Planning Commission - 07/08/1991 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING CONaIISSION
Monday, July 8, 1991
AS 7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Charles Ruebling, Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett,
Karen Norman, Doug Sandstad, James Hawkins and
Katherine Kardell
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen,
Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund,
Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
H. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. NU MUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. CARPENTER NORTH PUD (91-11-PUD) by Donald G. Brauer.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density
Residential to Regional Commercial on 6.2 acres, Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 27.2 acres for future development of
commercial and multiple residential land uses to be known as Carpenter
North PUD. Location: North of the intersection of Valley View Road
and Prairie Center Drive.
B. SINGLETREE PLAZA (91-16-Z-SPR) by The Robert Larsen Partners.
Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Community
Commercial on approximately 19 acres with variances to be reviewed by
the Board of Appeals, and Site Plan Review on approximately 19 acres for
construction of 177,131 square feet of commercial uses to be known as
Singletree Plaza.. Location: South of Singletree Lane, east of Prairie
Center Drive, west of Eden Road.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
1
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, JULY 89 1991 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, James Hawkins, Katherine
Kardell, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad.
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen,
Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund,
Recording Secretary
ROLL CALL: Hallett and Ruebling absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried
5-0-0.
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
M. MINUTES
MOTION•
Norman moved, seconded by Kardell to approve the Minutes of the June 24, 1991
Planning Commission meeting with the following correction:
Page 7, Paragraph 5, Sentence 1; investor should read investors.
Motion carried 4-0-1. Bauer abstained.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. CARPENTER NORTH PUD (91-11-PUD) by Donald G. Brauer. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to
Regional Commercial on 4.5 acres for commercial and multiple residential land
uses to be known as Carpenter North PUD. Location: North of the intersection
• 1
• of Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing.
Franzen reported that the proponent was ready to present updates to the original
plan which came about as the result of neighborhood concerns and Staff
recommendations.
Walter Carpenter, proponent, stated that he had owned the property for some time
and was now before the Planning Commission to request a grading permit to
prepare the property for marketing. Carpenter stated that the property had been
guided commercial until 1982 when the northern portion was modified to
multiple-family to provide a better transition. He added that in 1990 the division
line between the commercial and multiple-family changed. Carpenter noted that
he had agreed to donate property for a roadway system and also had accepted a
$50.00 per front foot assessment. The property had been assessed over $600,000
for the roadway, and he had been the largest donor of property for the roadway
in this area. Carpenter stated that the grading plan had been revised to minimize
damage to the hill. The multiple units would be concentrated in the center of the
property to allow the largest number of i4nits in the smallest area. The request for
density had been reduced from 17 to 10 units per acre.
Carpenter noted that several of the residents were upset with the proposal. He
added that he had circulated 292 notices which extended well beyond the City's
• requirement of 500 feet from the proposed site. A neighborhood meeting was
held on June 18, 1991 where strong objection from the residents to the
construction of apartment buildings, the hill being lowered, and the construction
of a gas station. The residents also wanted to see more trees saved. A second
meeting was held with the residents on June 24, 1991 to present an alternate
proposal. The alternate plan reduced the density of the project, reduced the
amount of grading on the hill to allow for 2 buildings in lieu of 1 as per original
plan, designated the northeast corner of the property for multiple dwelling in lieu
of commercial and the northwest corner for a condominium type building.
Don Brauer, proponent, presented the plans for the development. The northeast
corner, approximately 4.5 acres would be designated as medium density, the
northwest area would be restricted to a maximum of 24 units, and the center of
the property would contain two apartment buildings. The apartments would have
117 units in lieu of the 161 originally requested. Brauer noted that the request at
this time was for Phase I grading only. He stated that the grading area had been
significantly reduced and the tree loss would not exceed 60%. Brauer said that
the Phase H grading area would be a fill area; not an excavation area. He added
that the commercial area had also been reduced. Brauer presented aerial
photographs of the area.
2
a
Planning Commission Minutes
• July 8, 1991
Franzen reported that the proponent had reduced the density along the upper
portion of the property to 10 units per acre, which was consistent with the Guide
Plan. The commercial area would be along the lower portion of the property.
