Planning Commission - 05/11/1992 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, MAY 11, 1992 •7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Ken Clinton, James Hawkins, Katherine
Kardell, Karen Norman, Doug Sandstad, Mary Jane
Wissner.
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner;
Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0-0.
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. EDEN CREEK by J.M.S. Development Corporation. Request for Zoning District
Change on 6.6 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Platting on 6.6 acres into
11 single family lots, one outlot and road right-of-way. Location: 6615-6625 Eden
Prairie Road.
Sandstad arrived.
Jeff Shoenwetter, the proponent stated that this project had been first reviewed in 1988 as a
single family subdivision. Since then, one of the parcels has been sold to a new owner.
Showetter noted that the plan before.the Planning Commission was the same as proposed in
1988.
Uram reported that the proposal was the same configuration as proposed in 1988 with the
exception that Nancy Drive and Mere Drive would be aligned. This results in the need for a
lot frontage variance for Lot 11. Outlot A would be dedicated to the City.
Hawkins asked if there were sidewalks along County Road 4. Uram replied that a pedestrian
system would not be constructed until the upgrading of County Road 4 took place.
Bauer asked if there was anything significant noted in the minutes from the 1988 hearings.
Uram replied that Zachman had withdrawn the mixed use proposal and in 1988 the neighbors
were concerned about any development in this location. Uram added that he had not received
any comments regarding the current proposal.
Hawkins asked if the Eden Prairie Shoreland Ordinance would apply to this proposal or would
the State Shoreland Ordinance. Uram replied that since Eden Prairie has not adopted the State
Ordinance at the City Ordinance would apply. Hawkins then asked what would happen if the
development did not occur for some time. Uram stated that if a development proposal was in
the process, the Eden Prairie Ordinance would apply; however, if work stopped completely, it
may be reconsidered under the State Ordinance when adopted. Hawkins asked if the developer
would have to take this issue up with the State on a case by case basis. Uram replied only if
approved and development did not take place for two years. Hawkins asked Shoenwetter if he
understood the previous discussion regarding the Shoreland Ordinance. Shoenwetter replied that
he was not aware of any new State Shoreland Ordinance. He added that the project would be
completed prior to 1993.
MOTION 1:
• Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of J.M.S Development Corporation for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 6.6
acres for a single family residential development, based on plans dated May 4, 1992, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 8, 1992. Motion carried 7-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of J.M.S. Development Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 6.6 acres into 11 single family lots,
one outlot and road right-of-way, based on plans dated May 4, 1992, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 8, 1992. Motion carried 7-0-0.
Uram noted that the recommendations from the Engineering Department were not included in
the original recommendations and should be added.
2
MOTION: 4
Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to amend the above three motions to included the
Engineering-Department recommendations dated May 6, 1992. Motion carried 7-0-0.
B. EDEN LAKE TOWNHOMES by Eden Lake Townhomes Partnership. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public Open Space to Medium Density
Residential on 8.7 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 8.7 acres,
Site Plan Review on 8.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 13 acres into 41 lots and one
outlot for construction of 40 townhouse units to be known as Eden Lake Townhomes.
Location: South of Medcom Boulevard, east of the Eden Prairie Medical Building.
Uram introduced Jack Brandt, the proponent. Brandt introduced Brian Lubben, the architect,
and John Bergh, the engineer, who are members of the project team.
Brandt noted that this had been a controversial site during the original proposal for the theater
development. He noted that the proponent had met with the neighbors on numerous occasions
and had incorporated there concerns into the plan development. Brandt stated that in September,
1991, a meeting had been held for the neighbors with only four residents in attendance. The
main concerns raised by those attending were the building size and the parkland area. Brandt
noted that based on these concerns, the architect had designed 2-story units with a 5-12 to a 6-12
roof pitch, which would be smaller than most single family homes. Brandt stated that the
proponent planned to dedicate approximately 5 acres of park land. He added that the park land
would provide a larg visual barrier between this development and existing homes. Brandt said
that many trees would be added throughout the development. Another concern of the neighbors
for the original theater plan had been lighting; he noted that the only lights would be located on
the fronts of the homes with minimal affect on the existing homes. The plan was for 10-4 unit
buildings. The units would be 3-bedroom with a garage. Brandt noted that 75% of the units
would have double garages attached to the units. The exterior architecture would be New
England and Country French. Brandt believed that there was a strong rental market for 3-
bedroom units in Eden Prairie and added that they were working on similar projects in
Plymouth.
Norman asked the rental rates being considered. Brandt replied between $950 and $975.
