Planning Commission - 08/13/1990 • AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, August 13, 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, Don
Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary.
Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
• A. CEDAR RIDGE 2ND ADDITION, Westar Properties, Inc.
Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to
R1-13 .5 on 23 .37 acres with variances to be
reviewed by Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat
of 23.37 acres into 54 single family lots and road
right-of-way. Location: North of County Road 1,
west of Cedar Ridge Estates at Rogers Road. A
continued public hearing.
B. EDEN PRAIRIE ASSEMBLY OF GOD, by Eden Prairie
Assembly of God. Request for Comprehensive Guide
Plan Change from Industrial and Public Open Space
to Church on 32.7 acres, from Industrial to N-Com
on 3 acres, and from Industrial to Office on 2.5
acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on
39.21 acres, Planned Unit Development District
Review on 32 .7 acres with waivers, Zoning District
Change from I-Gen, R1-22 and Rural to Public on
32.7 acres, Site Plan Review on 32 .7 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 39.21 acres into 4 lots and
road right-of-way for construction of a church and
other commercial and office uses to be known as
Eden Prairie Assembly of God. Location: State
Highway #5 at Dell Road. A continued public
hearing.
Agenda
Monday, August 13, 1990
Page 2
C. BLUFFS W. 9TH ADDITION, by Hustad Development
Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 20.46 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review of 20.46 acres with
waivers, Zoning District Amendment within the R1-
13 .5 Zoning District and Zoning District Change
from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 14.16 acres with Shoreland
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,
Preliminary Plat of 20.46 acres into 25 single
family lots, 3 outlots and road right-of-way.
Location: North of Bluestem Lane and west of
Bennett Place. A public hearing.
D. SOUTHWEST METRO PARR AND RIDE STUDY
V. OLD BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
.AGO813 .BS
i
Y
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 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; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary.
ROLL CALL: Sandstad absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION•
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to approve the Agenda as
published. Motion carried 4-0-0.
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to approve the Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting held July 9, 1990 as published. Motion
carried 3-0-3. Dodge, Hallett, and Ruebling abstained.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. CEDAR RIDGE 2ND ADDITION, Westar Properties, Inc. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 23.37 acres
with variances to be reviewed by Board of Appeals, and
Preliminary Plat of 23 .37 acres into 54 single family lots and
road right-of-way. Location: North of County Road 1, west of
Cedar Ridge Estates at Rogers Road. A continued public
hearing.
Bob Smith, representing the proponent, presented the revisions
for the 54 single-family lot proposal. Smith noted the
location of the trees which had already been planted by the
• school. The storm water run-off plan was being prepared for
review by the DNR. Smith noted that Graham had endorsed the
plan as revised.
Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the
project based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff
Report.
Ruebling asked if berming had been added to the northern
property line. Smith replied that berming had been done by
the school already. Ruebling then asked if there were any
changes being made to the grading plan. Smith replied no.
MOTION 1:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Westar Properties, Inc. ,
for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 23 .37
acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,
for Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition, based on revised plans dated
August 3, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Reports dated July 20, and August 10, 1990. Motion carried 4-
0-0.
• MOTION 3:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Westar Properties, Inc. ,
for Preliminary Plat of 23.37 acres into 54 single family lots
and road right-of-way, for Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition, based on
revised plans dated August 3, 1990, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports dated July 20, and August
10, 1990. Motion carried 4-0-0.
B. EDEN PRAIRIE ASSEMBLY OF GOD, by Eden Prairie Assembly of God.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial
and Public Open Space to Church on 32 .7 acres, from Industrial
to N-Com on 3 acres, and from Industrial to Office on 2.5
acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 39.21 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 32.7 acres with
waivers, Zoning District Change from I-Gen, R1-22 and Rural to
Public on 32.7 acres, Site Plan Review on 32.7 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 39.21 acres into 4 lots and road right-of-
way for construction of a church and other commercial and
office uses to be known as Eden Prairie Assembly of God.
