Planning Commission - 05/09/1983 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
10Monday, May 9, 1983
7:30 p.m., City Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. HIDDEN GLEN, by R. M. Feerick Associates. Request for
Planned Unit Development District Review of 104 acres for
195 single family detached units and 58 multi-family units;
Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5, R1-13.5, and R1-22 for 22.8
acres for residential use; and Preliminary Plat of 22.8
acres for 59 single family lots. Location: East of Highway
101 and South of Townline Road. A continued public hearing.
B. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER, by Ryan Construction. Planned
Unit Development District Review, Zoning from Rural to I-2,
and Preliminary Plat of 14.05 acres into two lots for
office/service/storage uses. Location: Northeast of Shady
Oak Road, west of I-494. A public hearing.
C. NORTHMARK 4TH ADDITION, by Hans Hagen Homes. Request for
Zoning Amendment and Planned Unit Development District
approval of five acres for multiple residential land use and
preliminary plat for 32 townhouse units. Location: West of
Center Way, north of Nesbitt Preserve Park. A public
hearing.
D. EDENVALE 17TH ADDITION, by Equitable Life Assurance.
Request for Planned Unit Development District Review and
Zoning from Rural to RM-6.5 and Preliminary Plat of 9.77
acres for medium density residential use for 21 duplex lots,
or 42 units. Location: North of Edenvale Boulevard, south
of Birch Island Road. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
A. Review of the Revised Tax Increment Financing Plan for Major
Center Area
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 9, 1983
City Hall, 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan
Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck (10:25 p.m. ), Hakon
Torjesen (9:15 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman William Bearman
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Hallett, to alter the order
of the agenda items under IV. Development Proposals to be A, D, B,
C.
Motion carried--4-0-0
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes to approve the
minutes as written with the following change: Page 4, paragraph 1,
to read (additions underlined), "He stated that he felt the
parking and exterior improvements proposed by the owner would
improve the property immensely, and that he did not feel it would be
detrimental to allow for the expansion as proposed. Johannes
suggested that perhaps the economic feasibility of correcting the
violations and making the exterior improvements should be taken into
consideration, as opposed to considering the use only in terms of
'making it legal. '"
Motion carried--4-0-0
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. HIDDEN GLEN, by R. M. Feerick Associates. Request for
Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 9, 1983
Planned Unit Development District Review of 104 acres for
195 single family detached units and 58 multi-family units;
Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5, R1-13.5, and R1-22 for 22.8
acres for residential use; and Preliminary Plat of 22.8
acres for 59 single family lots. Location: East of Highway
101 and South of Townline Road. A continued public hearing.
At its meeting of April 25, 1983, the Planning Commission
recommended a continuance of this item pending resolution of major
site design issues involving thoroughfares, utilities, and public
facilities. Staff had been directed to work with proponent and the
other governmental agencies involved, including the Cities of
Chanhassen and Minnetonka, Hennepin County, and the State of
Minnesota, to resolve these matters.
Dick Krier, Westwood Planning and Engineering, representing the
proponent, reviewed the changes proposed since the previous meeting.
He pointed out the following amendments: 1) Dell Road had been
realigned through the site to meet the criteria of the various
agencies concerned; 2) The number of single family units had been
changed from 195 to 185, and the number of multiple family units had
been changed from 58 to 60; 3) The Highway #101 alignment had been
redesigned to accommodate a 40 mile per hour speed curve; 4) Storm
water drainage for the site has been redirected to the vicinity of
Purgatory Creek, instead of overground to the City of Chanhassen;
and, 5) The park has been relocated to the southeast corner of the
site, and acreage has been added to it.
Planner Enger reviewed the Staff Report on the amended proposal. He
indicated the advantages of the proposed realignment of Dell Road,
pointed out the greater variety of uses available to the park due to
its relocation, and stated that the developer would receive a
density credit transfer from the lowland area to the remainder of
the site.
Staff stated that a development plan had not been submitted for the
Phase I portion of the project, which would show no two similar
units adjacent, directly or diagonally across from each other, and
that no more than three units of a similar type, such as garage
front, would be located in a row.
Another matter of concern to the area residents was the proposed
extension of Lochanburn Road through this project. Staff stated
that the recommendation was now to delete this connection to the
Lochanburn neighborhood from this project. The reasons for this
included that the connection would make it necessary for the City to
align the road through a substantial hill, and that the connection
would tend to make the road a "collector" street between Dell Road
and Duck Lake Trail.