Franzen noted.that the proponent was presenting a general plan to show were the
homes and commercial areas would be located. Franzen stated that the City
wanted some assurance that the number of units and the density of the project
would be maintained as presented. Franzen did not believe that the development
in the center of the property would be visible and, therefore, it made sense to
propose the most units in this area. Franzen stated that if the PUD was
maintained the City and the neighbors would have some assurances that the future
plans would be very similar to what was being proposed. He added that this was
the first level of approval for transition. Franzen noted that when a proponent
would come forward with a definite proposal they would have to provide for
saving the trees, and provide berming and landscaping to provide a buffer for the
residents. Franzen said that Staff was requesting a further restriction of the
grading area for Phase I. This would require no grading in the.area with the oak
trees which would reduce the tree loss from approximately 60% to approximately
• 35%. Staff also requested that the PUD be maintained so that the City would
know where units would be located on the property. Franzen stated that actual
tree replacement would take place when actual development would commence and
at this time recommended that the area be seeded. Franzen added that this was
a concept approval for 117 units only. A transition needs to take place between
the multiple and commercial areas. The commercial buildings need to have a
residential character to assist in the transition. The roof lines would need to be
varied and heavy landscaping and berming would be required. Franzen said that
there would be no access to Stewart Drive and further recommended that the
access to the 17 unit section run along the eastern property line.
Sandstad asked if the grading to the north needed to extend all the way to the
property line. Brauer replied that it would be necessary to talk with adjacent
property owners to see if a flat area could be developed between the two
properties. Sandstad asked if retaining walls would be necessary. Brauer replied
that retaining walls would be necessary to save the trees. Sandstad questioned if
the grade was approximately 30 feet lower than the road to the north. Brauer
replied that the grade was approximately the same as Stewart Drive and at the
southern end it was somewhat lower.
Kevin Blohm, 7465 Scot Terrace, asked if there would be any alternative to the
• 3
Planning Commission Minutes
• July 8, 1991
road placement for access to the apartment buildings. Blohm was concerned with
the possibility of headlights shining into his home with the proposed road
alignment. Sandstad replied that there would be approximately 100 feet of trees
between the Blohm home and the roadway. Brauer replied that Blohm's concern
was real, but believed that if the trees could be left and a berm constructed the
problem would be eliminated. Blohm questioned why grading needed to be done
before any plans were ready for approval. Blohm did not feel that approval
tonight was accomplishing anything. Brauer replied that the purpose was to try
to get the property ready for developers to look at. Blohm asked if the grading
could be approved but the grading not actually be done until a developer came
forward with a definite plan. Brauer believed that it would be to both the
developers and the neighbors benefit to have the property graded in advance and
have a concept plan in place.
Kardell asked if the pad at the top of the hill would be screened by trees on three
sides. Brauer replied yes.
• Blohm stated that he did not consider the timber walls to be safe.
Norman asked if the proposed grading would affect the walls currently on existing
property. Brauer replied that the adjacent neighbors would have to agree to any
grading being done on their property and any removal of any retaining walls.
Ellen Maloney, 13364 Zenith Lane, asked if this property were developed
commercial, what guarantee did the neighborhood have that noise pollution would
not occur. Franzen replied that the property would only be approved for
commercial use and not a specific use. He added that when an actual
development plan was presented it would be reviewed by both the Planning
Commission and the City Council. Maloney then asked how many times the
neighbors would have to question the same issues and how many meetings would
they need to attend. Maloney noted that a petition with approximately 80
signatures was presented to the City against commercial development. Franzen
noted that the City Code outlined specific criteria regarding rezoning and issues
related to noise pollution and land usage in relation to adjacent properties and
minimize the impact on existing homes. Franzen added that transition areas were
also required. He stated that the plans would be looked at very carefully when
a specific plan were proposed. Franzen noted that it could be possible that 5
separate hearings could take place related to this property. Maloney noted that
• 4
Planning Commission Minutes
• July 8, 1991
the first proposal presented was for a gas station in the commercial area, which
Staff was ready to allow to be passed, and stressed her concern related to noise
pollution and traffic if that plan had been passed.
Hawkins questioned Maloney's statement related to Staff approval of a plan for
a gas "station. Franzen responded that the initial use for apartments and a gas
station was a reasonable use of the property in his opinion, but this was formed
prior to Commission and neighborhood input. The neighbors presented several
good arguments for a better transition and to save more trees. After listening to
comments from both the neighbors and the Planning Commission, Staff had
looked at the plan from a new prospective and had tried to balance all the
expectations of the proponent, Planning Commission and neighborhood which
resulted in a compromise plan.
