Planning Commission - 08/27/1990 y-� AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, August 27, 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. 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 Amendment
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.
B. HEDOUIST ADDITION, by Don Hedquist. Request for
Preliminary Plat on 3 .9 acres into 5 single family
lots and road right of way with variances for lot
frontage on a public road to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals. Location: 12900 Gerard Drive.
A continued public hearing.
•
Agenda
` Monday, August 27, 1990
Page 2
C. DONNAYIS EDENVALE AND DONNAYIS EDENVALE II, by
Sunset Homes Corporation. Request for Zoning
District Amendment within the RM-6.5 Zoning
District on 7.3 acres, Site Plan Review, and
Preliminary Plat of 7.3 acres into 19 lots and 1
outlot for construction of 50 multi-family units
within 10 buildings. Location: South of Townline
Road and northwest of Edenvale Blvd. A continued
public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. PLANNER'S REPORT
VII. ADJOURNMENT
pcagenda.827
•
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 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;
Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary.
ROLL CALL: Dodge absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Hallett moved, seconded by Bauer to approve the Agenda as
published. Motion carried 4-0-0.
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Ruebling to approve the Minutes of
the July 23, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as published.
Motion carried 2-0-2 . Hallett and Sandstad abstained.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. 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 Develop pent Concept
Review on 39.21 acres, Planned Unit Developnt 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 this item had been continued by the
Planning Commission for further consideration of the
location of the commercial facilities, transition to the
residents to the north, and screening for Highway #5.
Bye and Norman arrived.
Janet Rowe, representing the Church, stated that the
Church had revised the plans to accommodate
recommendations 1 through 7 of the Staff Report; however,
the Church requested reconsideration of recommendation 8.
The Church requested that the additional 41 spaces be
provided as part of Phase II. Rowe believed that
adequate parking was provided for Phase I and said that
the Church would return for a re-evaluation for parking
as part of the Phase II review process.
Franzen reviewed the recommendations outlined in the
Staff Report for the residents in the audience. Franzen
reported that Staff agreed with the request by the
proponent to have the requirement for the 41 additional
parking spaces as part of Phase II.
Bye asked for clarification on the phasing of the
project. Franzen replied that Staff was concerned about
the traffic after the Sunday services and believed that
it was important for the upgrading of Dell Road from
Highway #5 to Valley View Road to have begun prior to any
construct.
Norman asked if Staff meant that construction of the
Church could not begin until the upgrading of the
roadways had been completed. Franzen replied that the
construction of the roadways and the Church could run
• concurrently.
Sandstad asked if it would a level grade at the railroad
tracks and if the railroad agreed with the layout.
Franzen replied that the railroad agreed in principle.
Hallett asked for clarification on the location of the
trail. Franzen replied that a sidewalk and trail would
be placed on either side of Dell Road. Franzen added
that the Church would be responsible to connect a trail
from Dell Road to the wetland area and then make a
connection to the underground crossing proposed for
Highway #5.
Hallett asked if this site had ever been used as a
landfill. Franzen replied that he did not have an answer
at this time, but could check with the Pollution Control
Agency. Rowe replied that an Environmental Review had
been done by Braun Engineering and no hazardous materials
had been found. She added that it had been used as a
dump site for a toy company in Chanhassen at one time.
Franzen noted that many of the lending agencies today
were requiring this time of study prior of approving
financing.
Ruebling noted that the Staff report stated that the
southern entrance would be a right in only and questioned
if this should not be both a right in and right out.
Franzen replied the right out had been omitted and would
be corrected.
Terese Waters-McCabe, 18119 Evener Way, was concerned
that Evener Way was already carrying more traffic than
what it was designed for and was concerned that the
proposed development would only add to the problem. She
noted that there were several small children in the
neighborhood and was concerned for their safety. Waters-
McCabe believed that Evener Way was currently carrying
more than just local and neighborhood traffic. Waters-
McCabe did not believe that the neighborhood would have
access to the bike path as currently proposed. She
questioned if the residents would have any assurance that
the landscaping would be provided as proposed and
recommended that money be placed in an escrow account as
a guarantee.