• Acting Chairman Gartner opened the meeting to comments from members
of the audience.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 9, 1983
Joe Dolesji, 6445-192nd Avenue W., asked if it would be necessary to
have stop signs at each intersection along Dell Road, and, if so, if
the purpose of the road as a collector would be defeated by causing
constant stopping along the travelled route. Planner Enger
responded that the stop signs would only be necessary at the major
intersection, not at each intersection, along Dell Road. This would
tend to keep the road as a neighborhood collector, rather than an
arterial roadway between the three communities in the area.
Bonnie Riegert, 6611 Lochanburn Road, asked how the lots in the
Lochanburn Addition would be affected by the redesigned drainage
plans. Planner Enger responded that the revised design should keep
the area from flooding as badly as it had in the past. There would
not be as much water retention on these lots as in the past.
Matthew Stroedel , 6610 Lochanburn Road, asked if the tree line
between the Lochanburn Addition and this project would be preserved
and also questioned the purpose of the ponds located at the
southwest corner of the site. Staff responded that the tree line
would be preserved and that the purpose of the ponds was for storm
water holding of on-site drainage.
Gene Woelffer, 18735 Partridge Circle, stated that he was concerned
about the potential traffic problems due to the location of Dell
Road through this project. Staff responded that measures were being
taken to assure that this roadway would be an inter-City collector
roadway, rather than a roadway to connect Eden Prairie with other
communities.
Hallett questioned whether Dell Road would be capable of being a
four-lane road from Highway #5 to the south, all the way to Townline
Road. Staff responded that^the road would be a four-lane road, but
not a divided road.
Dick Krier stated that he was concerned with the wording of item #10
of the Staff recommendations, regarding the extension of Dell Road
being required prior to construction of Phase II. Mr. Krier stated
that he would prefer that the word "extension of" be changed 'to
"provision for."
Planner Enger stated that it has always been the plan of the City to
service this area from the southwest in order to keep the project
from being dependent upon Highway #101 . He pointed out that a 12
in. watermain, the park, Dell Road, and sanitary sewer were all to
be provided by Phase II, while this would not be available with
Phase I. Only services necessary to deal with the proposed housing
units would be provided. Planner Enger stated that, from a City
services standpoint, it would be preferred to have Phase II, Phase
III, then Phase I, in that order.
Richard Feerick, proponent, stated that Phase III would likely be
developed with Phase II.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 9, 1983
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by' Johannes, to recommend
approval of the Planned Unit Development District Review of 104
acres for 195 single family detached units and 58 multi-family units
for the Hidden Glen project of R. M. Feerick Associates, based on
revised plans dated May 6, 1983, and subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated May 6, 1983.
Motion carried--3-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to recommend
approval of zoning from Rural to R1-9.5, R1-13.5, and R1-22 for 22.8
acres for residential use, for the Hidden Glen project of R. M.
Feerick Associates, based on revised plans dated May 6, 1983, and
. subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 6,
1983.
Motion carried--3-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to recommend
approval of the preliminary plat of 22.8 acres for 59 single family
lots for the Hidden Glen project of R. M. Feerick Associates, based
on revised plans dated May 6, 1983, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 6, 1983.
Motion carried--3-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
D. EDENVALE 17TH ADDITION, by Equitable Life Assurance.
Request for Planned Unit Development District Review and
Zoning from Rural to RM-6.5 and Preliminary Plat of 9.77
acres for Medium Density Residential use for 21 duplex lots,
or 42 units. Location: North of Edenvale Boulevard, south
of Birch Island Road. A public hearing.
Dick Krier, Westwood Planning and Engineering, representing
proponent, presented slides depicting the features of the site
proposed for development, as well as the surrounding area. He
• stated that proponent had no objections to any of the
recommendations of the Staff Report.
Johannes questioned whether there was an existing sidewalk system
within the overall Edenvale area, and if this project would be
Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 9, 1983
• connected to it. Planner Enger responded that a sidewalk would
exist along Edenvale Boulevard when it was built. The City would
also be locating a sidewalk or trail from Valley View Road to the
Crosstown Highway. It was pointed out that the decision regarding
the requirement for sidewalks was based on a project's size. This
project was considered small in size, with adequate access to
adjacent projects with sidewalks to have access to the City's
overall system. People would not be expected to "cut through" this
project to obtain access to adjacent properties, as routes with
sidewalks would be readily available. Also, Birch Island Road would
remain a graveled, rural section road until the properties on either
side were developed, which would require the upgrading of the road.