Maloney asked if the commercial area extended further north than originally
proposed. Franzen replied that Carpenter was correct that in 1968 the entire
property was planned for commercial use, in 1977 the plan changed to move
. Valley View Road. He added that in 1992 the commercial area extended up into
the hill area. Maloney•stated that she advocated saving more trees and increasing
the berming toward the commercial property to the west. Franzen noted that the
proponent could make a plan to show site line views from the site. Maloney
stated that the Manor Homes Association Board was concerned about the
commercial property and its close proximity to the Manor Homes. Franzen then
offered to meet Maloney on-site to review site lines.
Leslie Otten, 7310 Butterscotch Road, presented a list of approximately 120
names of residents who did not want to see the commercial line moved. Otten
stated that a month ago the residents were not happy with the proposed plan and
the only changes made were to reduce the density somewhat and to move the
commercial line. He added that many of the oak trees would still be removed.
Otten did not believe that there was a plan being presented to vote on and did not
see any need at this time to grade the hill down. Otten wanted to see more
specific details before approval of any grading.
Sandstad read into the record the petition statement presented by Otten regarding
maintaining the commercial zoning lines as they exist. Sandstad noted the date
of the Petition as June 16, 1991, which was prior to the last meeting with the
developer.
• 5
Planning Commission Minutes
July 8, 1991
Franzen believed that the neighbors had raised a valid point related to grading of
the hill at this time. He added that he had looked very carefully at the hill and
if it were actually possible to develop a building on the hill. Franzen believed
that it could be possible to construct 80 units with a similar elevation as
previously proposed with a different building design. Franzen noted that the
building could be constructed in the reduced grading area proposed by Staff for
Phase I.
Brauer stated that there were several alternatives for development. Brauer added
that the proponent did not want to grade this property unless it was feasible to
develop the property. Brauer believed that there would be nothing definite to
offer a potential developer without grading.
Leslie Otten stated that residents were confused by a notice received that the
meeting tonight was canceled and rescheduled for July 16, 1991, so several
residents with objections were not present.
• Sandstad asked who had sent the letter. Franzen replied that this letter was
regarding the City Council review. Otten believed that this was confusing for
residents. Franzen added that residents had been told at the last Planning
Commission meeting that this item would be discussed at this meeting and that
addition notices would not be mailed.
Brauer stated that the proponent believed that the major issues had been addressed
and did not believe that it would be possible to please everyone.
Cindy Winkel, 13392 Zenith Lane, asked if there were other areas in Eden Prairie
where commercial area abuts park, land. Winkel was concerned about animal
migration. Hawkins replied that as a Commissioner the wildlife was a
consideration and the unique character of the land was important. Brauer replied
that he had been part of the design of several of the nature area within the Major
Twin City Area. He added that wetlands surround all the major center areas.
Brauer stated that it was decided to preserve large nature area and to remove the
smaller area because they could not be well managed. Brauer believed parks to
be good separators between commercial and residential areas. Brauer noted that
the Woodlake Nature Area in Edina was a great wildlife area due to good
management. Brauer stated that he had received a letter from the DNR stating
that this area was not marked as an area to be preserved.
• 6
Planning Commission Minutes
July 8, 1991
Sandstad believed that the City went to great lengths to preserve as many areas
as possible. Brauer stated that the original plan had approximately 21% of the
property untouched and the revised plan had approximately 40% untouched.
MOTION l:
Norman moved, seconded by Kardell to close the public hearing.
Norman believed that a lot of work had gone into this plan on the part of
everyone including Staff, proponent, and residents. Norman believed that some
grading was necessary because of the 2 year period needed to allow for settling
of the soil.
Norman stated that she could approve the plan with the Staff alternative for a
reduced grading area and with the absolute minimum grading and number of units
to be developed.
Kardell believed that a substantial improvement had been made in the plan. She
added that it was important that the PUD be maintained and better screening
provided.
Hawkins believed that it was important that the residents continued to voice their
concerns and opinions throughout the entire process. Hawkins added that he
would vote in favor of the Staff alternative due to a better transition, less grading
and a less intensive site plan.
Sandstad believed that grading was necessary in order to market the property and
would vote in favor of the Staff motion. Motion carried 4-0-1. Bauer abstained.
