Planning Commission - 05/14/1990 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 14, 1990
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Christine Dodge, Tim Bauer,
Julianne Bye, Robert Hallett, Karen
Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad.
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning;
Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Deb
Edlund, Recording Secretary.
Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
7:45 A. EDEN PRAIRIE FORD, by Shea Architects, Inc.
Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-
Reg-Ser and Site Plan Review on 8.2 acres with
outside storage variance to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 24.6
acres into 4 lots for construction of an automobile
dealership. Location: North of Plaza Drive, west
of Crown Auto. A continued public hearing.
8:15 B. VILLAGE KNOLLS, by Argus Development. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42 .7
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review
with waivers on 8.7 acres, Zoning District
Amendment within the R1-13 .5 District on 8.7 acres.
Preliminary Plat of 42.7 acres into 23 single
family lots, 2 outlots and road right-of-way for a
residential development. Location: East of Homeward
Hills Road at Silverwood Drive. A public hearinq.
8:45 C. BOULDER POINTE WEST TOWNHOMES, by David Carlson
Companies for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to
RM-6.5 on 8.26 acres, Site Plan Review on 8.26
acres, Preliminary Plat of 8.97 acres into 31 lots,
2 outlots and road right-of-way for construction of
30 duplex units. Location: Northeast corner of
Pioneer Trail and Spring Road. A public hearing.
9:10 D. WILSON RIDGE 3RD ADDITION, by Ryan Properties, Inc.
Request for Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat
of 22 .57 acres into 3 lots for construction of
additional parking spaces for the Americable
buildings. Location: 7500 Flying Cloud Drive. A
public hearing.
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 1.4, 1990
Page 2
9:20 E. GUIDE PLAN UPDATE - A public hearing.
V. OLD BIISINESS
VI. NEW BIISINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
AGO514.MMR
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, MAY 14, 1990 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Christine Dodge, Tim Bauer, Julianne
Bye, Robert Hallett, Karen Norman, Charles
Ruebling, Doug Sandstad.
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner;
Scott Kipp, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary.
ROLL CALL: Bauer absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Bye moved, seconded by Hallett to approve the Agenda as published.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to approve the Minutes of April 23,
1990 as published. Motion carried 4-0-1. Hallett abstained.
IV. DEVELOPMENT- PROPOSALS
A. EDEN PRAIRIE FORD, by Shea Architects, Inc. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser and Site Plan
Review on 8.2' acres with outside storage variance to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 24.6
acres into 4 lots for construction of an automobile
dealership. Location: North of Plaza Drive, west of Crown
Auto. . A continued public hearing.
David Shea, representing the proponent, stated that the
proponent had met with Staff and had revised the lighting and
landscaping plans to meet Staff recommendations.
. Franzen reported that Staff had requested the proponent to
make two additional changes to the plans: 1) The landscape
plan should reflect an increase in the height of the conifers
1
• in the triple rows to 870 feet. 2) The lighting plan should
be revised to reflect the removal of some of the lighting
standards to achieve a 3 .5 foot candle average in the front
parking area, similar to the Crosstown Racquet Club. The
display area would be allowed a 10 foot candle lighting.
Hallett asked what guarantee the Planning Commission had that
the plans would be revised as directed and the 'landscaping and
lighting installed based on Staffs request. Shea replied
that plans were required prior to the issuance of building
permits. Franzen added that the wattage and number of light
standards would be inspected upon completion. Hallett asked
if the proponent had agreed to make the two additional changes
to the plans. Franzen replied yes.
Norman asked if the City's signage code could be enforced
effectively. Franzen replied that the code was enforced and
that when violations were discovered a request was made to the
owner for correction. Franzen added that in some cases it may
take up to 30 days for owners to comply. Though most people
comply immediately, some wait until the City initializes a
court action to comply. If this were true for the auto
dealership the City might see .balloons and banners on a
regular basis. Franzen noted that Dotty had stated at the
last Planning Commission meeting that the proponent would
agree to live within the City's code regarding promotional
• advertizing.
