schlampp believed that it would be a mistake to consider a variance. Schlampp concurred that the drainage was already poor at this mall and believed that it should be taken care of before any additional construction approved. Schlampp believed that nothing would be said if this facility could be located in the existing mall. Schlampp believed that this was the most advantageous spot for a retail business. Schlampp believed in free enterprise but believed that the variances were improper. Sandstad believed that the project was poorly designed. Sandstad was disappointed that Eden Prairie would want its name on a Liquor Store in this location. Bauer stated that he would be in favor of the proponent returning with a plan that would meet City Code and did not require variances. Bauer recommended a continuance. MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Schlampp to continue the item to the April 26, 1993 meeting. Carlson asked how they could proceed to the City Council. Franzen replied that the quickest way to get to the City Council would be for the Planning Commission to deny the project if the proponent is unwilling to make changes to the plan. Sandstad stated if the Planning Commission continued the item it could not proceed to the City Council. Franzen replied that if it were continued the plan would need to come back to the Planning Commission for action. Bauer stated that if the proponent had a plan which met City Code requirements he could support it. MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Clinton to withdraw the motion for a continuance and to recommend denial. Motion carried 5-0-0. Reason for denial of the project are as set out in Alternative 2 of the Staff Report: Variances would set a precedent, parking, traffic and drainage are problem areas already and this would create an economic advantage. Schlampp believed that a denial was the best way to get to the City Council. Schlampp did not believe this was a dead issue. Schlampp recommended that the proponent come back with a different plan. • 10 Lauby asked how he could find out when the plan would be reviewed by the City Council. Franzen believed that it would be reviewed at the 1st meeting in May if the proponent decided to proceed. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VH. NEW BUSINESS VM. PLANNERS REPORT IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Wissner to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 PM. Motion carried 5-0-0. 11 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE, PLANNING COAINMSION Monday, April 12, 1993 7:30 p.m. COIVINIISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Cynthia Clish, 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; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA f M. 1VI04UTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS l A. SOWLES PROPERTY by US Homes. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 12.06 acres, PUD Concept Review on 83.55 acres, PUD District Review within the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 12.06 acres with waivers and Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 50.92 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 12.06 acres and Preliminary Plat of 83.55 acres into 162 single family lots, 32 multi-family lots, 5 outlots and road right-of-way. Location: North of Pioneer Trail, east of future Dell Road. B. BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO/LIQUOR STORE by Northco Corporation. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial Zoning District on 10.54 acres, Site Plan Review on 10.54 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 10.54 acres into 3 lots and road right-of-way with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Location: Northwest corner of the intersection of County Road 4 and Highway 5. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS - Election of Officers VH. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS IX. ADTOURNmiENT EDEN PRAHUE PLANNING CONRMSION APPROVED M]NUTES MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1993 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMBSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Ken Clinton, Cynthia Clish Katherine Kardell, Doug Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner. STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, Senior Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL All members present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Bauer to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0-0. 1H. MINUTES MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Clinton to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held March 22, 1993 as published. Motion carried 6-0-1. Bauer abstained. MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Clinton to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held April 12, 1993 as published. Motion carried 5-0-2. Clish and Kardell abstained. