Planning Commission - 07/13/1992 • EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMIVIISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, DULY 13, 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: Chris Enger, Director, Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund,
Recording Secretary
ROLL CALL: Bauer and Sandstad absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
• Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0-0.
U. MEMBERS REPORTS
Hawkins reported that he and Commissioners Kardell and Wissner had attended a"site visit on the
Fairfield project. He stated that he had been impressed with the dedication of the developer regarding
the tree preservation measures being proposed.
III. MINUTES
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. SPRINGER-KLOOSTER SUBDIVISION by Diane Springer Klooster. Request for
Preliminary Plat on 4 acres. Location: 17221 Terrey Pine Court.
Diane Springer Klooster stated that her father had given each of his daughters a lot. She was
requesting permission to add on to her existing grandmother's home.
Franzen stated that the proposal would not change much from how the site looks today. There
would be 3 homes with septic tanks, a well, and a shared driveway. Franzen also noted that in
the future the property owners might want to subdivide the property again. He noted that the
new homes could not be constructed until sewer and water were available. A Shoreland variance
would be required. The woods would be preserved. The maximum would be 5 lots on the 5
acres which would be still be considered low density. Franzen reported that Staff recommended
approval of the project. Franzen added that the proponent would still need to appear before the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments.
Wissner stated that she was comfortable with the project because it was simply an addition to
. the existing home. Wissner noted that there would not be a loss of trees with the addition.
Kardell stated that this proposal did not appear to be changing anything and the addition would
be outside of the 150 foot Shoreland Ordinance area.
Clinton asked if the City knew when sewer and water would be brought into this area. Franzen
replied that the property owners had not requested that sewer and water be brought in at this
time and no new development was proposed currently. Franzen added that development could
take place to the east soon.
Hawkins asked if there had been any problems with the present septic tank system. Fristad
replied that they had no problem with the septic system. Hawkins then asked if there would be
an inspection of the drain field at the time of Building Permit issuance. Franzen replied yes;
it was required by the City and the State.
MOTION 1:
Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Diane Springer Klooster for Preliminary Plat of 4 acres into two lots, based on plans dated
July 10, 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 10, 1992. Motion
carried 5-0-0.
B. WALGREENS by Walgreens. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium
Density Residential and Community Commercial to NeighborhoodCommercial on 1.58 acres.
Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to Neighborhood Commercial on .38 acres, Zoning
District Change from Community Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.2 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 1.58 acres into one lot. Site Plan Review on 1.58 acres. Location: County
Road 4 and Terrey Pine Drive.
Franzen reported that a proposal for a funeral home had been approved on this site
approximately 2 years ago, which resulted in the Guide Plan Change to Commercial from the
previously zoned residential. The funeral home project never proceeded. Walgreens inquired
about the proposed site approximately 6 months ago. As part of the proposal an adjacent duplex
would be purchased by the proponent and taken down. The funeral home use was designated
as regional, but Walgreens would be designated as a neighborhood use. Franzen believed that
neighborhood-commercial was a better designation for the property.
John Kohler, architect for the proponent, presented the plans. The building would located
approximately 54 feet from the western property line. An additional area to the west had been
provided for a buffer and landscaping. Conifer trees would be used for screening and the
existing trees between Elim Shores and the proposed project would be maintained. Berms would
be added to both the front and the back of the facility. Activity on the site would be directed
toward Eden Prairie Road. The trash containers would be enclosed within the building.
2
Clinton asked how the trash would be disposed of. Kohler replied that Walgreens sponsored a
recycling program and there would be very little trash which would be hauled out to the truck
at the time of pickup.
• Kohler stated that the lighting would be contained on the site and would consist of 20 foot high
downcast lighting. The architecture of the building would be more on the residential side and
would be compatible with the Elim Shores facility. The exterior building material would be
brick with a stucco sign band. A shingle roof would be provided to add to the residential
character. The brick would be similar to the Elim Shores building. Three rows of conifers at
10 to 12 feet high would be planted for screening.
Hawkins asked if there would be any danger of creating water pools on the site. Kohler replied
that a swail would run to Terrey Pine Drive.