Bye asked how binding an agreement regarding signage would be
if the dealership were sold. Franzen replied that the
conditions ran with the land. Bye then asked if there was any
provision to enforce a fine or penalty for continuous
violations. Franzen replied that he . had not consulted the
City Attorney regarding this issue. Hallett added that he
would support affirmative action on the part of the City to
assure that the Signage Code were enforced regarding
promotional advertizing.
Sandstad asked if the City allowed for grand opening signage.
Franzen replied it was allowed for a short period. Sandstad
stated that other cities allow special event advertising
permits and recommended that this be investigated. Sandstad
believed that this could help deter violations.
Hallett asked if the parking spaces provided were within the
limit set by City Code. Franzen replied that the parking
provided was in compliance with City Code and based on
industry standards. Hallett then asked if the City Code dealt
specifically with car dealerships. Franzen replied that the
City Code was written on a general basis.
MOTION 1:
• Bye moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
2
• MOTION 2:
Bye moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Ford for
Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 8.2 acres
for construction of an automobile dealership, with variance
for outside storage to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,
based on plans dated May 11, 1990, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports dated April 20, and May
11, 1990 with the addition of Item 6 to read: Direct the City
Attorney to review the agreement regarding signage and outdoor
advertising to ensure compliance with City Code and violations
related to this business. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Bye moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Ford for Site
Plan Review on 8.2 acres for construction of an automobile
dealership, based on plans dated May 11, 1990, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports dated April 20, and May
11, 1990 with the addition of Item 6 to read: Direct the City
Attorney to review the agreement regarding signage and outdoor
advertising to ensure compliance with City Code and violations
related to this business. Motion carried 5-0-0.
• MOTION 4:
Bye moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to - the City
Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Ford for
Preliminary Plat of 24.6 acres into four lots for construction
of an automobile dealership, based on plans dated May .11,
1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports
dated April 20, and May 11, 1990 with the addition of Item 6
to read: . Direct the City Attorney to review the agreement
regarding signage and outdoor advertising to ensure compliance
with City Code and violations related to this business.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
8:15 B. VILLAGE KNOLLS, by Argus Development. Request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 42.7 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 8.7 acres, Zoning
District Amendment within the R1-13.5 District on 867 acres.
Preliminary Plat of 42.7 acres into 23 single family lots, 2
outlots and road right-of-way for a residential development.
Location: East of Homeward Hills Road at Silverwood Drive. A
public hearing.
NOTE: This item was reviewed last on the Agenda.
Brian Olson, representing Argus Development, stated that the
plan as shown presented all single family homes. He added
• that a previous plat had been approved for. the Argus portion
of the project prior to the conservancy area designation.
Land had been traded with Hustad Development to provide a
3
• better site plan for both parties. The Argus portion of the,
proposal would•have a single loop road with a shared driveway
proposed for the area close to the "T" intersection. Olson
noted that the Bracky home could be saved with the plan as
proposed. The project would consist of 23 single-family lots:
Several variances would be necessary with the plan proposed.
The variances were necessary in order to move the road as far
away from the bluff as possible. 50-foot building. pads were
proposed.
Wallace Hustad, representing Hustad Development, stated that
the proposal as presented was an attempt to integrate the
Argus Development subdivision with the overall plan' for the
Bluffs West area. Hustad believed that the plan would provide
a transition between the higher priced homes and those of the
Argus Development. Because of the grade changes on the
property due to a ravine; Hustad believed that it would be
difficult to develop single-family homes in the northern
portion of the project. A further constraint for the northern
section of project related to the guidelines of the Shoreland
Ordinance. Hustad noted that Staff had originally recommended
consideration of townhouse units in this area; however, at
that time Hustad had believed that single-family would be the
best site plan. Hustad stated that he would not be opposed to
consideration of townhouse units in the northern area and
requested direction from the Planning Commission. Hustad
• believed that the Staff Report was very negative for the
proposal as presented. He added that Argus Development was
anxious to begin construction, but it was not Hustad's intent
to develop its portion of the project in the near future.
Franzen reported that several of the lots were located in the
conservancy area and were in violation of the Shoreland
Ordinance. Franzen noted that in the past the City had not
allowed grading or building pads to be located in the
conservancy area. He stated that Staff had discussed several
options with the proponent such as; reduction in the number of
lots proposed, the use of cul-de-sacs, development of
multiple-family units, and to shift the loop road to the west.