Ruebling believed that when Dell Road was upgraded the
traffic problem would be reduced. Waters-McCabe did not
believe that anyone could be certain that this would be
true. She added that Dell Road was one mile further to
get to Valley View Road, the speed limits for both Dell
Road and Evener Way were the same, and by taking Evener
Way stop signals would be avoided.
Bauer asked if a traffic study had been done. Franzen
replied that a traffic flow map was not done with the
project. Franzen reported that the City had determined
that the road systems in this area could adequately
• handle the traffic once Dell Road was upgraded.
Bye believed that part of the problem was the access to
Highway #5.
Franzen stated that Evener Way had originally been
proposed as a cul-de-sac and had been redesigned to allow
for better emergency access.
Hallett believed that in time the traffic would reroute
itself to use Dell Road once the upgrading had been
completed.
Norman believed that related to traffic the Church use
for this parcel would be better than industrial use.
Ruebling asked Franzen to address the concern regarding
security for the landscaping. Franzen replied that the
proponent was required to provide bonding for the
landscaping and this money was held by the City until one
full year had passed. He added that the City conducted
an inspection of the landscaping after the first year.
Franzen also noted that the Church would be providing an
irrigation system would help to assure that the
landscaping would thrive.
Ruebling asked Franzen to address the issue related to
access for the bike path. Franzen replied that only two
connection points were identified and he concurred that
the access for the neighborhood would be inconvenient.
Waters-McCabe stated that a map which had been provided
by the City which lead residents to believe that a
connection would be made within their development, which
had not transpired. Ruebling recommended that Waters-
McCabe talk directly with staff regarding this issue.
Bauer asked Franzen how the City determined when a
traffic study should be conducted for a project. Franzen
replied that it varied with each project and where the
project was located. He added that in the Major Center
Area all projects required a Traffic Study. Franzen
stated that because Highway #5 was being upgraded and a
signalized intersection at Dell Road and a connection
made to Valley View Road it was determined that the road
system could handle the traffic. Bauer concurred with
the other Commissioners that probably once the upgrade of
Dell Road was complete the traffic patterns would change;
however, he did not have a traffic study which provided
facts to substantiate this believe. Bauer believed that
it was important to listen to the concerns of the
residents which lived on this street who did not agree
that the Dell Road upgrade would help their situation.
Bye concurred.
Waters-McCabe stated that there was a difference of
opinion even from the City Engineering Department,
depending on who you spoke with.
• Lynn Wilde, 7546 Kimberly Lane, stated that
Evener Way was a direct connection to the High School and
the Community Center. He believed that Evener Way had
become a major thoroughfare. Wilde was in favor of the
Church being developed in this location; however, he also
believed that a further study of the traffic should be
done. Wilde believed that some assurance from the
Railroad should be provided before the project should be
allowed to proceed. He did not believe that the traffic
problems should be left to work themselves out after the
fact. Wilde was also concerned about trail access and
recommended that the Church consider a land exchange with
adjacent property owners to allow for a better trail
access.
Bye stated that the trail and bike path issues were for
the Park, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission to
consider and that the Planning Commission could only make
recommendations as to their location.
Ruebling asked Franzen to clarify where the sidewalks
would be located. Franzen replied that a sidewalk would
be located on one side of Dell Road and a trail on the
other side; however, at this time it had not been
determined which side would have what.
Hallett believed that it was important for the City to
encourage trail development in the early stages of
proposals.
Cindy Groven, 7531 Kimberly Lane, stated that even though
her home backed up to the wetlands, she would still not
have trail access without crossing over a neighbors
property. Groven was also concerned about the increase
in traffic. Groven added that the speed limit was fast
on Evener Way.
Judy McCorkell, 18223 Evener Way, questioned why the City
would design a map with the trails shown and then it was
never developed. Ruebling replied that these were all
issues which needed to be brought before the City;
however, he did not believe that it related directly to
this project. Ruebling encouraged the residents to
contact Staff directly.
Julia Foote, 7603 Kimberly Lane, stated that she was
frustrated at this point and did not know who to speak
with. She continued that this evening the Planning
Commission had indicated that the Parks, Recreation, &
Natural Resources Commission was where the trail issue
should be addressed; however, at the last Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Commission meeting the
residents were told to address the Planning Commission.