Norman then asked if Medcom Boulevard was the only way in and out of the development.
Brandt replied yes.
Uram reported that any proposal on this site would require a Comprehensive Guide Plan change
and added that the current proposal was consistent with what Staff expected to develop in this
area. Uram stated that as soon as the property along Franlo Road developed, Medcom
Boulevard would be constructed. Uram noted that the proponent had contacted all the
appropriate agencies regarding the Wetland Area delineation. An exact delineation would be
required from the Watershed District prior to any development. Uram stated that significant
trees would be removed from the eastern area but would be replaced. The trail system would
i
3
be reviewed by the Park & Recreation Commission and the City Council for a trail from this
• development to the Eden Lake School.
Hawkins asked if the trails were set forth in the Staff recommendations. Uram replied that the
trail system was not part of this proposal. He added that the City would construct the trails.
Wissner asked if the single-family homes would be able to see these homes. Uram replied that
they could possibly be seen in the winter, but not during the summer. Lubben replied that decks
and patios would face the existing homes. Wissner asked if there would be any lights on the
back decks. Lubben replied there would only be small porch lights.
Hawkins asked what the plan was for a trail in this area. Uram replied that the only trail as part
of this project would be from Medcom Boulevard to the back of the parking area. The trail
would be constructed of woodchips. A definite plan had not been designed at this time.
Tom Walters, 12490 Porcupine Court, believed that the intended use was a good one. Walters
was concerned about having a trail developed through the Outlot A and would prefer not to have
one. Walters did not see any need for a trail in this area. Walters was also concerned about
the traffic pattern, not necessarily the volume of traffic from the development. Walters noted
that there had just been a bad accident at the intersection with Prairie Center Drive. Uram
replied that this project would generate approximately 160 less trips than the former proposal.
He also noted that Medcom Boulevard met the City's 12% grade requirement. In the future, an
. access drive was proposed behind the medical facility to provide an additional access to the
properties along U.S. #169. Walters stated that for a commercial area, a good access plan had
not been developed.
Bauer requested that Uram speak further with Walters regarding the trail system in the area.
Uram replied that the Park & Recreation Commission meeting would be the best forum for
Walters to address his concerns regarding the trail.
John O'Neill,,3501 14th Avenue South, Minneapolis, an owner of property to the south of this
proposal, was concerned about adequate access to the commercial sites in the future. O'Neill
noted that he had sent a letter.to Al Gray, City Engineer, regarding his concerns. O'Neill
believed that it would be easier to have a roadway along the southeastern edge of the medical
property. Uram noted that the roadway system was not officially a part of this proposal but had
recommended that this concern be presented for the record.
Norman asked the City's position on this roadway system. Uram replied that the Planning
Commission did not have to make any recommendation at this time; the developer was
dedicating the property for the future development. Uram noted that the roadway system would
not be designed until development proposals were presented to the City for this area. Norman
asked if there would be a way to access Joiner Way. Uram replied no.
4
. O'Neill stated that the only access to the commercial sites would be from the highway, which
would result in driveways onto the highway and believed that possibly the State would construct
a frontage road. Uram replied that the City would look at this further in the future.
Clinton asked if there was a possibility that this land could be classified as protected land. Uram
replied that it was a possibility, but it had not been looked at.
Wissner asked O'Neill if he had a time frame for development of his property. O'Neill replied
that he did not have a proposal at this time.
Hawkins was concerned about having O'Neill's concerns addressed further. Uram replied that
a roadway site had been reserved at this time.
Bauer noted that he would abstain from the voting since he lived across from the pond area in
this proposal.
MOTION 1:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-1. Bauer
abstained.
• MOTION 2•
Sandstad moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Eden Lake Townhomes Partnership for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public Open
Space to Medium Density Residential on 8.7 acres, based on plans dated April 10, 1992, subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 8, 1992 and to include the Engineering
Report dated May 7, 1992. Motion carried 5-1-1. Bauer abstained, Clinton voted "NO".
MOTION 3•
Sandstad moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Eden Lake Townhomes Partnership for Zoning District change from Rural to RM-6.5 and
Site Plan review on 8.7 acres based on plans dated April 10, .1992, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 8, 1992 and to include the Engineering Report
dated May 7, 1992. Motion carried 5-1-1. Bauer abstained, Clinton voted "NO".
MOTION 4:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Eden Lake Townhomes Partnership for preliminary plat of 13 acres into 41 lots and one
outlot for construction of 40 townhouse units to be known as Eden Lake Townhomes, based on
plans dated May 8, 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 8, 1992
5
• and to include the Engineering Report dated May 7, 1992. Motion carried 5-1-1. Bauer
abstained, Clinton voted "NO".