Franzen requested direction from the Planning Commission
regarding the use of single-family versus multiple-family
units for the northern portion of the project, the land use
proposed and how intensely the property adjacent to the creek
should be developed.
Norman asked Hustad if the reduction of lots could be
considered. Hustad replied that the overall density was at
1.5 units per acre and added that a reduction in lots would
not be feasible. Norman asked bow many lots would need to be
cut. Hustad replied that 2 or more lots would need to be
taken out to meet the Shoreland Ordinance guidelines. Hustad
. added that the variances were necessary due to the attempt to
eliminate the impact of the project on the creek area. Hustad
stated that a wide sewer easement to the north also was
restrictive to' the property.
4
• Bye stated that based on the plan as proposed there were
building pads in the conservancy area. Bye added that she
strongly supported the precedent set by the City that lot
lines could be located within the conservancy area, but
building pads were not permitted. Hustad stated that the Bell
Oaks project did have portions of building pads in the
conservancy area and in fact one entire home was located in
the conservancy area. Franzen noted that trade-offs for land
outside of the conservancy area had been made to preserve
other desirable land. Bye noted that 12 to 14 lots would be
located in the conservancy area and believed that it would
require a major trade. Sandstad concurred.
Dodge noted that by deleting 2 lots only the problems related
to the area to the north would be eliminated. Dodge asked
Hustad what his plan for multiple-family would consist of.
Hustad replied the a definite plan was not prepared; however,
the density would not exceed 2.5 units per acre. Hustad had
understood the Staff Report to indicate the only options
available were a reduction in lots or an alternate land use.
Hallett believed that both developers were requesting too many
variances and that the development as proposed was too much
for the area. Hallett further believed that the conservancy
area. and Shoreland Ordinance guidelines should be followed.
Hallett stated that he would be open to seeing a. proposal for
• multiple-family in the northern portion of the parcel.
Hallett asked Franzen if multiple-family would be compatible
with adjacent property. Franzen replied that a density
transfer would be required to . meet -the 2.5 units per acre
referred to by Hustad earlier and how much of a transition
would be provided was. questionable without specific plans.
Hallett asked what the City would gain. by allowing multiple-
family units for this portion. Franzen replied that the use
of cluster homes could allow the proponent to stay further
away from the creek. Hallett believed that first the
proponent needed to stay out of the conservancy and Shoreland
Ordinance areas and then Staff could negotiate. Franzen
replied that the Planning Commission needed to consider if
multiple-family units were appropriate for the area.
Sandstad believed that the information presented was not
enough to base a decision on regarding the use of multiple-
family units. He added that he would like to see some form of
a design plan. Hustad replied that it would be at least 5
years before this portion of the project was developed and he
could not provide details for a townhouse project at this
time.
Olson stated that Argus Development was anxious to begin
construction of its portion of the project. He noted that
Argus Development could develop the proposal as originally
approved; however, he believed that this proposal was an
improvement over the use of a straight road down the center of
the property to connect to a cul-de-sac. Olson stated that
5
• the northern portion of the parcel was burdened with several
restrictions. Olson added that the original proposal met all
the requirement for R1-13 .5 zoning.
Hustad stated that if the Argus Development portion were to
develop as originally planned he would not gain any extra
lots. He added that the two parties had attempted to work
together to develop a better site plan. Hustad stated that
there was not enough room to construct a public road in the
northern portion of the parcel.
Ruebling believed that the Planning Commission was being
pressured to approve more units in this area than it could
handle. Hustad replied that he would have the same amount of
lots with or without Argus Development. Ruebling believed
that the terrain suggested the development of larger lots, not
smaller ones. Hustad stated that in this area alone he had
tried to preserve over 100 acres of land, had provided a trail
system, and 12% of open space was provided. Hustad did not
believe that the property was being overdeveloped and, in
fact, noted that it represented the lowest density in Eden
Prairie. Hustad added that ' he had made a commitment of
gifting to the City the property for a lineal trail system and
the preservation of the valley. Hustad stated that a
significant amount of park land . was being dedicated to the
City. Hustad noted that in light of the way the Staff Report
was written it would make it impossible for him to gift the
•. property and the only alternative would be a dedication of the-
land.