Howard Bergerud, representing the proponent, reported that all access and traffic would be
directed to the front of the building. Merchandise was delivered once a week and the unloading
would take approximately 1 to 2 hours.. A 54 foot buffer would be provided between the project
and the residents. The traffic generated by the Walgreens was estimated at approximately 200
to 400 trips a day and the traffic would not be concentrated during the rush hour. Howard
believed that the Walgreens project would provide a low density use. The mechanical equipment
would be below the roof line and the residents would not be able to see much of the building
due to the extensive screening. Howard emphasized that Walgreens stored no trash on the
outside of the building. The use of the building would be deeded to be limited to only drug
store use.
• Kardell asked if the proponent had had neighborhood meetings. Howard replied that the
proponent had spoken with Elim Shores representatives and adjacent residents and also had
addressed any questions when asked by residents.
Hawkins asked how significant the foodmart portion was for Walgreens. Howard replied that
the foodmart represented only a small portion of the facility the main focus was on health and
beauty aids and the pharmacy. Hawkins asked if Walgreens would be viewed as a small grocery
store. Howard replied that it would be convenience items only.
Wissner asked if a marketing study had shown that a drug store was needed in this area.
Howard replied that the study had' shown that residents were driving quite a distance for
pharmacy items. Wissner asked if Walgreens could have been located closer to or associated
with one of the medical facilities in the area. Howard replied that Walgreens had been looking
for a site in Eden Prairie for 2 to 3 years and believed this location to be appropriate.
Norman asked if there would be a sidewalk between Walgreens and Elim Shores. Kohler replied
that the sidewalk would be extended.
Wissner asked if Walgreens had a delivery service for the pharmacy items. Howard replied for
short distances only.
Hawkins believed that 2 of the parking stalls would interfere with the delivery trucks. Kholer
• replied that the delivery truck was there only once a week and would wait if there was a
problem.
3
Clinton asked if there could be a restricted area for the delivery truck. Howard replied that all
deliveries came from Walgreens warehouses and the deliveries were scheduled for early in the
morning.
• Franzen reported that in the Comprehensive Guide Plan there were no preplanned areas for
neighborhood commercial development. Neighborhood commercial sites were determined by
need and based on how well the facility would fit in with the neighborhood. Franzen stated that
an appropriate transition was required by the City. A 50 foot setback was proposed for
buffering which exceeded the City's requirements. The plant material proposed would be
staggered and would be 10 to 12 feet tall when planted. A security deposit bonding the
landscape material would be required. Franzen noted that the residential area was primarily to
the west. Walgreens would be a low traffic producer, generating approximately 40 trips in and
out. The funeral home project had expected approximately 80 trips in and out and another type
of retail business would estimate approximately 87 trips.
Franzen reported that it was already difficult to get out of Terrey Pine Drive. The City has
requested a signal when County Road 4 was upgraded. The County did not agree but agree to
install the electrical conduit. The intersection did not meet signal warrants at this time;
however, another study could be done. Franzen added that City Staff did recognize that this
intersection was conjested.
Franzen reported that a parking space variance request would be needed. Because of the
basement, 81 spaces would be needed. Franzen stated that he had spoken with other
communities where Walgreens were located and believed that 41 spaces would be adequate.
• Franzen reported that Walgreens had agreed to a deed restriction for the use of the facility.
Office use would be acceptable if Walgreens did leave the area.
Tom Halloran, 16507 Terrey Pine Drive, stated concern for the neighborhood. He added that
he had been impressed with the cooperation of Walgreens to answer questions. Halloran asked
how many parking stalls would actually be required. Franzen replied 41. Halloran believed that
the further away the parking stalls were from the residents the better. Halloran stated that the
intersection was a big problem. He noted that Terrey Pine Drive had been a cul-de-sac and then
it was opened up at the west end which he believed was the cause of many of the traffic
problems. Halloran also noted that a lot of traffic was generated from the Super America
station. Halloran stated concern about what would happen if or when Walgreens left the site and
what guarantees the residents had. Halloran asked if there could be an option to restrict parking.
Howard replied that Walgreens could live with less parking; however, it was trying to meet City
requirements. Howard stated that Walgreens typically signed a 20 year lease and was willing
to have a deed restriction which would limit the use of the facility for a drug store only. Any
other use would require approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Hawkins noted
that 41 parking spaces was based on a reduction of City requirements already. Howard noted
that there was actually a lot of storage throughout the facility and believed that 41 spaces would
be adequate.
Clinton stated that he would like to see the building moved further to the east as recommended.