Franzen replied that at the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission meeting no action was taken because
they knew that the final plans had not yet been approved
• by the Planning Commission. Franzen recommended that the
residents speak directly with Bob Lambert, Director of
the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Department.
Bye asked if this item had also been continued by the
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission.
Franzen replied that until final plans had been approved
by the Planning Commission the Parks, Recreation &
Natural Resources Commission did not want to take action.
Bauer stated that he believed that the residents would
find the Eden Prairie City Staff very helpful and willing
to discuss their concerns.
Bye stated that the Planning Commission would take some
action this evening to direct the plan.
Jan Gill, representing the proponent, stated that it
appeared that a traffic problem could be created with
Dell Road becoming a 4-lane road rather than the Church
creating a problem. Gill further believed that any
development would increase the traffic more than the
Church use.
Rowe stated that she appreciated the neighbors concerns
regarding traffic. She added that the Church had
conducted a demographic study of its members and had
found very few members from this northern section of Eden
Prairie. Rowe also noted that this plan was a 10-year
plan and would not be fully implemented all at one time.
Sandstad questioned if the right-in, right-out access for
Dell Road and the lack of access to Highway #5 would not
force traffic to go north on Dell Road. Franzen replied
that there were two access points provided, with the full
access being to the north. Franzen added that the Church
had designed an internal roadway system to direct traffic
to the access points. Franzen noted that there would not
be enough room for two full access points.
Norman asked if it would be difficult to provide a median
cut at the southern access. Franzen replied that the
access was too close to the intersection.
Bauer stated that he was comfortable with the
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, but he was uncomfortable
with the traffic because of the concerns raised by the
residents which lived in the area.
Bye stated that this area would be developed at some
point and recommended a traffic management plan be
developed for Evener Way.
Hallett believed that this was an appropriate location
for a Church.
Ruebling believed that even a traffic consultant would
have to make too many assumptions in this area.
• Bye recommended that the City Council review the traffic
issue further. Bye believed that Dell Road would be more
responsible for traffic problems than the Church.
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 Eden Prairie Assembly
of God for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from
Industrial and Public Open Space to Church on 32 .7 acres,
from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial on three
acres, and from Industrial to Office on 2.5 acres for a
church and other commercial and office uses, based on
revised plans dated August 24, 1990, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 22,
August 10, and August 24, 1990. Motion carried 5-1-0.
Bauer voted NO.
Ruebling asked if all the plantings were to be done as
part of Phase I. Franzen replied that this was part of
the recommendations from the previous Staff Report.
MOTION 3:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Assembly
of God for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on
39.21 acres for construction of a church and other
commercial and office uses, based on revised plans dated
August 24, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Reports dated June 22, August 10, and August 24,
1990. Motion carried 5-1-0. Bauer voted NO.
MOTION 4:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Assembly
of God for Planned Unit Development District Review on
32.7 acres, with waivers, and Zoning District Amendment
from I-Gen, R1-22 and Rural to Public on 32 .7 acres for
construction of a church and other commercial and office
uses, based on revised plans dated August 24, 1990,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated
June 22, August 10, and August 24, 1990. Motion carried
5-1-0. Bauer voted NO.
MOTION 5:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Assembly
of God for Site Plan Review on 32.7 acres for
• construction of a church, based on revised plans dated
August 24, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Reports dated June 22, August 10, and August 24,
1990. Motion carried 5-1-0. Bauer voted NO.
MOTION 6:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Assembly
of God for Preliminary Plat of 39.21 acres into four lots
and road right-of-way for construction of a church and
other commercial and office uses, based on revised plans
dated August 24, 1990, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Reports dated June 22, August 10, and August
24, 1990. Motion carried 5-1-0. Bauer voted NO.
Bauer stated for the record that he would have voted yes
for the project if a traffic study had been done and if
that study had stated that the improvements to Dell Road
would eliminate the traffic concerns voiced by the
residents.