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ST. EDWARD'S FIELD by The Pemtom Land Company. Request for rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.44 acres and Preliminary Plat of 7.04 acres into 12 lots, 1 outlot and road right- of-way. Location: West of Tartan Curve, east of CSAH 101. Franzen reported that the developer had requested a two week continuance. Franzen added that the developer had mailed notices of the expected delay to all residents which had received the City's official notice. i 1 MOTION Kardell moved, seconded by Schlampp to continue the public hearing to May 10, 1993. Motion icarried 7-0-0. B. VICTORY LUTHERAN CHURCH by Victory Lutheran Church. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 6.6 acres. Location: East of County Road 4, north of Berger Drive. Franzen reported that this parcel had been reviewed approximately one year ago. The developer wished to make architectural changes. The revised plan was larger than the original but would be using similar exterior materials. Reverend Robert Mundale introduced the Chairman of the Building Committee Mr. Orlin. Orlin stated that the changes in the plan would allow for the lower level of the Church to be utilized. Orlin added that the architecture was very similar and the exterior would meet the 75% brick and glass requirement. Sandstad asked why the grading plan had been changed. Orlin replied that the northwest corner of the parking lot would be raised approximately 2 feet. The grading would be done from the north to the east as originally proposed. Schlampp asked what the time frame would be for development. Orlin replied that the expansion would take place over a 5 year period. Schlampp asked if the Church planned for further expansion if the parking requirements could still be met. Orlin replied that the parking lot could be expanded to the east. Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the revised plan. Franzen noted that all of the requirements were the same as the original plan. Schlampp asked if the N.U.R.P. pond would be located where additional parking would need to developed if further expansion occurred. Franzen replied no. Nancy Nicklay, 16011 Lake Shore Drive, stated that she was representing the estate of Mr. Rogers. Nicklay stated that she and her grandfather approved of what the Church proposed to do with the property. MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 2: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Victory Lutheran Church for Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 6.6 acres based on plans dated March 30, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 23, 1993. Motion carried 7-0-0. 2 C. SOWLES PROPERTY by US Homes. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review of 83.55 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 12.06 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 12.06 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 50.92 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 12.06 acres and Preliminary Plat of 83.55 acres into 196 lots. Location: East of Dell Road, north of County Road 1. Franzen reported that this item was continued by the Planning Commission at the last meeting. The Commission requested to see an alternate plan for the north and northeastern borders. Lee Johnson, representing US Homes, presented the revised plans. One lot had been dropped from Lots 10 through 18, which were adjacent to the existing homes. Johnson requested that the zoning in this section be changed to R1-13.5. In the section along the eastern boundary where no houses were located at this time 1 lot had been dropped. Johnson stated that in Block 8 another lot had been dropped. In Block 9, which was adjacent to R1-13.5 lots another lot had been dropped. Johnson noted that this would leave 5 lots facing the Roger's property in lieu of 6 lots. Johnson added that additional landscaping would also be used along Block 9. Franzen reported that if the Planning Commission acted favorably on this proposal the change to R1-13.5 zoning would be noted to the City Council. Johnson reported that conservancy easements would be used to control the wetland areas and the slopes. The easement would be approximately 70 to 90 feet around the wetland area. Johnson noted that the average easement was between 25 and 30 feet. Johnson stated the developer was still in favor of the existing traffic pattern. Sandstad asked if there was an outlot south of Block 9. Johnson replied no. Sandstad asked if the landscape plan would be the same as previously discussed. Johnson replied the landscape plan would be the same. Clinton asked if approval of the DNR wetland had been received. Johnson replied that no filling or alteration of the wetland would occur and, therefore, no permit would be required. Schlampp believed that a permit could be necessary for a wetland which was to be used as a catch basin. Franzen replied that the necessary approvals from the DNR, Watershed District and EPA would be provided. Franzen believed that the DNR would only require that a pre-treatment pond be provided. Schlampp stated that he would be more comfortable if a letter from the DNR was part of the record. Schlampp added that a significant amount of water would flow through this area. Sandstad asked Schlampp if he would be comfortable with allowing Staff to handle this matter. Schlampp replied yes. Wissner thanked the proponent for the changes made to the plan. Franzen reported that the major concerns at the last meeting were transition and traffic. Franzen stated that he was comfortable with the transition as proposed. Franzen reported that Staff acts on direction from the City Council to limit the number of cul-de-sacs, develop through roads, and to not encourage the development of private neighborhoods. Franzen believed that a major • portion of neighborhood traffic would be eliminated when the connection of Dell Road and Scenic Heights Road was completed. Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the project based on the revised plans. 3 Sandstad questioned the outlot designation for the pond area. Franzen replied that in the past the City had been able to obtain land around the wetlands and the creeks; the City would prefer private ownership. Schlampp stated that the questioned had been asked as to who would maintain the pond. Johnson replied that the purpose of the N.U.R.P. pond was to remove significant sedimentation. Schlampp asked if the homeowners had the responsibility to maintain the pond. Johnson replied that this would similar to any existing body of water. Franzen replied that the City would be responsible to maintain the N.U.R.P. pond. Kardell asked how the construction traffic would be controlled so that the existing neighborhood would not be disturbed. Franzen replied that the construction traffic could use Fairfield South and signs could be posted to require designated access points. Eileen Venable, 17349 Bainbridge Drive, stated that traffic lights were missing in the proposed traffic design. Venable believed that the current road design would provide a diagonal access to the northeast area of the City. A minimum of two lights would be eliminated for drivers by going through the neighborhood. Venable said that the southwest area was the fastest growing section in Eden Prairie. The neighbors wanted an area where the children could grow up safely. Venable stated that the traffic had increased in the last 5 to 6 years. Venable requested that Danton Way become a deadend street. Sandstad asked how many property owners were involved in the 80 signatures on the petition submitted. Venable replied that many of the homes in the area were still under construction; everyone who was home signed the petition. Richard Bailey, 16835 Hanover Lane, concurred that the road design as proposed would provide a short cut. Bailey was also concerned about the safety of the children. He stated that many of the children cross the street to ride their bikes on the path. Kendolyn Erdmann, 17116 Bainbridge, stated that there was no sidewalk or bikepath on Bainbridge and the children had to cross Danton Way to get to the sidewalk. Erdmann noted that another large development was planned to the south of this project. Erdmann stated that they had wanted a quiet isolated neighborhood for their children to grow up in. Brad Wivell, 17323 Bainbridge, stated concern regarding the increase in traffic. Wivell stated that he had a child with special needs and was concerned about safety. Sandstad asked Wivell if he would be more comfortable with a sidewalk on Danton Way or Hanover Lane. Wivell believed that there was no need to access Dell Road from Danton Way. Sandstad replied that Danton Way had always been designed as a through street. Franzen replied that the road connection was looked at with the Fairfield North Addition. Chuck Camp, 16865 Bainbridge Drive, stated that his concerns were the same as presented at the last meeting. Camp noted that there were natural boundaries which existed to isolate the • neighborhood. 4 Rich Voreis, 17111 Candlewood, stated that he echoed the same concerns as the other neighbors. Voreis encouraged Commissioners to visit the neighborhood if they had not had an opportunity to do so. Voreis stated that the main concern was for the safety of the children. Mike Seifert, 17152 Hanover Lane, stated that the children play in the street in the neighborhood. Seifert said that he had spoken with a friend who lived on Lee Drive, which had been approved by the City Council as a cul-de-sac, and questioned why Danton Way needed to be a through street. Dallas Erdmann, 17116 Bainbridge, urged the Commissioners to see the neighborhood. Erdmann requested that this not be made a through street or at least make it a temporary cul-de- sac until Dell Road is finished. Erdmann urged the Commission to change the road pattern so that it would not be a straight shot. Royce Rosemond, 17220 Bainbridge Drive, stated that he lived on the corner of Bainbridge and would be located at the apex of all the traffic. Rosemond hoped that the City would not wait for a disaster to occur before a change was made. Rosemond believed that the road design would change the quality of the neighborhood. Sandstad thanked the neighbors for all of their comments. Franzen stated a possibility would be to not have the connection at Danton Way and move the connection for Dell Road to Street H. He believed that this alternative would slow down the traffic and would not require