4
Halloran believed that a 54 foot buffer was reasonable, but would like to see the building moved
further east if possible. Halloran stated that he was not opposed to Walgreens. He would like
to see as many trees as possible between his home and the development.
Norman asked what the hours of operation would be. Howard replied between 9 AM and 9 PM.
Howard believed that Walgreens would actually buffer the traffic noise from County Road 4 for
the residents.
Franzen stated that a parking setback variance could be granted and proof of parking designated
in the green space. This would provide a 71 foot buffer. 30 parking spaces would be provided
on the asphalt.
Kohler stated that the proponent would not want a greater slope than 3 to 1 and believed that
this would cut into the berm if the building and parking spaces moved.
Hawkins believed that it was important to have the green space around the entire facility.
Franzen stated that a retaining wall could be used to the berm; however, this would be an
additional cost to Walgreens. Franzen noted that this would be a trade-off situation.
Hawkins asked Halloran if he was in favor of a traffic light at the intersection or not in favor.
Halloran asked if the City was planning to connect Terrey Pine Drive to Highway 5.
Kardell asked why the cul-de-sac was opened in the first place.
Franzen replied that there would be access to Highway 5. The road was opened up to provide
emergency vehicle access.
Norman asked who requested that the cul-de-sac be opened. Franzen replied that this was part
of the Highway 5 upgrade. Franzen added that the residents could appear before the City
Council at any time on the issue of the cul-de-sac. The residents would need to request time to
speak in advance of the meeting. Franzen believed that directing this issue to the City Council
would be the appropriate forum.
Halloran stated that he would like to'see Franzen's proposal for moving the building to provide
the 71 foot buffer go forward.
Clinton asked Halloran what his feelings were on the deed restriction. Halloran replied that he
was in favor of the restriction and believed it to be the best alternative for protection.
Norman believed that Walgreens would be an asset for Elim Shores.
Franzen reported that the funeral home proposal had been closer to the residents and did not
have as much of a buffer zone. Franzen believed that the plan as proposed was an improvement
over the funeral home proposal.
Wissner was concerned about the traffic.
5
Norman asked if the Planning Commission could recommend that a traffic study be conducted
on this intersection. Franzen replied yes.
• Denny Nesbitt, 16546 Terrey Pine Drive, stated that the Super America station was the
neighborhoods biggest concern. He believed that it had been an intrusion on the neighborhood
since day one. Nesbitt noted that the City had just put a new seal coat on Terrey Pine Drive
a week ago and it was almost all gone already because of the traffic. Nesbitt stated that he was
not opposed to Walgreens. Nesbitt'requested that no parking signs be placed on Terrey Pine
Drive. Traffic and noise from Super'America a major issue for neighbors. Nesbitt believed that
it was important for residents to try to protect themselves from these intrusions before the
development and not after the damage was already done. Nesbitt noted that he lived only 150
feet from the proposed project and had to request information; he would have liked to have been
informed earlier.
Clinton asked for the definition of neighborhood commercial. Franzen replied that neighborhood
commercial was to service an area within 1.5 miles of the site and provide daily services.
Franzen noted that Super America was part of older zoning requirements and would not be
considered a neighborhood commercial use.
Nesbitt stated that the original station did serve the neighborhood; it only had 6 to 8 pumps and
the access was not as it is today.' The traffic for the Super America comes through the
neighborhood. Nesbitt asked if no U-Turn signs could also be installed.
Hawkins asked for further information on what process opened up this driveway to create the
traffic problems and how much of.the traffic problems in the area was attributed to Super
• America.
Earl Ross, 16503 Terrey Pine Drive, stated that his home was adjacent to the proposed site.
He complimented Walgreens on their work with neighbors in addressing their concerns. Ross
believed that the Walgreens development would help increase his property value and would also
be a convenience. The only reason for opposition would be an increase in traffic. Ross
suggested that the access from Super America be blocked and Terrey Pine Circle be turned back
into just that; a circle. Ross stated that he had been opposed to the project in the beginning, but
now believed that Walgreens had developed a nice plan.
Norman asked if the Planning Commission could recommend that a traffic study be conducted
as part of the Walgreens proposal or as a separate issue. Franzen replied that there had been
several suggestions on how to deal with the traffic issue; no U-Turn signs, block the roadway,
request a study for signal warrant, and approach Super America to see what they would be
willing to do. These issues were related to the project as part of the overall traffic pattern.