Location: State Highway #5 at Dell Road. A continued public
hearing.
Franzen reported that the proponent had revised the plans
• after being given direction from the Planning Commission to
look into alternative site plans to provide a better
Bauer replied that the Church should be aware that the
location of this proposal was a gateway to Eden Prairie and
that the City and the Planning Commission would look very
carefully at any proposal.
Franzen stated that the Planning Commission could be very
descriptive as to the uses allowed on the property. He added
that the PUD Ordinance did require proposed uses for the
property. Franzen believed that it was important that the
commercial development serve the neighborhood to the north and
not serve the traffic going east or west.
Ruebling noted that motions had not been provided to approve
the project. Franzen noted that there would be a minimum of
six motions and the wording was critical. Ruebling
recommended that the Public Hearing be continued to allow
Staff time to develop the necessary motions and to post this
item for the September 4, 1990 City Council meeting.
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to continue the public
hearing to the August 27, 1990 Planning Commission meeting,
with direction to the proponent to complete revisions to the
detailed plans dated August 10, 1990, including site plan,
landscaping, grading plan, utilities, Etc. , and with direction
to the Staff to publish the item for public hearing before the
• City Council for its September 4, 1990, meeting. Motion
carried 6-0-0.
Hallett asked if the Church did move to this location if the
City could request that landscaping on the present site be
upgraded. Franzen replied that the City would need to find
out if the landscaping was within compliance with the original
plan and the City Code.
C. BLUFFS W. 9TH ADDITION, by Hustad Development Corporation.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 20.46
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review of 20.46 acres
with waivers, Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5
Zoning District on 16.30 acres and Zoning District Change from
R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 14.16 acres with Shoreland variances to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 20.46
acres into 25 single family lots, 3 outlots and road right-of-
way. Location: North of Bluestein Lane and west of Bennett
Place. A public hearing.
Mary McCawley, representing the proponent, presented the plan
plan for the 25 lot development. The development would
connect to Purgatory Road and would provide a connection to
Bennett Place to the east. Nine lots were located to the east
of Purgatory Road and 16 larger lots would be located to the
• west and would be closer to the creeks edge. McCawley noted
that a cul-de-sac would be necessary because of the creek
location. The proponent was requesting R1-13.5 zoning for the
entire parcel. McCawley stated that the right-of-way distance
was less than 55 feet on Lot 10 due to the request by Staff to
transition to the single-family residents to the north,
improve the screening of the parking lot along Highway #5, and
to develop the commercial property for neighborhood commercial
uses in lieu of regional uses.
Dennis Batty, architect for the proponent, presented aerial
photographs of the proposed site. Batty noted that Highway #5
would have a lower cut along this site.
Bye arrived.
Batty stated that well over one hundred trees had been added
to the site plan to screen the site from the single-family
residents to the north. He added that additional plantings
would be placed throughout the parking lot and noted that
natural screening was currently in place around portions of
the wetlands.
Batty believed that the Church had been placed on the best
location possible on the site. The parking would be divided
on both sides of the Church. He noted that a strong internal
traffic pattern had been developed to direct the traffic to
the two access points onto Dell Road. Batty stated that the
accesses had been placed as far apart as possible and yet
related to the traffic patterns off-site. The main access
would be located directly across from 78th Street and it was
hoped that in the future a signal light would be provided at
• this intersection.
Batty stated that a lighting plan had been submitted. A
shoebox fixture would be used with a maximum height of 20
feet. He reported that a Design Framework Manual had not been
developed at this time and that the exact color and texture of
the exterior had not been determined. Batty did say, however,
that the materials for the exterior would consist totally of
glass, brick, and metal.