the number of lots to change. Venable noted that there would be four exits from the neighborhood. Camp stated that the development was designed to provide affordable housing. Typically families have two cars. There will be two large neighborhoods adjoining each other which will increase traffic significantly. Seifert asked the Commissioners to consider the precedent set by Lee Drive for a cul-de-sac. Sandstad replied that cul-de-sacs were discussed often and there are many issues involved when considering a cul-de-sac. Kardell asked how many units would be built in the Fairfield project. Franzen replied that in the entire Fairfield project over 300 homes and in Fairfield South 96 homes. Kardell stated that there would be additional traffic from approximately 300 homes. Bauer stated that no one wants to be anti-children and safety. He added that everyone developing in a new area hopes that areas close to them will not develop. Traffic experts have analyzed the road systems. At the last meeting the main issue was transition in the northeast corner. Bauer stated that he was concerned about school bus traffic safety in cul-de-sac areas. Emergency vehicle access is also a major concern. Bauer believed that Franzen's suggestion of an alternate road design was worth further investigation. Wissner stated that Braxton was a main street and asked if it had sidewalks on both sides of the . street. Franzen replied yes. 5 Venable noted that the traffic would also affect the new people moving into the area. Seifert stated that Minnetonka had loop streets coming in from various directions for emergency access and it worked well. MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Sandstad asked for any discussion by the Commission members. Kardell stated that the concerns of the residents had changed from the meeting two weeks ago. Kardell added that she was intrigued by the possibility of connecting Street H in lieu of Danton Way. Kardell did not believe the street should be considered a playground. Kardell stated that she could support the plan but would like further consideration for a connection of Street H. Clish stated that she had confidence in the traffic engineers but would like to look at the alternative for the connection of Street H. Kardell stated that she would be more concerned about this if the Bearpath Development were not being developed across Dell Road, since Bearpath is approved at 1/3 of the allowable density. Schlampp stated that a lot of thought and planning had gone into the road design for this project. He added that traffic would increase. Schlampp could not see why the project should not be developed as proposed. Schlampp believed that if speed was the problem that there were means available by the City to slow the traffic down. Schlampp did not believe that changing the road design would help the situation. Wissner stated that the developer had answered the concerns addressed at the last meeting. Wissner asked if the road connection had to be made before Dell Road was opened. Wissner stated that she would like to see a temporary solution until Dell Road is completed. Schlampp replied that the alternative for a temporary solution would be a cul-de-sac which would result in present homeowners to lose property around the cul-de-sac. Schlampp added that the lots would be needed to be designed as a cul-de-sac lots now. Wissner asked if this would be possible. Johnson replied that Centex would lose two lots if Danton Way were to be designed for a cul-de-sac. Johnson asked if the City wanted Danton Way to be a cul-de-sac. Camp asked if there weren't outlots in the cul-de-sac areas. Johnson replied that it would not fit in with the existing homes. Clinton believed that the developer had done a good job providing the transition as requested. Clinton stated that he had concerns regarding traffic. He added that typically the speeders live in the neighborhood. Clinton stated that he would like to see the alternative for Street H investigated. Johnson stated that the streets were neighborhood streets. He added that there are six access points to this neighborhood. Johnson also noted that he was given the location of the street at Danton Way by Fairfield Development. Johnson stated that they would do a traffic study if necessary but grades also needed to be taken into consideration. 6 Sandstad asked Johnson if he would be interested in a two week continuance to make changes. Johnson replied that he believed that this was a good plan and he would stand by it. Johnson further believed that he could make a good case to the City Council for the plan as proposed. Sandstad stated that he would support he plan as presented. Sandstad added that he would rely on the Staff recommendation. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 2: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of US Homes for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 12.06 acres based on plans dated April 9, 1993 and April 23, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 9, 1993 and April 23, 1993. Motion carried 6-0-1. Clinton abstained. MOTION 3: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of US Homes for PUD Concept Review on 83.55 acres based on plans dated April 9, 1993 and April 23, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 9, 1993 and April 23, 1993. Motion carried 6-0-1. Clinton abstained. MOTION 4• Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of US Homes for PUD District Review within the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 12.06 acres with waivers and Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 50.92 acres and Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 12.06 acres based on plans dated April 9, 1993 and April 23, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 9, 1993 and April 23, 1993. Motion carried 6-0-1. Clinton abstained. MOTION 5: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of US Homes for Preliminary Plat of 83.55 acres based on plans dated April 9, 1993 and April 23, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 9, 1993 and April 23, 1993. Motion carried 6-0-1. Clinton abstained. Venable asked what would happen to the petition. Franzen replied that it would become part of the public record and would be forwarded to the City Council. D. FAHtMLD WEST PHASE 2 by Centex Homes. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 23.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 23.5 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 6.34 acres and Preliminary Plat of 6.34 acres into 11 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: West of Hennepin County Light Rail Authority Right-of-Way, South of future Scenic Heights Road Extension. 7 Franzen reported that this proposal had been looked at last year. The previous minutes were included in the packet. The City Council approved only 28 lots with 11 lots to come back for further review. The plan has been revised with one less lot but is similar to the previous PUD. Jim Ostenson, developer, stated that the project was straight forward. He had agreed to hold off on the development of the 11 lots because of the "Big Woods" area. The Eden Prairie Land Trust had not exercised its option to purchase the property. Ostenson noted that the plan had not changed significantly. Seven lots are within the woods and four lots are outside of the woods. Ostenson stated that special measures to preserve the trees were still in place. Franzen reported that the proposal was consistent with the original PUD. The zoning was compatible and the tree loss would be less than 30%. Franzen stated that Staff recommended approval. Franzen noted that all special provisions are contained in the Developers Agreement and should be included with this project. Sandstad asked why R1-44 zoning was not being considered in this area to minimize the tree loss. Franzen replied that the purpose of R1-44 zoning was to preserve natural features. Franzen added that R1-44 zoning had only been approved once with Timberbluffs to preserve the bluff area. Franzen stated that when you have larger lots you typically have larger more expensive homes which can result in the same tree loss. Scott Wallace, 12465 Sunnybrook Road, presented a handout to the Planning Commission regarding the "Big Woods". Wallace stated that this was a unique plan community and that the Natural Resources Committee would make a recommendation in July as to what areas the City wished to preserve. Wallace believed that R1-44 zoning was proper because of the natural area. . Wallace noted that the Tree Preservation Ordinance only considered significant trees and that the City did not really know how the new methods of tree preservation would work. Wallace believed that conservation easements could further protect the natural resources. Wallace stated that the Eden Prairie Land Trust had raised over$10,000 which for the most part had been given back to the City. Wallace noted that Tandem had been very co-operative. Wallace presented a letter from the DNR which stated that value of the "Big Woods". Wallace recommended consideration of some type of tax abatement for the developer. Pat Minton, 7994 Island Road, stated that Centex had been co-operative. Minton said that as a member of the Eden Prairie Land Trust they were still awaiting the results of the Natural Resource Study commissioned by the City Council. Minton questioned why R1-13.5 zoning was being recommended. Minton stated that the residents of Eden Prairie had volunteered money to provide the funds for preservation and the City had spent money for a study. Minton questioned why the City would proceed before the study was completed. Minton believed that this area was an obvious center for learning which would be destroyed. Brian Venable, 17349 Bainbridge, asked how Scenic Heights Road would be funded. Franzen replied that there would be some City involvement and some of the funds would be assessed against the property owners. Venable asked what the projected tree loss was for the project. Franzen replied 28%. Venable asked what type of penalty would be enforced if the tree loss was exceeded. Franzen replied an inch per inch replacement would be required for more tree loss. He added that the City would monitor the project for up to 1 year after development and does not release the-tree replacement bond unless the project is built correctly. Franzen noted that tree loss includes trees that may die after construction. 