C. DORENKEMPER ESTATES by Alex Dorenkemper. Request for PUD Concept
Review on 46 acres, PUD District Review within the Rural District on 46 acres with
waivers for lot size and Preliminary Plat of 46 acres into 4 lots. Location: 19925
Pioneer Trail.
Franzen reported that in 1988 a similar proposal had been presented and withdrawn. He noted
that this plan was slightly different.
Dorenkemper reported that he concurred with the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report
and requested approval of the project.
Franzen noted that since the 1988 proposal the wetland delineation was required. This wetland
area would be part of the Lower Minnesota River District and the proposed area would be
discussed at their meeting on Wednesday evening. Franzen stated that the Staff Report addresses
six possible road alignments depending on the wetland delineation. Franzen noted that with the
new requirements if you fill within a wetland area you have to replace a wetland area of equal
size. Franzen also noted that because of the Outlot and road designation Lots 1 & 2 were not
10 acres in size. Franzen believed that Mr. Vogel and Mr. Peterson adjacent property owners
would benefit from the road. Franzen stated that Staff recommended approval of the project
with Road Design #1 based on wetland designation. Franzen said that the City would not build
the public road at this time. Franzen added that Vogel and Dorenkemper wanted to use the road
as a driveway access and agreed to maintain it.
Sandstad asked what other property owners were to the south. Peterson replied the other owner
would be Steve Brown.
Richard Vogel, 105 Pioneer Trail, Chanhassen, stated that he had not objection to the way the
plat was outlined. He added that even if this area was designated as a wetland the road would
need to be built up.
Kardell asked Vogel if he agreed with the shared maintenance. Vogel replied yes.
Darrell Peterson, 18700 Flying Cloud Drive, stated that he had no objection to the proposal;
however, he wanted his 180 acres to.have access. Peterson preferred the road alignments in
plans 2, 4, or 6. Franzen replied that additional 3 possibilities existed for access for Peterson;
across Dell Road, across Pioneer Trail, or up Highway 169, which was too steep. Franzen
noted that Staff had only looked at minor collectors. Franzen also noted that Vogel had
indicated that he might want to subdivide in the future and at that time he would provide an
easement for the Peterson property access. Franzen stated that the easement would have to be
worked out between the property owners. Franzen stated that at the time the attachments were
designed it was not known that this area could be a wetland.
6
Norman asked if the property owners could arrive at an understanding regarding the easements.
Peterson believed that if a subdivision of the property was planned that it would be best to
provide for an access now. Peterson stated that he definitely wanted access or an easement to
the road.
Norman questioned Vogel's Chanhassen address. Franzen replied that Vogel had part of the
property in Eden Prairie and he would like to build on that property; however, in order to obtain
a building permit he needs road access.
Hawkins proposed a possible #7 road design with the road to run down the property to the
northern corner of the Peterson property and then angle to the west. Dorenkemper replied that
he would lose almost an acre of land.
Sandstad noted that Peterson would still have future options for road access even if the proposal
was approved as is tonight.
Dorenkemper noted that other access could be provided when sewer and water would come into
the Peterson property.
Franzen believed that it was important to keep things in perspective. This was planning for the
future and if nothing was done with this proposal Peterson would not have access. Peterson
could also wait for sewer and water for more access possibilities. Franzen recommended Road
• Design #1 because it skirted the wetland area. Franzen added that Peterson has access from
Highway 169.
Norman believed that the least the Planning Commission should do would be to consider another
option for access to the Peterson property.
Bauer believed that the options were to either vote on the proposal as presented tonight or
continue the item for 2 weeks and allow the 3 parties to agree on an option for the road
alignment.
Peterson stated that he was most comfortable with the present option #6.
Dorenkemper stated that option #6 would go right through the wetland area if so designated.
Peterson added that he also liked Hawkin's option P.
Hawkins believed that another alternative would be a land swap.
Franzen noted that after the meeting on this Wednesday evening by the Lower Minnesota
Watershed District everyone would have a better idea of what exactly was going on regarding
the wetland designation.
7
Hawkins believed that a continuation would be in order.
Bauer concurred with the recommendation for continuance and suggested recommending that the
3 property owners meet after the Wednesday evening meeting to arrive at a solution.
Clinton concurred with recommendation.
Sandstad stated that he would be comfortable voting on the proposal tonight. He believed that
many options for access were available.
Wissner concurred to continue the item until after Wednesday evenings meeting.