Nesbitt asked if the Planning Commission could pass the neighbors comments on to the City
Council. Norman replied yes.
Nancy Soman, representing Elim Shores, stated that the residents of Elim Shores were excited
about the proposal. Soman presented a petition with 20 signatures in support of the project.
Soman read a letter of support for the Walgreens project from the President of Elim Shores.
6
Wissner stated at that first glance she had been opposed to the project and questioned the need
for a Walgreens in this location; however, after hearing the presentation she would support the
project.
• Clinton stated that he would be in support of the project if modifications to address the traffic
issues could be incorporated.
Hawkins stated that he was inclined to support the project and believed that Walgreens would
be good corporate citizens. Hawkins complimented the residents for their involvement in
helping to shape this plan. Hawkins stated that he would not be in favor of moving the building
further to the east as he believed that it would jeopardize the berm along Eden Prairie Road.
Hawkins believed that the 54 foot buffer"area being well landscaped as proposed would be
adequate. Hawkins supported the decision to request a traffic study for the area.
Kardell stated that at first she was hesitant to approve the proposal because of the traffic issues.
Kardell said that she would like the idea to move the building further to the east explored further
by Staff. Kardell believed that the traffic issue should be strongly addressed as a separate
motion.
Howard stated that there were a lot of reasons for locating the building where it was and added
that Walgreens believed that the extra parking spaces were important. Howard said that
Walgreens did not want customers parking on the street. He noted that Walgreens had looked
at several different plans with the building in different locations and believed the current
proposal to be the best location. Howard believed that the plan as proposed was a balanced plan
on all sides and provided screening and buffering to all affected areas.
• MOTION 1•
Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 2•
Kardell move, seconded by Clinton'to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Walgreens for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential and
Community Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.58 acres, based on plans dated July
10, 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 10, 1992, with the
addition that Staff be authorized to' work with the developer and the residents to develop a
possible alternate plan which would move the building forward, maintain the 35 foot green space
and maintain the current number of parking spaces. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Walgreens for Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to Neighborhood Commercial on .38
acres and Zoning District Change from Community Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial
on 1.2 acres based on plans dated July 10, 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated July 10, 1992, with the addition that Staff be authorized to work with the developer
and the residents to develop a possible alternate plan which would move the building forward,
maintain the 35 foot green space and maintain the current number of parking spaces. Motion
carried 5-0-0.
7
MOTION 4:
Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
. of Walgreens for Preliminary Plat of 1.58 acres, based on plans dated July 10, 1992, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 10, 1992, with the addition that Staff be
authorized to work with the developer and the residents to develop a possible alternate plan
which would move the building forward, maintain the 35 foot green space and maintain the
current number of parking spaces. Motion carried 5-0-0.
I
MOTION 5:
Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Walgreens for Site Plan Review on 1.58 acres, based on plans dated July 10, 1992, subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 10, 1992, with the addition that Staff be
authorized to work with the developer and the residents to develop a possible alternate plan
which would move the building forward, maintain the 35 foot green space and maintain the
current number of parking spaces. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 6:
Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council, based on the existing
and potential traffic problems which are essentially unrelated to the proposal by Walgreens
Development, that a traffic analysis for Terrey Pine Drive and County Road 4 intersection be
conducted to determine the need and time frame for a traffic signal, to investigate No U-Turn
signs for County Road 4, No Parking signs on the commercial section of Terrey Pine Drive, and
• to extend the median on County Road 4. The analysis should also include the pros and cons to
either open or close Terrey Pine Drive to Highway 5 on the west end and addressing Super
America alternative access solutions if the access to Terry Pine Circle, while taking into account
he concerns and input of residents,I office users, and commercial users in the neighborhood.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
C. FAIRFIELD WEST by Centex Homes. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept
Review on 23.5 acres. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on
23.5 acres. Request for rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 23.5 acres. Preliminary Plat of 23.5
acres into 40 lots, 2 outlots and road'right-of-way. Location: West of Fairfield, south of Scenic
Heights Road #212.