Darrell Fortier, representing the proponent, believed that a
large residential area would be serviced by the commercial
development proposed. He added that in order to have the
project be financially successful for the Church it was
necessary for portions of the property to be sold. Fortier
stated that interest had been shown by a restaurant and a
convenience/gas station. Fortier said that this did not mean
that these uses would be developed, but the Church was merely
requesting that the zoning be changed to allow for commercial
uses. Fortier noted that an alternate plan had been developed
which depicted freestanding facility uses on the corners in
Eden Prairie. Fortier believed that the plan as presented
provided a proper transition between the residential and
commercial uses. The proposal also allowed for low intensity
use of the property. Fortier noted that loss of access from
• Highway #k5. He also believed that neighborhood commercial use
in this location was more appropriate than industrial use.
Norman asked if a signalized intersection would be provided
when Highway #5 had been developed. Franzen replied that a
signalized intersection was scheduled to be developed in 1991
at the intersection of Highway ##5 and Dell Road.
Franzen requested that the alternate plan referred to by
Fortier be shown to the Planning Commission. Batty presented
the plan which he noted would require more grading and would
also result in approximately 50 to 60 fewer parking spaces.
Franzen reported that the alternate plan had been developed as
a compromise plan. He believed that by moving the commercial
development further to the north more residents would be
served by the neighborhood commercial facility. Franzen added
that moving the commercial development further away from
Highway #5 would also help create more of a neighborhood
commercial atmosphere, rather than a regional one. The
alternate plan would work with the accesses and internal
circulation. Franzen noted that the alternate plan would be
short approximately 40 parking spaces. He added that the City
Council had raised the issue of adequate parking for Churches
and had asked Staff to conduct a study to determine if 3 seats
per parking space was adequate for Churches. Franzen stated
that additional parking may be required. Franzen believed
that the berm could be raised along Highway #5 to screen the
parking lot. Franzen stated that a berm could not be used
along the northern boundaries due to the wetlands; screening
. would have to be provided with plantings only. He added that
it would take time for the screening to mature enough to
provide adequate screening.
Franzen reported that the entire site needed to reflect a
residential character and all of the buildings needed to have
an architectural continuity. Staff had requested that the
Church provide an architectural design framework plan.
Franzen stated that Staff had requested a maximum height of 20
feet because of the proximity of the residential area.
Franzen noted that the Staff recommendations provided for
possible alternatives to improve the plan.
Hallett arrived.
Dodge asked if there were any residents in the audience which
resided in the area to the north of the proposed development.
Randy Foote, 7603 Kimberly Lane, asked how high the Church
would be. Franzen replied that the main portion of the Church
would be approximately 58 feet high, with a 92 foot high
spire.
Norman asked if the proposal was approved if the Planning
. Commission would be approving the alternate plan or the first
plan _shown this evening. Franzen replied that the Staff
Report recommendations were based on the alternate plan.
Norman stated that if adequate screening could be provided for
the first plan shown she would not be opposed to that plan as
compared to changes which would be necessary to move the
convenience/gas station farther away from the intersection.
Ruebling asked if there would be a median cut at the southern
access. Franzen replied no. He added that the access point
was too close to the intersection. The intersections were
offset.
Bye believed that by having the convenience/gas station moved
farther back from the intersection would help insure a
neighborhood commercial development. Bye recommended that the
parking issue be reviewed further during the second phase of
the proposal. Bye asked for clarification on the PUD Review
and if the gas/convenience and restaurant would be required to
return to the Planning Commission for further review. Franzen
replied that a PUD Review approval only approves a concept
plan and a detailed review would be required when specific
plans were available.
Ruebling believed that the proponent had demonstrated
compelling reasons for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change.
He further believed that it was important to keep the
neighborhood commercial portion of the project as far to the
north as possible. Ruebling recommended that the locations of
the restaurant and the convenience/gas station be switched
around. Ruebling believed that it was important not to
distract from the Church with the commercial development.
• Ruebling asked the proponent to comment on its thoughts
regarding the trail system. Batty replied that the trail had
not been shown on the plan; however, the Church did not have
a problem with the trail systems as recommended by Staff.