Kardell concurred with a continuance. She did not believe that a 2 week continuance would put
undue pressure on any of the parties because there was no sense of urgency in this matter.
Norman concurred that she did not see a need to rush this proposal through and would be more
comfortable if all 3 property'owners needs were met.
Hawkins stated that while the Planning Commission did not know what the outcome of the
Lower Minnesota Watershed District would be; the Staff and Planning Commission has shown
a keen interest in the preservation of the wetland areas.
MOTION 1:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Clinton to continue this item to the May 26, 1992 Planning
Commission meeting. Motion carried 7-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS
A. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
B. RESCHEDULING OF JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL
MEETING TO JUNE 16TH.
C. G.E. CAPITAL
Franzen noted that G.E. Capital was reducing the size of the plan.
8
D. ENGINEERS REPORT - SMETANA LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATION
Franzen reported that this item was brought forward from the last Park & Recreation
Commission meeting.
The letter from Jerry Portnoy was read to the Planning Commission and recorded as an
official part of this record.
Franzen reported that the last time the level of Smetana Lake had been raised was in
1985. The Park & Recreation Commission believed that raising the lake level would
improve the water quality, help reduce flooding, and create for better wildlife habitat.
The proposal was to raise the level of the lake approximately 3 to 5.9 feet.
Frank Smetana, 7722 Smetana Lane, stated that this project had a very long history.
Smetana stated that he did not necessarily agree with the proposed level of 838 but would
like to see a resolution of some type to go forward. Smetana stated that he would like
to see the level of the lake established legally and also that he wanted to be compensated
for his lose. Smetana believed that the level of 838 would result in condemnation of
existing homes and to raise it to 837 would require significant engineering. Smetana
stated that he did not want the City to back out of this now, he wanted that project done
right. Smetana noted that lake was at 835 currently. Smetana noted that there had been
a taking of property; the level of the lake was at one time at 831 and was currently at
• 835.
Clinton asked how level measurements were obtained. Franzen replied that the levels
were noted on the last page of the Engineers Report.
John Kottie, 7665 Smetana Lane, stated that he had presented information at the Parks
&Recreation Commission meeting regarding this issue. He noted that he had purchased
his property approximately 6 months ago and would like to see the issue settled once and
for all. Kottie stated that he could lose approximately 1500 square feet of buildings and
1.5 acres of land if the level was raised to 838. Kottie questioned if this was a watershed
project of a park project.
Bauer did not believe that the Planning Commission had enough information on this item
to make any recommendation at this time.
Kottie stated that there was a park proposal as part of this proposal to raise the level of
the lake.
Bauer asked Staff what this park proposal was about. Franzen replied that the Park &
Recreation Department has always considered a park access to Lake Smetana and was
part of their comprehensive plan. It made sense to consider this concurrent with the
Lake study.
• 9
Kottie stated that a boat landing was part of the proposal which would benefit from a
higher water level. Kottie stated that he did not want the level at 838 because he would
lose too many trees and the nesting of the animals would be disfurbed. Kottie said that
he would like to be compensated for the loss of the buildings and would like to see the
issue finally resolved. Kottie believed that if the City did not proceed with the project
the City would lose approximately $100,000.
Norman asked Kottie if the City had indicated that he would be compensated for losses.
Kottie replied no. He added that this item had been on the books since 1961 and they
still did not know what the level of the lake would be. Kottie noted that he would be
happy if the level was left at its present level of 835.
Ed Smetana, stated that he was opposed to the project. He believed that it would do too
much damage to raise the level to 838. Ed Smetana wanted the issue dropped.
Pat Kostecka, 10805 Valley View Road, stated that she had no objection to raising the
water.level. She noted that the water was getting dirty. Kostecka believed that she
should be compensated for losses at a fair market value. She believed that this area
would be beautiful for a park but wanted to be compensated.
Kardell was not comfortable with the issue of a boat landing being discussed at this
• meeting when the Planning Commission had not been given adequate information.
Kardell asked why a representative from the Parks &Recreation Department was not in
attendance at the meeting to provide information. Kardell did not believe the Planning
Commission had enough information to vote on this item or to recommend approval to
the City Council.
Bauer said that if this were a development proposal and the Planning Commission were
provided with only half the information the Planning Commission would not pass this.
Bauer believed that the City or any other public entity should be required to provide the
same information as a private developer. Bauer concurred that there was no information
provided to vote on this item.
Norman did not believe there was enough information provided .to proof that a 5 foot
raise in the elevation would make a significant difference.