Hallett suggested that it would be prudent to require a sidewalk
now, when the City could deal with one land owner, instead of
requiring it at a later date and forcing the City to participate in
assessments hearings with potentially 42 land owners.
Acting Chairman Gartner stated the Crosstown Highway would be
completed in approximately five years, and at that time, the
Crosstown would be the quickest access to the north, leaving Birch
Island Road as a secondary access.
Marhula questioned the current status of the Edenvale Boulevard road
• improvement project. Staff responded that the City was currently
under contract for completion of the road.
(Torjesen arrived at 9:15 p.m.)
Acting Chairman Gartner asked for comments and questions from
members of the audience.
Harry Picha stated that he had sold this land originally to the
Edenvale project developers. His farmstead was located to the north
and west of the site of the 17th Addition. His concerns involved
the driveway and sanitary sewer easements for his property, which
were not represented on the drawings presented. He stated that the
easements had been filed at the County offices. Mr. Picha stated
that he was concerned also about the potential of flooding of his
lot by the pond located at the southwest end. Mr. Krier stated that
the plans would be corrected to reflect the easements. As to the
pond at the southwest end of the proposal, it had been designed to
hold only a certain amount of storm water, and, therefore, would not
be the cause of any flooding to his property. The remainder of the
storm water drainage was to be directed away from the Picha
homestead.
Lee Garber, 15085 Ironwood Court, stated that he was against
duplexes as a unit type in this area. He stated that he felt there
were enough duplexes in the overall Edenvale project at this time.
Terry Johnson, 15020 Ironwood Court, stated that she was concerned
that this development would be like the others in the area whereby
the developers had not preserved any of the natural features of the
Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 9, 1983
land. She asked if it was necessary that the road for this proposal
be aligned through the only pond on the site, which supported ducks
and other wildlife. She questioned whether development of this type
was too harsh of a treatment for this property.
Marilyn Beckerman, 14980 Ironwood Court, stated that she was against
the duplex unit type in this area. She stated that she felt the
Ironwood Court area would slowly become an island of single family
amongst duplex units, and asked the Commission to consider
conditions which would place a minimum value on each unit within the
project.
Dan Beckerman, 14980 Ironwood Court, asked that development of this
area be restricted until such time as Edenvale Boulevard was built.
He stated that he felt traffic was already a problem in this area,
and that additional units, particularly multiple units, would only
add to the problem. He added that he, too, was concerned about
property values going down because of duplex development in the
area. He suggested that the developer consider developing this
property as single family instead.
Brad Orndorff, 15100 Ironwood Court, referring to the requested
variances, stated that he felt it was improper for the City to
consider action on the proposal until such time as the project was
idrawn according to Code. Staff explained that the types of changes
requested in this case were quite minor and could be easily handled
by the developer in a short period of time.
Mr. Krier explained that the lot lines would be shifted to make the
non-conforming lots be in compliance with the Code requirements.
Torjesen questioned the discrepancy between the City's Comprehensive
Guide Plan, which designated this area as Low Density Residential,
and the use proposed. Planner Enger explained that the overall
Edenvale Planned Unit Development had been approved by the City
showing this area as Medium Density Residential. In effect, the
Edenvale Planned Unit Development had amended the City's
Comprehensive Guide Plan when it had been approved.