Ruebling stated that he would accept Franzen's statement that
additional parking can be provided in the future. Ruebling
believed that the plan had significantly improved from the
original proposal.
Bauer stated that he supported the Comprehensive Guide Plan
Change. Bauer asked what screening would be provided as you
travel to the west. Batty replied that a hill would provide
natural screening and 5 foot berms have been added along
Highway #5.
Batty stated that the Church was sensitive to the parking
issue and believed that with some massaging additional parking
spaces could be provided.
Franzen noted that the Planning Commission had not seen a new
grading plan at this time.
Fortier stated that there was no assurance that the road
. accesses would line up. He also noted that the exact location
of the restaurant and convenience/gas station was not
determined; this was only a concept plan for the commercial
development. Fortier said that the Church did understand that
this was not an appropriate location for a superstation.
have the trail access as an outlot and not as an easement.
Lot 13 and 14 were restricted for space due to the creek
conservancy and the space left by other adjacent developments.
The location of Lots 7 and 8 were chosen because of the
grading and the location of the existing home on Lot 8.
McCawley noted that over 9 acres of land would be dedicated to
the City with this proposal.
Franzen reported that the plan with the variances was a better
site plan and a benefit to the City than a plan without the
variances. He noted that Staff had outlined six reasons to
support the variances in the Staff Report. Franzen stated
that the building pads had been kept out of the conservancy
area.
Franzen stated that erosion on lots with steep slopes was a
problem which needed further consideration by the proponent
and Staff. He believed that a solution could be reached prior
to the City Council review. Staff was looking at roof
drainage solutions. Franzen stated that Staff recommended
approval of the proposal based on the recommendations outlined
in the Staff Report.
Ruebling believed that an erosion plan was a good idea, but
questioned the ability to enforce the plan. Franzen replied
that Staff was beginning to make special requirement for the
larger houses. The Engineering Department had stated that the
• main problem related to erosion was when the houses were below
the street. Franzen believed that several options could be
explored to eliminate the problem.
Norman believed the plan to be well thought out.
MOTION 1:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Hustad Development Corporation for
Planned Unit Development Concept on 20.46 acres for Bluffs
West 9th Addition, based on plans dated August 10, 1990,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
August 10, 1990. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Hustad Development Corporation for
Planned Unit Development District Review on 20.46 acres, with
waivers, for Bluffs West 9th Addition, based on plans dated
August 10, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated August 10, 1990. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 4:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Hustad Development Corporation for
Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13 .5 District on 16.30
acres and Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on
14. 16 acres, with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals, for Bluffs West 9th Addition, based on plans
dated August 10, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated August 10, 1990. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 5:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Hustad Development Corporation for
Preliminary Plat of 20.46 acres into 25 single family lots,
three outlots and road right-of-way, for Bluffs West 9th
Addition, based on plans dated August 10, 1990, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 10, 1990.
Motion carried 6-0-0.
D. SOUTHWEST METRO PARR AND RIDE STUDY
Fred Hosington, representing the Southwest Metro Transit
Commission, introduced Beverly Miller, who had been the spirit
behind the study. Also present was Catherine Benson, acting
Director for the SMTC. Hosington stated that the study had
determined where the permanent sites should be located and
which should be publicly owned. A proposal was also designed
• for mass transit. An inventory of the sites had been
completed and a criteria established to determine the location
of permanent sites. The SMTC proposed five sites in Eden
Prairie and three sites in Chanhassen and Chaska. The current
need is approximately 475 parking spaces with the projection
for the year 2000 at 1200 parking spaces. Hosington stated
that the Shady Oak site was currently working well with 86
parking spaces. SMTC did not know how long the Eden Prairie
Center lot would be available.
Hosington noted that Highway phasing was an important
determining factor in the site selection process. Site 17 was
a preferred site due to the fact that it would provide for
both short term and long term use, while site 14 only provided
for long term use. Hosington stated that if site 6 in
Chanhassen would not be selected and additional site in Eden
Prairie could be selected.