MOTION 7:
Bye moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission that the
trail system be examined to provide better access to the
trail. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 8:
Bye moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City
Council that further review be conducted related to the
traffic issues on Evener Way. Motion carried 6-0-0.
B. HEDOUIST ADDITION, by Don Hedquist. Request for
Preliminary Plat on 3.9 acres into 5 single family lots
and road right of way with variances for lot frontage on
a public road to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals.
Location: 12900 Gerard Drive. A continued public
hearing.
Franzen reported that there was some confusion regarding
notices sent out to the residents. It had been brought
to the attention of Staff that several of the residents
believed that this item had been withdrawn. Staff,
therefore, recommended that this item be continued for
any final action until the residents could be properly
advised. Franzen noted that the proponent had agreed to
.a continuation.
Ruebling recommended that the proponent make a
presentation this evening regarding the changes made to
date.
Frank Cardarelle, representing the proponent, stated that
. the tree loss had been reduced and 70-foot building pads
had been depicted on the plans. The plan consisted of 5
lots with 3 neck lots with private drives to each. The
tree loss was calculated at approximately 23%; however,
the proponent was willing to bond for the 37% tree loss.
Franzen reported that the changes made to the plans were
based on the direction provided by the Planning
Commission at the last meeting to address tree savings
and lot access. Franzen noted that a comparison had been
provided in the Staff Report related to private road
access versus public road access. He added that grading
would be approximately 70% for a public road system.
Franzen stated that normally Staff would not recommend
for a project to develop a proposal with variances;
however, there were times when flag lots were necessary
to save the trees. Franzen noted that Staff used a very
specific criteria for the consideration of flag lots.
The lot sizes for this plan average approximately 30,000
square feet and the homes could be seen from the public
road. Staff believed that this plan provided for the
least amount of impact on the adjacent properties.
Franzen noted that the tree loss percentages relied on
the project being built according to the grading plan.
Staff had planned for the larger houses based on a
reasonable market expectation. Franzen stated that the
tree loss was higher than average; however, based on the
constraints for the property believed the calculated tree
loss to be reasonable. It would be important for the deed
restrictions and covenants to be placed on the property.
Franzen reported that Staff had looked into the benefits
of removing the existing home, but found that additional
tree loss would occur. A conservancy easement would be
given to the City and provisions included which
prohibited the removal of trees or grading in the area.
Staff believed that the proponent had provided a better
plan.
Norman asked where the access would be located for the
existing home. Cardarelle replied that the driveway
would remain as it exists today.
Howard Kaerwer, 12800 Gerard Drive, stated that he was
pleased to see the improvements in the plan. Kaerwer
questioned the use of three separate driveways. The plan
showed three 12-foot driveways, for a total width of
approximately 54 feet to allow for space between each
drive. He noted that the driveways would need to be
sloped. Kaerwer stated that the original plan had shown
a 24-foot wide private road. He believed that a cul-de-
sac could be possible depending on the cut-in. Kaerwer
was concerned about the drainage onto his property. He
believed that the building pads were now closer to his
property line, which left no place for the water to
drain. Kaerwer was pleased to see the conservancy
easement.
Barbara Kaerwer, 12800 Gerard Drive, stated that she
personally had an intense reaction to the tree loss
because she and her husband had planted many of the trees
in the area. She was concerned about the use of 3
separate driveways and recommended the use of a common
drive so that the building pads could be moved further up
the hill. Kaerwer recommended that the lots be reduced
to four. She noted that there was still a significant
amount of wildlife in the conservancy area and hoped that
it would remain.
Ruebling asked why 3 separate driveways had been
proposed. Franzen replied that the initial concern had
been for maintenance and private access.
Sandstad asked if the undeveloped property would be
considered an outlot. Franzen replied that a conservancy
easement would be set up as part of a covenant.
Ruebling recommended that the proponent consider
consolidation of the driveways to one common drive.
Hallett believed that the proponent had improved the
plan.
Franzen stated that a letter would be mailed out to
residents which had been at the first Public Hearing.
Kaerwer asked if the storm sewer line could be relocated.
Franzen replied that another issue was storm water
drainage, which would drain into the valley. He added
that he would talk specifically with Bob Obermeyer and
report back to the Planning Commission. Kaerwer asked if
the storm water drainage could be connected to Nine Mile
Creek.