Sandstad was concerned about the park issue being added on to the flood control project.
Bauer was concerned about the trees being lost and would need a compelling reason to
approve this proposal.
• 10
Franzen concluded from the Commissioner's statements that the report itself was one
issue and the Planning Commission would like to better informed and informed sooner
on all discussion items.
Bauer did not feel that it was appropriate to approve this item without more information.
Clinton questioned the dollar implications of 1.4 million.
Wissner stated that she was uncomfortable with the dollars involved.
Frank Smetana stated a large portion of the money would come from the Watershed
District. The park issue is completely separate from the flood control. Smetana noted
that the land for the park was owned by his father and was not for sale at this time.
Smetana believed that the cost to the City to raise the level of the lake to 838 would be
approximately $500,000 and to leave the lake.at the current level would cost the City
approximately $100,000. Smetana believed the higher the level of the lake the more the
cost to the City.
Hawkins stated that he was not offended because this issue had been brought before the
Planning Commission; it has been brought to the Planning Commission's attention that
park is involved. Hawkins was concerned about the amount of information provided.
Hawkins would like to have seen the past minutes from the Park & Recreation minutes
• and to have a representative from the Park & Recreation Department present to answer
questions. Hawkins would also like to see the Staff recommendations from the Park &
Recreation Department.
Kardell asked if this item went to the City Council next week if the Planning Commission
would have any input.
Norman believed it was important to let someone know how the Planning Commission
felt on this issue. Norman believed that it was important to balance benefits and costs.
Wissner appreciated the request.from the residences to obtain a final resolution for an
item which has been going on since 1985.
Bauer recommended that a motion be made to table this item and provide the reasons for
tabling.
Hawkins believed that just a motion to table was too passive and a more pointed message
should be sent.
11
MOTION:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Bauer to continue this item in response to the
memorandum from Carl 7ullie requesting Planning Commission approval. The Planning
Commission strongly expresses it's concern about an inability to make an informed
decision based on the information provided. The Planning Commission would urge the
City Council to defer this item until further information was presented.
Clinton stated that he would like to see a time table established.
Bauer recommended that the item be discussed again at the next
Planning Commission meeting. Bauer questioned if the City believed that the landowners
should be compensated.
Norman was concerned about where the money would come for both of these projects.
The Planning Commission requested that additional background information be provided
from the meetings in 1985 and any minutes pertaining to this item from the Park &
Recreation Commission meeting.
Mrs. Ed Smetana stated that this had been an issue for over 50 years.
. Frank Smetana stated that the water level had already been raised. He added that the
residents had been promised a resolution for 15 years.
Hawkins believed that the Planning Commission had an obligation to gather information.
He added that the Planning Commission could not restore any damage done because it
was simply an advisory body.
Norman stated that the Planning Commission did realize the necessity to have the item
settled.
Motion carried 7-0-0.
VH. ADTOURPOUNT
MOTION:
Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 PM. Motion
carried 7-0-0.
• 12
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 11, 1992
7:30 p.m.
COMMMSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Karen Norman, Jim
Hawkins, Katherine Kardell, Doug Sandstad, Mary Jane
Wissner
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael D. Franzen,
Senior Planner; Donald Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund,
Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
H. MEMBERS REPORTS
M. NIINUTES
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. EDEN CREEK by J.M.S. Development Corporation. Request for
Zoning District Change on 6.6 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary
Platting on 6.6 acres into 11 single family lots, one outlot and road right-of-
way. Location: 6615-6625 Eden Prairie Road.
B. .EDEN LAKE TOWNHOMES by Eden Lake Townhomes Partnership.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change Public Open Space to
Medium Density Residential on 8.7 acres, Zoning District Change from
Rural to RM-6.5 on 8.7 acres, Site Plan Review on 8.7 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 13 acres into 41 lots and one outlot for construction
of 40 townhouse units to be known as Eden Lake Townhomes. Location:
South of Medcom Boulevard, east of the Eden Prairie Medical Building.
C. DORENKEMPER ESTATES by Alex Dorenkemper. Request for PUD
Concept Review on 46 acres, PUD District Review within the Rural
District on 46 acres with waivers for lot size and Preliminary Plat of 46
acres into 4 lots. Location: 18925 Pioneer Trail.
Planning Commission Agenda
May 11, 1992
Page 2
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS
A. Upcoming Agenda Items for May 26, 1992
B. Joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting May 19.
Change of Meeting Date to June 16 Due to School Board Election.
C. G.E. Capital
D. Smetana Lake Outlet Modification
VH. ADJOURNMENT