Hosington believed that a Travel Demand Management plan should
be included in the Comprehensive Plan. He further recommended
an ordinance to encourage developers to develop TDM's and
require a higher fee if a TDM plan was not proposed. He
recommended consideration of a fee structure. Hosington
believed that it was important to begin to think of transit
corridors and discourage the of individual automobiles.
• Hosington commented on the five recommendations outlined in
the Staff Report dated August 10, 1990. He concurred with
recommendation #1 that the "opt out" should be utilized.
Regarding recommendation #2 he noted that a variance would be
required for a temporary site due to the use of gravel.
Hosington noted that this study was intended to be for
informational purposes only as stated in recommendation #3.
SMTC concurred with recommendation #4. In reference to
recommendation #5, Hosington stated that he did not expect the
process to change, merely that more consideration be given to
transit design strategies.
Scott Kipp reported that the City's setback requirements were
such that buildings could currently be designed close to the
street and transit positive designs could be used. Kipp
believed that the adoption of an ordinance was premature at
this time. Franzen noted that Staff could provide further
information to the Planning Commission regarding transit
positive designs.
Ruebling asked at what point Staff believed that it would be
appropriate to adopt an ordinance enforcing transit positive
design. Kipp replied that the work force in Eden Prairie was
from other suburbs, which were high auto users. Kipp believed
that the issues needed further investigation.
Ruebling asked how many Eden Prairie residents currently used
the transit system. Beverly Miller, director of SMTC, stated
that most of the service was to take Eden Prairie residents to
the downtown area. Miller added that employers were now
beginning to ask SMTC for help to get workers from the inner
. City areas to Eden Prairie to work.
Franzen stated that there would a reference to TDM in the
Comprehensive Plan and that TDM would come before the Planning
Commission next year as part of the Transportation Report.
Bye asked if the number of workers going downtown were
increasing or decreasing from Eden Prairie. Miller replied
that SMTC services 20,000 passengers per month, which exceeded
the projections. Bye questioned where Eden Prairie residents
would be working 20 years from now. Hosington believed that
there would still be significant numbers working in the
downtown area. He added that presently there was a strong
attraction between the Eden Prairie and Edina work forces,
which needed additional work to provide efficient transit.
Hosington noted that approximately 67% of the present riders
were women or those riding for economic reasons. He believed
that the number of participants would continue to increase
over the years.
Dodge asked if Light Rail Transit and Park and Ride
complimented each other. Hosington replied that when LRT was
extended to Hopkins there would still be a need for an express
service. He added that once LRT was in place to the west the
Park & Ride to the east would still be necessary. Hosington
. was concerned that the present proposal for LRT would not be
any better than the present bus system.
Hallett asked if parking ramps had been considered for the
Park & Ride sites. Hosington replied that ramps were very
expensive and SMTC had tried to work with public lands or
'joint use sites.
Kipp noted that Site 8 would be a prominent site and Staff had
received several inquiries.
Dodge asked what action was expected from the Planning
Commission. Kipp replied that Staff recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council an approval
of the concept, but not approval of specific recommendations.
Ruebling asked if there were specific parking requirements.
Miller replied that the lots could be used by car pools as
well as bus riders. Miller added that SMTC had tried to
provide adequate information to all participants.
Kipp asked if another direct route could be added from another
site to lessen the congestion at the Shady Oak site. Miller
replied that this could be looked into; Eden Prairie
definitely needed another stop. Miller stated that she hoped
that the Planning Commission would look at SMTC as a resource
service and believed that the role of SMTC would continue to
grow.
Hosington stated that modifications to the report would be
done to incorporate the Staff Recommendations.
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council revision of the Southwest Metro Park and Ride Study
per the Staff Report dated August 10, 1990. Motion carried 6-
0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to adjourn the meeting at 10:40
PM. Motion carried 6-0-0.
•