Ruebling summarized that the outstanding issues were the
driveway access, sanitary sewer location, and storm water
drainage.
MOTION 1:
Hallett moved, seconded by Bye to continue the Public
Hearing to September 10, 1990. Motion carried 6-0-0.
C. DONNAY'S EDENVALE AND DONNAYIS EDENVALE II, by Sunset
Homes Corporation. Request for Zoning District Amendment
within the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 7.3 acres, Site Plan
Review, and Preliminary Plat of 7_3 acres into 19 lots
and 1 outlot for construction of 50 multi-family units
within 10 buildings. Location: South of Townline Road
and northwest of Edenvale Blvd. A continued public
hearing.
Franzen reported that this parcel had been zoned medium
density since 1982 and the proponent wanted to continue
to build multiple unit buildings.
Paul Donnay stated that 16 units had been approved in
1982 . The approval was for four 4-unit buildings, the
same units as found at Round Lake. He added that Phase
II would consist of two 4-unit townhouses, three 6-unit
buildings, and one 8-unit facility. Donnay stated that
the plan had been designed to save the larger trees.
Ruebling asked what was planned for the outlot. Donnay
replied that the outlot was undevelopable; it was a
holding pond. Franzen added that it would be necessary
to maintain the holding pond. Ruebling asked if it would
be a permanent pond. Franzen replied yes.
Ruebling noted that Mary Ericksen, 15157 Lesley Lane had
been present to discuss the plan but had to leave before
the item was presented.
Doug Bakke, 15174 Patricia Court, stated that he had met
with Donnay several times and was pleased with the
appearance of the units. Bakke added that Donnay had
assured the adjacent residents that the backside of the
buildings would be made more attractive with shutters,
etc. Bakke stated that Donnay had also assured the
40 residents that as much of the underbrush as possible
would be left natural.
Hallett noted that brick and shutters for the backside
of the buildings was not part of the Staff
recommendations. Donnay replied that shutters, dormers,
and additional windows had been added to the plans.
Franzen concurred that the backside of the buildings were
plain. Donnay stated that brick had also been added to
the back of the buildings. Donnay showed the Planning
Commission the new design for the backside of the
buildings. Hallett asked Bakke if this design reflected
what he had expected. Bakke replied that this was
exactly what had been discussed.
MOTION 1:
Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Sunset Homes
Corporation for Zoning District Amendment within the RM-
6.5 Zoning District on 7.3 acres for 50 multiple family
units, to be known as Donnay's Edenvale and Donnay's
Edenvale II, based on revised plans dated August 13,
1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated August 24, 1990. Motion carried 6-0-0.
• MOTION 3:
Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Sunset Homes
Corporation for Site Plan Review on 7.3 acres for
construction of 50 multiple residential units, to be _
known as Donnay's Edenvale and Donnay's Edenvale II,
based on revised plans dated August 13, 1990, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 24,
1990. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 4:
Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Sunset Homes
Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 7.3 acres into 19
lots and one outlot for construction of 50 multiple
residential units, to be known as Donnay's Edenvale and
Donnay's Edenvale II, based on revised plans dated August
13, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated August 24, 1990. Motion carried 6-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
Hallett asked if stop lights were being installed on
County Road #1 and Franlo Road. Franzen replied yes.
Hallett believed that the lights on County Road #4 had
been approved at the same time as County Road #1 and
asked when the lights for County Road #4 would be
installed. Franzen replied that he would need to check
with Alan Gray.
Bye asked if the Engineering Department could provide the
Planning Commission with an update periodically.
Ruebling recommended that the pedestrian traffic on
Anderson Lakes Parkway and Highway #169 also be reviewed.
Norman stated that she would like to know how much
property had been zoned but had not been developed at
this time. Franzen noted that some of the zoning was 20
years old. Franzen added that with the new Site Plan
Review Ordinance a plan was null and void if not
developed within two years after approval.
VI. PLANNER'S REPORT
VII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to adjourn the meeting at 10: 00 PM.
Motion carried 6-0-0.