Dan Blake, representing Centex Homes, stated that 3 main issues remained from the last
meeting. The location of Scenic Heights Road would remain in the same location as the original
proposal. The plan was redesigned to create a cul-de-sac which would result in the elimination
of 1 lot. A specific outline of a tree preservation plan had been submitted to Staff. Blake stated
that the proponent agreed with the Staff recommendation and believed that the tree loss could
be maintained at the 29% level. Blake said that the proponent did not want to get too restrictive
related to the Scenic Conservation Easement. The proponent intended to install snow fencing
along all of the right-of-ways but would like some latitude and not be required to exactly
pinpoint each location. The proponent would like to be allowed to make some judgement calls
on the site. The tree consultant would come out to the site when the homes were staked out.
The tree consultant would meet at that time with the homeowner, a Centex representative, and
the excavator. Blake stated that the proponent was committed to the tree preservation concepts
8
but did not want them to be too restrictive. The proponent was concerned about the security
deposit believing that this was extremely high and would like to be allowed to work with Staff
to negotiate a more reasonable figure. Blake noted that the proponent was willing to take the
. extra effort up front to assure the preservation of the trees.
Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval based exactly as outlined in the Staff Report.
He added that the best way to preserve trees is still larger lots, but could live with the tree
management program if implemented exactly as modified by staff.
Norman asked if the proponent would determine the location of stored materials and where the
trucks would park on each individual site. Blake replied that the driveways would be utilized
as much as possible. Norman questioned if 100 square feet would be enough for material
storage.
Scoot Wallace, 12465 Sunnybrook Road, read into the record a letter which he had written
regarding the woods on this property and concerns for preservation. Wallace noted that "The
Big Woods" would have a "B" rating from the DNR. Wallace showed the commissioners a
topographical map depicting the forest area remaining in Eden Prairie. Wallace questioned what
natural feature would actually be preserved. He noted that Marsh Creek Golf Course was also
proposed to develop in this area.
Franzen stated that Eden Prairie did have an Environmental Ordinance to deal with the
protection of natural features. If the plan had a projected tree loss greater than 35% the City
would have required the developer to return with another plan. The proponent is being required
to keep the tree loss to a minimum. Franzen said that it would be nice if all of the natural area
• like "The Big Woods" could be preserved. Franzen noted that prior to the development of the
Tree Preservation Ordinance projects had a tree loss of approximately 50% and now the tree loss
had been reduced to an average of 26%.Hawkins asked how larger "The Big Woods" was.
Wallace replied approximately 35 acres.
Norman asked what portion of the 35 acres was part of this project. Blake replied
approximately 5 acres. Wallace noted that Tandem Corporation owned more land which was
part of "The Big Woods" which was not part of this project.
Wissner believed that Centex Homes was taking positive steps to preserve the trees; however,
she agreed with Wallace that the City did need to think of the future.
Jim Ostenson, the proponent, stated that he had had a long relationship with Centex Homes and
he himself had headed the Developer's Committee which had developed the tree replacement
policy. Ostenson said that a lot of time had been spent on looking at ways to save more trees
and noted that just to construct the roads there would be approximately 18 to 20 % tree loss.
Ostenson said that he had spoken toi the City at one time about the City purchasing the forest
area; however, funds were not available. Ostenson believed that Centex Homes was the best
builder to preserve the trees. Ostenson added that Highway 212 would also encroach on "The
Big Woods".
Wissner believed that this project would be the test market for further development in this area.
9
Franzen stated that this project was on the fringe of the wood and if it doesn't work out as
planned the City would not allow another development to proceed with the same techniques.
Wallace questioned if R1-44 zoning would help to preserve more trees with the 1 acre lot
requirement. Franzen replied that R1-44 zoning was approved on a case by case basis.
Norman believed that the proponent was committed to the preservation of the trees.
i
Franzen stated that if the Planning Commission was concerned about the wooded area, it could
approve a preliminary plan and only final plat a few lots. If Centex did a poor tree presentation
job in the first phase, the lots in the'woods in the second phase would have to be larger. The
development in the wooded area could be phased.
Kardell was concerned about the amount of time that platting process would put on Staff and
believed that the proponent was committed to the preservation. She believed that the plan
deserved a chance and would recommend that the proposal be approved as outlined in the Staff
Report.
Wissner stated that she was more comfortable with there only being 1 builder involved.
Hawkins believed that because this area was land locked it was virtually an unknown treasure
to most residents. The awareness of the woods is largely do to the proposed development.
Hawkins asked how serious the conversations with the City were regarding the purchase of the
property. Ostenson replied that funds were not available.