Sandstad recommend a continuance.
Norman was concerned about the position of Argus Development
if a continuance was passed.
Hustad stated that if the northern portion of the plan were
designed differently the cul-de-sac could be moved further
away from the creek.
Olson stated that they had attempted to improve the plan for
the area by coming back and working with Hustad Development
and Staff.
Franzen stated that the main issues to be considered were; how
many units could be developed on the high ground, can the
property be developed with City Code, would a 'land use other
than single-family be more appropriate for the area to the
north. Franzen noted that multiple-family restrictions were
more stringent than single-family related to the Shoreland
Ordinance. Franzen believed that regardless of the use
proposed the corridor should be treated in the same manner.
• Hallett believed that the Planning Commission needed to
consider what would be in the best interest of the City and
that the number of variances needed to be reduced. Hallett
6
• added that even though the previously approved plat was still
valid, he believed that further negotiations would benefit all
parties.
Olson stated that there was some flexibility in the road
alignment and it could be moved up to 15 feet in some areas.
He added that the lots next to the shoreland could be adjusted
to reduce the impact.
The Planning Commission directed the proponents to remove the
building pads from the conservancy area, adhere to the
Shoreland Ordinance guidelines, and minimize the tree lose as
much as possible. The Planning Commission indicated that it
would be open to viewing a plan for multiple-family housing in
the northern portion of the proposal.
Hallett asked if the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
Commission had reviewed the proposal. Franzen replied that
Director Lambert had attended the initial meetings. Hallett
recommended that the proposal be reviewed by the Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Commission.
Ruebling stated that he was uncomfortable with the number of
variances required and questioned if a density transfer would
be feasible in . this area. The remainder of the Planning
Commission concurred.
• Franzen asked if the. direction of the Planning Commission was
to eliminate all variances or to return to the Planning
Commission with a better site plan which would minimize the
number of variances required. Ruebling believed that the site
plan should be improved with a minimal amount of variance
requirements.
Hallett stated that it was difficult to get a good feel for
the area and recommended that a field inspection might be
appropriate.
Norman asked Olson how a continuance would affect Argus
Development. Olson replied that Argus Development would like
to see the project constructed this year. He added that the
house was currently vacant and there was concern regarding
vandalism. Olson added that either plan would work for Argus
Development, but they did need to move in some direction soon.
MOTION 1:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Bye to continue the public hearing
to the May 29, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Motion
carried 6-0-0.
98:45 C. WILSON RIDGE 3RD ADDITION, by Ryan Properties, Inc. Request
for Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat of 22.57 acres into
7
. 3 lots for construction of additional parking spaces for the
Americable buildings. Location: 7500 Flying Cloud Drive. A
public hearing.
Kipp presented the item for review. He stated that additional
parking was needed at the site and, therefore, required that
the property be replatted. Kipp added that all existing
landscaping would be relocated and the screening of loading
facilities would be maintained.
MOTION 1:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Bye to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Bye to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Ryan Properties, Inc. for
Site Plan Review of 22.57 acres for construction of additional
parking spaces for the Americable buildings within Wilson
Ridge 3rd Addition, based on plans dated May 1, 1990, subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 11, 1990.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
. MOTION 3:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Bye to recommend to the City.
Council approval of the request of Ryan Properties, Inc. for
Preliminary Plat of Wilson Ridge 3rd Addition for 22.57 acres
into three lots based on plans dated May 1, 1990, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 11, 1990.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
9:00 D. BOULDER POINTE WEST TOWNHOMES, by David Carlson Companies for
Zoning District Change from R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 8.26 acres,
Site Plan Review on 8.26 acres, Preliminary Plat of 8.97 acres
into 31 lots, 2 outlots and road right-of-way for construction
of 30 duplex units. Location: Northeast corner of Pioneer
Trail and Spring Road. A public hearing.
David Carlson presented the plans for a 30 unit townhouse
subdivision. Carlson stated that he had introduced a new
concept of lower priced one-story townhouses units in other
communities, which had been successful. The price range for
the townhouse units would be between $120, 000 and $130,000.