MOTION 2:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval
of the request of Donald G. Brauer for Comprehensive Guide Plan change from
Medium Density Residential to Commercial on 4.5 acres to be known as
Carpenter North PUD, based on plans dated June 28, 1991, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 5, 1991. Motion carried 4-0-1.
Bauer abstained.
• Planning Commission Minutes
July 8, 1991
MOTION 3:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval
of the request of Donald G. Brauer for PUD concept approval on 27 acres for 117
housing units and 104,000 square feet of commercial to be known as Carpenter
North PUD, based on plans dated June 28, 1991, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated July 5, 1991. Motion carried 4-0-1. Bauer abstained.
B. SINGLETREE PLAZA (91-16-Z-SPR) by The Robert Larsen Partners. Request
for Zoning District Change from Rural to Community Commercial on
approximately 19 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,
and Site Plan Review on approximately 19 acres for construction of 177,131
square feet of commercial uses to be known as Singletree Plaza. Location: South
of Singletree Lane, east of Prairie Center Drive, west of Eden Road. A
continued public hearing.
Franzen reported that the plans were not ready for approval at the last meeting.
The revised plan no longer contained the strip mall and only involved the Wal-
Mart Store. The City was looking at acquiring property on Highway 169 so that
Wal-Mart could face Highway 169. A contingency plan would allow Wal-Mart
to be constructed no matter what direction it would face. Franzen noted that Staff
had met with the proponent only last week to discuss the Wal-Mart only proposal
and the plan had been revised since that time. He added that the Planning
Commission was not being asked to approve this plan at this time; this was simply
an update and a time for preliminary questions. Franzen reported that Staff had
discussed running Commonwealth Drive through the property and this revised
plan represented the developers response. The developer was proposing a private
road. Franzen stated that if a private road instead of a public road was to be
developed the roadway would be require special paving, lighting standards and
planting islands to clearly identify this as a private road and not just a driveway
in a parking lot. Franzen believed that it was important to make the downtown
area pedestrian friendly. Franzen noted that the plan had been changed to provide
the accesses talked about previously. Franzen stated that he did not know at this
time if the proponent and Wal-Mart would agree to the details discussed at the
July 3, 1991 meeting between the proponent and Staff.
Sandstad asked if the location and detail of the garden center had been discussed.
Franzen replied no.
• 8 .
Planning Commission Minutes
• July 8, 1991
Franzen asked the proponent if they were in agreement to go along with the
Downtown theme. Doran replied that he could not speak for Wal-Mart at this
time and added that specific guidelines had not been set yet for the Downtown
Area. Doran believed that it would be possible to return to the Planning
a Commission in 2 weeks with detailed plans. Doran added that he believed that
extension of Columbine as a private road was a benefit to Wal-Mart.
Sandstad asked the difference between a private and public road. Franzen replied
that a public road would have a 44-foot road surface with setback requirements.
Sandstad asked the proposed width for a private road. Doran replied the private
road would be approximately 30 feet wide.
Sandstad asked if the proponent had given up on site acquisition to the east.
Doran replied that Wal-Mart would stop the development process for 6 months
after the plan was approved to allow the City to study land acquisition. Sandstad
stated that he would like to see Wal-Mart constructed closer to Highway 169.
Doran replied that the NSP Tower was very restrictive as to alternative locations
for the building.
Franzen noted that in two weeks the proponent and Staff would need to agree in
principle as to location of roads, where the building would be located, and that
all City Code requirements would be met.
Sandstad stated that he would like to see a plan which showed a connection to the
new Post Office from Columbine Road and how it would affect this plan.
Franzen replied that this would be made available at the next meeting.
Doran noted that Wal-Mart was in favor of building Columbine as a private road.
Hawkins asked if Wal-Mart was hoping to create a Wal-Mart campus atmosphere.
Doran replied that it had not been taken to that level.
Bauer believed that it was important to see more detail related to the garden center
location at the next meeting. Doran replied that the City Ordinance was very
specific related to requirements for a garden center.
• 9
Planning Commission Minutes
July 8, 1991
Kardell asked if the City had an urban design consultant. Franzen replied that
someone should be hired by the following week. Kardell asked if this individual
would have time to have any input into this particular plan by the next meeting.
Franzen replied that the consultant would focus on the big picture for the area and
' make recommendations on the site, landscape and architectural plans.
MOTION
Bauer moved, seconded by Hawkins to continue the public hearing to July 22,
1991 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
• MOTION•
Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 PM. Motion carried
5-0-0.
10