I
Clinton believed that it was important for the larger wooded areas in the City to be preserved.
Norman believed that it was important for the City to do what it can to protect this area from
being clear cut.
Hawkins believed that it should be pursued further to have the City try to preserve even a small
portion for trails or a park area. Norman agreed.
Franzen asked the Commission if it was comfortable with the plan as proposed if the City was
not in a position to purchase "The Big Woods", or did they want to see larger lots.
Hawkins believed that the R1-44 theory could be an interesting compromise.
Ostenson stated that the assessments ion this property were high. Ostenson felt that their efforts
for preservation in the past had been completely brushed aside. Ostenson added that he
understood the impact of this development.
Wallace stated that he had spoken with Tim Larson from the State and had found out that there
are many funds available for acquisition and the cost would not necessarily have to fall
completely on Eden Prairie.
Norman asked Wallace if he was comfortable with the perimeter of the property developing.
Wallace believed that it was expected that the perimeter would develop.
10
Kardell believed that a unique proposal had been developed to preserve the front and side yards.
There was pressure for development in this area and believed this proposal to be a good testing
tool for the City on a small scale.
Hawkins believed that both Centex Homes and Fairfield Development had been innovative in
their concepts and would support the proposal as presented. Hawkins further believed that the
City should investigate the possibility of getting funding for preserving the remaining area.
Norman concurred that the City should strongly look into funding to preserve a portion of the
wooded area.
MOTION 1:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Wissner to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 2•
Hawkins moved, seconded by Wissner 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 July 10, 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 10, 1992.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
i
MOTION 3:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Wissner to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Centex Homes for Planned Unit`Development District Review within the R1-13.5 District
with waivers, on 23.5 acres, based on plans dated July 10, 1992, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated July 10, 1992. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 4•
Hawkins moved, seconded by Wissner to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Centex Homes for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 23.5 acres for a single
family residential development based on plans dated July 10, 1992, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 10, 1992. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 5:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Wissner to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Centex Homes for Preliminary Plat of 23.5 acres into 40 lots, 2 outlots and road right-of-
way, based on plans dated July 10,,1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated July 10, 1992. Motion camel 5-0-0.
MOTION 6: j
Hawkins moved, seconded by Wissner to recommend to the City Council and the Park &
Recreation Commission that consideration be given for acquisition of at least a portion of the
property known as "The Big Woods" for the purpose of park land to include a trail system. The
City was further encouraged to explore State or Federal funding which might be available.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
11
The Planning Commission asked that a copy of the letter from Scott Wallace be forwarded to
the City Council and Park & Recreation Commission.
V. OLD BUSINESS
The Commission asked questions about the Ford Dealership.
Franzen noted that there were too many cars on the Ford dealers lot and Staff had asked that a
large boat be removed as well as signs on the cars.
Hawkins expressed concern regarding the deviations from the developers agreement. The entire
Planning Commission concurred.
The Planning Commission unanimously requested that Staff take the necessary steps to enforce
the language in the Developers Agreement.
VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS
VH. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Kardell to adjourn the meeting at
11:00 PM. Motion carried 5-0-0.
I
•
12
AGENDA
EDEN PRAJRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, July 13, 1992
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tian 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
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. SPRINGER-KLOOSTER SUBDIVISION by Diane Springer Klooster. Request
for Preliminary Plat on 4 acres. Location: 17221 Terrey Pine Court.
B. WALGREENS by Walgreens. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from
Medium Density Residential and Community Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial
on 1.58 acres. Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to Neighborhood Commercial on
.38 acres, Zoning District Change from Community Commercial to Neighborhood
Commercial on 1.2 acres, Preliminary Plat of 1.58 acres into one lot. Site Plan Review
on 1.58 acres. Location: County Road 4 and Terrey Pine Drive.
C. FAHUMLD WEST by Centex Homes. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept
Review on 23.5 acres. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review with
waivers on 23.5 acres. Request for rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 23.5 acres.
Preliminary Plat of 23.5 acres into 40 lots, 2 outlots and road right-of-way. Location:
West of Fairfield, south of Scenic Heights Road #212. Continued from 6-22-92
Planning Commission Meeting.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Upcoming Agenda Items for July 27, 1992
1. Marsh Creek Golf Course continued from 6/22/92 Planning Commission Meeting.
VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS
VII. ADJOURNMENT