8 Sandstad asked if the City would hold a bond on the project. Franzen replied that both a grading and tree replacement bond would be held and the bond would not be released until the final inventory had been completed. Venable asked if the only construction access would be Candlewood. Franzen replied yes. Bob Engh, 17180 Hanover Lane, stated that he did not know until this evening that there was still a chance to save the "Big Woods". Engh said that he had purchased the lot that he did because it backed up to the woods. Engh stated opposition for Centex to move any further until everything possible had been done to try to save the woods. Laura Dockery, 8899 Flesher Circle, stated that she was a newcomer to Eden Prairie and these issues. Dockery believed that the developer was acting in good faith. Dockery further believed that the Natural Resources Committee would likely bring this site forward as land to be preserved. Dockery requested that a rapid decision not be made on this issue. She asked when the rest of the property would be zoned. Franzen replied the rest of the property would be zoned when a proposal came forward to the City. Dockery asked how long the test would be given is this site was to be a test site for tree preservation. Franzen replied that the Council has not designated this as a test site. Dockery questioned why the zoning had to go through as proposed. Franzen replied that the City had approved a PUD which had a certain status. Franzen added that if information came forward for reasons not to zone the property R1-13.5 the City would not be obligated to zone it RI-13.5. Dockery asked if the City had to be the one to rezone the property. Franzen replied that the developer would be allowed 2.5 units per acre as currently zoned. Franzen added that the City would zone according to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Franzen stated that the Planning Commission had looked at this proposal and i agreed on R1-13.5 zoning; the City Council requested more time to consider development of the 11 lots. Franzen said that he could not predict what the City Council will do now. The developer had agreed to wait according to the original agreement. Dockery asked if the property could remain zoned rural. Clinton replied that if the project were denied the zoning would remain rural. Dockery recommended a delay in a final decision. Bauer stated that he had supported that plan the last time and would support it again. Bauer believed that the Eden Prairie Land Trust had had enough time to act. Kardell stated that she too had supported that project before. Kardell believed that the developer had lived up to the agreement and that there was simply a lack of funding available. Clish believed that the item should be continued to all the Natural Resource Committee Study to be completed. Clish believed that the City Council would continue this item because of the pending study. Sandstad asked Clish what time frame she was recommending for a continuance. Clish replied that the item should be continued until the study had been completed in July. Clinton supported a continuance. He added that he was disappointed that the Eden Prairie Land Trust had only raised $10,000. . Wissner supported a continuance. Wissner believed that the developers had been patient and asked what their time frame was. Ostenson replied that they would like to begin this spring. 9 Schlampp believed that the trees needed to be viewed as a product. Schlampp stated that he had walked this area and believed that some of the older tree would die soon. Schlampp believed 0 that the public had made their statement by the amount of funds raised so far. Schlampp supported waiting another two months for completion of the study. Ostenson stated that he appreciated the recognition of the co-operation on the part of the developers. Ostenson said that they were disappointed that the Eden Prairie Land Trust could not come up with the necessary funds to purchase the property. He noted that the developer had just paid $60,000 in real estate taxes and assessments. Ostenson believed that the developers had abided by all of the rules set out by the City. Ostenson further noted that the total wooded areas was approximately 45 acres and the area being proposed tonight was only approximately 7 acres out of the 45. Ostenson recognized that the Eden Prairie Land Trust had put forth a lot of effort to preserve this area, but it was results that counted which were not there. Ostenson stated that the developer would like a decision this evening so that they could proceed to the City Council. Venable stated that the developer had been very open and did not believe that the City should rush into this now. Ostenson replied that the "Big Woods" had been under consideration by the City since 1969. He added that there was a long history on this site. Clish asked if the item were continued if the developer could proceed to the City Council. Franzen replied that if the City did not take