Carlson believed that the townhouse units would blend in well
with the existing neighborhood. At this time Carlson had not
conducted a neighborhood meeting; however, he had discussed
the plan with residents .this evening. The project would
provide 3 entrances from Mitchell Road. Carlson noted that
the landscaping would be increased along County Road 1.
Uram reported that this was the last medium density section to
8
• be developed in the Red Rock Ranch area. The delay in the
project had related to the connection of Mitchell Road and
County Road 1. All of the access for the subdivision would be
from Mitchell Road. Uram stated that the affect on the
existing neighborhood would be minimal. The landscaping
provided exceeded City Code requirements by over 200 inches.
Uram recommended approval of the project based on the
recommendations outlined in the Staff Report.
Bye asked Carlson if he agreed with the recommendations as
outlined in the Staff Report. Carlson replied yes.
Mr. Weibell, on Sunrise Circle, asked where the water runoff
would go. Uram replied that the runoff from this site would
be collected in a catch basin system and discharged to a
retention pond located on the north end of the project site.
This pond would be constructed as part of the Mitchell Road
project.
Sandstad asked if there would be any way to avoid the need for
the retaining wall. Uram replied that originally a 20-foot
wall was proposed along the entire length of the property line
and currently the plan was changed to require only two 4-foot
retaining walls. Uram added that the walls could not be
eliminated entirely. Carlson added that there would be a lot
of excess soil and that he would like to look at a possible
• raise in the grade.
Norman asked if any totlots would be proposed. Carlson
replied that the target market was for residents 55 years old
or older. Carlson added that no interest had been shown by
families with young children. Carlson stated that sidewalk
access would be available to neighborhood parks.
Ruebling arrived at 8:45.
Weibell asked if City sewer would be available. Uram replied
yes. Weibell asked where the connection would be located.
Uram replied that the sanitary sewer connection would be from
Mitchell Road.
MOTION 1:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing, or
continue. Motion carried 5-0-1. Ruebling abstained.
MOTION 2:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of David Carlson Companies for Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 8.26 acres for Boulder
Pointe West Townhomes based on plans dated April 27, 1990,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May
11, 1990. Motion carried 5-0-1. Ruebling abstained.
9
• MOTION 3:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of David Carlson Companies for Site
Plan Review on 8.26 acres for Boulder Pointe West Townhomes
'for a duplex residential development, based on plans dated
April 27, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated May 11, 1990. Motion carried 5-0-1. Ruebling
abstained.
MOTION 4:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of David Carlson Companies for
Preliminary Plat of 8.97 acres into 31 lots, two outlots, and
road right-of-way for construction of 30 townhouse units to be
known as Boulder Pointe West Townhomes, based on plans dated
April 27, 1990, subject to the recommendations - of the Staff
Report dated May 11, 1990. Motion carried 5-0-1. Ruebling
abstained.
9:20 E. GUIDE PLAN UPDATE - A public hearing.
Kipp presented the revised Comprehensive Guide Plan map to the
Planning Commission for review and approval. The map had been
revised by Staff to define areas more clearly, add the new
• school sites, show the alignment of Highway 212, and depict
the DNR water body classifications.
Bye asked if any changes had been made to the map since it was
presented to the Planning Commission approximately a month
ago. Kipp replied no.
MOTION:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council
approval of the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendments
as presented at the May 14, 1990, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
Hallett asked if Staff would be attending the meeting for the Rural
Service Areas set for June 7, 1990 and if a report could be
forwarded to the Planning Commission.
Hallett asked if the new shopping center on Highway 169 was
constructed as proposed. Hallett noted that the loading areas were
not well screened. Franzen replied that the plan is built as
proposed but does not screen as originally assured by the
developer.
• Ruebling asked if it would be appropriate for a letter to be sent
to the developer indicating how displeased the Planning Commission
was in the outcome of the project.
10
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Hallett to direct Staff to draft a
letter to the developer stating the Planning Commission's
displeasure with the appearance of the back side of the facility,
the inappropriateness of the appearance for this location within
Eden Prairie, and that in the best interest of the City action
.should be taken on the part of the developer to mitigate the
situation. Motion carried 6-0-0.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 PM.
Motion carried 6-0-0.
11