action by July 15, 1993 the Plat would automatically be approved. Schlampp asked if the Planning Commission could approve the plan based on the outcome of the Natural Resource Study to allow the City Council to make a decision. Franzen replied yes. Kardell asked Sandstad and Wissner, members of the study committee, if they believed that this site would be recommended for preservation. Sandstad replied not necessarily and noted that there were 2 "Big Woods" sites in Eden Prairie. Wissner replied that the City had hired a naturalist to give a professional opinion on the site. Wissner believed that this should be continued until the study was completed. Sandstad believed that the site should be zoned R1-44 and further that the Planning Commission should not act on this item at this time. Bauer stated that the issue comes down to money. The Eden Prairie Land Trust had not been able to come up with the money to purchase the property and the developer has a right to proceed. Bauer believed that saving the woods was a noble idea but questioned if it could be done. Minton stated that the Eden Prairie Land Trust had not approached any Corporations or Foundations at this time because the City had asked us to wait until the study had been completed. Bauer stated that it was unfortunate, but the developer owned the natural site. Clish replied that the City Council had spend money to investigate this site. 10 Dick Putnam, developer, stated that the proposal only contained 6 lots in the wooded area. Putnam noted that the City had designated where Scenic Heights Road was to go. Putnam stated that they had offered the Eden Prairie Land Trust the balance of the wooded area for $1.00 per acre if they would allow development of this parcel. The Land Trust refused this offered and stated that they wanted the property zoned.R1-44. Putnam did not believe that R1-44 zoning would save the woods. Putnam noted that the City was not forgiving the assessments or taxes while we are being asked to wait on this site. Putnam stated that they had also offered the City the $1.00 option. Putnam believed that the extension of Candlewood made sense. He added that even if this were park land you would need roads to get to the park. Schlampp stated that even if this development were approved there would still be a lot of woods left to preserve. Wissner stated that the Planning Commission had voted a year ago to go forward on this project and did not believe that it was fair to hold it up much longer. Clish stated that she could not support this project, but believed that it should go on to the City Council for a decision. Clinton stated that if the Planning Commission were going to send this to the City Council we should state what we support. Clinton added that as a Planning Commissioner he did not see why the plan should not go forward. Sandstad stated that he would prefer not to approve the project this evening. MOTION 1: Kardell moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-1-0. Wissner voted "NO". MOTION 2: Kardell moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Centex Homes for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 23.5 acres based on plans dated April 16, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 23, 1993. Motion carried 5-2-0. Sandstad and Clish voted "NO". MOTION 3: Kardell moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Centex Homes for Planned Unit Development District Review on 23.5 acres based on plans dated April 16, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 23, 1993. Motion carried 5-2-0. Sandstad and Clish voted "NO". MOTION 4: Kardell moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Centex Homes for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 6.34 acres based on plans dated April 11 16, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 23, 1993. Motion carried 5-2-0. Sandstad and Clish voted "NO". MOTION 5: Kardell moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Centex Homes for Preliminary Plat of 6.34 acres into 11 single family lots, and road right-of- way based on plans dated April 16, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 23, 1993. Motion carried 5-2-0. Sandstad and Clish voted "NO". E. EDEN PRAIRIE FORD-CAR STORAGE by Eden Prairie Ford. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 4.5 acres and Site Plan Review on 4.5 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Location: South of Valley View Road, between Prairie Center Drive and Plaza Drive. Joe Clement stated that Eden Prairie Ford would like to pave a lot for additional car inventory. Two entries for car carriers were proposed to allow for easy movement of the large vehicles. Clement noted that the proponent would like to combine the Eden Prairie Ford site and Outlot B into 1 Plat. Two rows of dense trees would be used to screen the site. Three berms would be added in the parking lot and a berm added to screen the site from County Road 5. The green space would be approximately 34%. Three lighting standard were proposed for the site. Clement noted that this area would be for inventory only and not for customer use. The drainage on the property would slope to the west and the drainage would still flow from east to west. Clement stated that the proponent would propose alternate ways to handle the sedimentation and water quality. Bauer asked the proponent to address the issue of past performance. Bauer believed that the storage of cars had not been represented accurately in the first proposal. Kardell believed that there were cars on the site which were not for storage. John Kephart, representing Eden Prairie Ford, replied that one of the needs is space; the request this evening would allow for a better layout. Kephart noted that the need for additional space was necessary due to the success of the business. Clinton stated that Suburban Chevrolet's plan represented 300 spaces for used cars and they had indicated that the used car business was a large portion of their sales; however, Eden Prairie Ford seems to have the larger portion of cars in new cars not used cars. Kephart replied that Eden Prairie Ford was selling more new cars at this time. He added that dealers needed to stock up on cars at certain times of the year. Bauer stated that when this project was review it was to be the first car dealership in Eden Prairie and the Commission talked at great length about how much space would be needed. Bauer stated that he had endorsed the project based on what he was told at that time. Bauer added that he had a credibility problem with the proponent because what the City was told would happen did not take place. Sandstad stated that he was offended also by the use of the large US flag for commercial . business. 12 Bauer noted that the lighting was developed as originally planned. Kephart stated that when the business was in Minnetonka they sold approximately 40 cars per month and since the move to Eden Prairie the sales are averaging 100 cars per month. The additional cars was not intentional. Franzen reported that the flag and where the cars are stored are not in compliance with City Code and the Developer's Agreement. Staff met with the owners regarding these issues last July and advised them to make corrections. Ford responded they would like some time to prepare and submit an expansion plan for review. Schlampp asked if the parking lot area was filled in. Clement replied yes. Schlampp noted that the parking lot was blacktop. Schlampp stated that Staff had requested that a N.U.R.P. pond be provided and asked the proponent what size the pond would be. Clement replied that the pond would be approximately 33,000 square feet. Schlampp asked who would maintain the pond. Clement replied he was not sure if the developer or City would maintain the pond. Clement added that drainage from a large area comes onto the property. Schlampp noted that a N.U.R.P. pond would be required. Clement replied that they would propose to use the west property line ditch area for the pond. Bauer believed that the N.U.R.P. pond issue alone would be enough to warrant a continuance of the item. Franzen reported that the City might participate in the maintenance of the pond because of the drainage from other areas. Franzen added that Staff needed to look at areas in the Purgatory Creek area and decide if 1 large pond should be developed in lieu of several smaller ponds. Schlampp believed that both the City and the developer needed to deal with the drainage issues. He added that 195,000 square feet of runoff was a significant area. Clinton asked if cars or trucks would be stored on the proposed site. Clement replied that the berm along would not hide the vehicles and that plant material would be needed. Clement added that the natural hill would be taken down. Franzen stated that plant materials alone are not an effective way to screen a site entirely. He noted that this site would be visible from higher elevations such as Top View Acres. Franzen stated that Staff had taken a video of the site to illustrate the site lines. Franzen added that Staff was not comfortable with the plan. Franzen stated that the only way to completely screen the area would be a 20 foot high wall. Sandstad stated that the City had originally agreed that this was the appropriate area for car dealerships. Bauer believed that the proponent needed to improve on the plan. Clish stated that she was comfortable with seeing some cars. Bauer believed that the item should be continued for clarification on the N.U.R.P. pond issue. Bauer believed that 1 access would be sufficient. 13 MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Clinton to continue the public hearing to May 10, 1993. Motion carried 7-0-0. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS - Election of Officers Kardell nominated Clish for the position of secretary. Kardell moved, seconded by Wissner to cast a unanimous ballot for Clish as secretary. Motion carried 7-0-0. Schlampp moved, seconded by Clinton to cast a unanimous ballot that Sandstad and Bauer retain their positions for another year. Motion carried 7-0-0. VII. NEW BUSINESS VM. PLANNERS' REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: . Schlampp moved, seconded by Clinton to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 PM. Motion carried 7-0-0. 14