In response to questions from members of the audience, Mr. Krier
pointed out that an Environmental Impact Statement had been
completed by the developer on the entire Edenvale Planned Unit
Development in 1973, which covered this site. The proposal was
being developed in accordance with it. Also, he stated that the
project would not be developed prior to the construction of Edenvale
Boulevard.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Hallett, to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 9, 1983
MOTION 2•
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend
approval of the Planned Unit Development District Review for Medium
Density Residential use for 21 duplex lots, or 42 units for Edenvale
17th Addition by Equitable Life Assurance, based on plans dated
April 4, 1983, and written materials dated April 5, 1983, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report of May 6, 1983, with the
addition of the following two conditions: 5) No similar units
shall be placed adjacent, diagonally, or directly across from each
other, nor shall any similar unit, such as garage front, be placed
more than three in a row along the street frontage; and 6) The
matter of the driveway and sanitary sewer easements for the Harry
Picha property be resolved prior to Council review.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend
approval of zoning from Rural to RM-6.5 for 9.77 acres for medium
density residential use for 21 duplex lots, or 42 units, for
Edenvale 17th Addition by Equitable Life Assurance, based on plans
dated April 4, 1983, and written materials dated April 5, 1983,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of May 6, 1983,
with the addition of the following two conditions: 1) No similar
units shall be placed adjacent, diagonally, or directly across from
each other, nor shall any similar unit, such as garage front, be
placed more than three in a row along the street frontage; and 6)
The matter of the driveway and sanitary sewer easements for the
Harry Picha property be resolved prior to Council review.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Hallett, to recommend
approval of the preliminary plat of 9.77 acres for medium density
residential use for 21 duplex lots, or 42 units, for Edenvale 17th
Addition by Equitable Life Assurance, based on plans dated April 4,
1983, and written materials dated April 5, 1983, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report of May 6, 1983, with the
addition of the following two conditions: 1) 5) No similar units
shall be placed adjacent, diagonally, or directly across from each
other, nor shall any similar unit, the street frontage; and 6) The
matter of the driveway and sanitary sewer easements for the Harry
Picha property be resolved prior to Council review.
• (Schuck arrived at 10:25 p.m. )
B. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER, by Ryan Construction. Planned
Unit Development District Review, Zoning from Rural to I-2,
and Preliminary Plat of 14.05 acres into two lots for
Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 9, 1983
office/service/storage uses. Location: Northeast of Shady
Oak Road, west of I-494. A public hearing.
Steve Swanson, Ryan Construction, presented the proposed development
to the Commission pointing out significant features, such as the
interior truck docking area, the screening of the mechanical
equipment, and the landscaping proposed for the site. Al Schackman,
Ryan Construction, explained the type of tenants proposed for the
building as basically office type uses for "high tech" businesses,
such as computer design companies, which required an amount of
warehousing less than was provided for in Industrial districts, but
more than was provided in Office districts by the City Code.
Scott Anderson, ADI, representing the owners of the City West
project, stated that it was their intention to complete a 2,800 ft.
pedestrian trail system around Outlot B. Two pedestrian bridges
were proposed for crossing the waterways.
Planner Enger stated that the original City West Planned Unit
Development was approved in concept for 100% office use. He
reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report with the
Commission.
• Torjesen stated that he felt the proposal represented a substantial
change from the original Planned Unit Development in that the
requested change was from Office to Industrial zoning.
Marhula questioned the ponding on the site. Mr. Anderson responded
that a system of pumps was proposed, which would be used to maintain
ponding elevations. Marhula asked if this system would affect the
aquifer. Mr. Anderson stated that it would not.
Marhula questioned why the proponent had not requested Office zoning
with variances, instead of I-2 Park. Mr. Schackman stated that they
had debated the idea at length. It was pointed out that office use
was allowed within the I-2 Park district, but warehouse usage was
not allowed within the Office district.
Torjesen stated that he felt it would be difficult for the City to
control the uses after the property was zoned and built. He
questioned whether this was the highest and best use of the land.
Acting Chairman Gartner stated that she agreed with Torjesen.
Planner Enger explained that, during discussion of the original City
West Planned Unit Development, it was proposed that the proportion
of office allowed within this development be limited so as not to
compete with the office districts of the Major Center Area, thereby
actually disallowing competition with the Major Center Area.
Marhula questioned -how many acres of the Major Center Area had been
designated for industrial usage. Planner Enger responded that
approximately 60 acres were so designated.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 9, 1983
• Acting Chairman Gartner asked for questions and comments from
members of the audience.
. Janet Gerricky, 6622 Golden Ridge Drive, explained that she had a
different understanding of the approved plan from 1981 . She stated
that she had understood that the plan called for office usage that,
on the exterior, had the appearance of multiple residential
buildings, along with a portion of the site being designated for
multiple residential use. She questioned how the plan had been
changed to allow for industrial use without the public being
notified.
Jerry Steelman, 6601 Golden Ridge Drive, stated that he, too,
understood that the buildings were to have the appearance of
condominiums, with buffering to be done along Shady Oak Road.
Staff responded that the change had taken place between the first
and second readings of the zoning for this site at the Council
level .
Mrs. Gerricky questioned how the City could recommend development
which was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Mr. Anderson stated that his firm had gone to great lengths to
create an attractive area for development, as well as for the
surrounding neighborhood. He explained, in detail, the improvements
which had been made and which would be made in this development.
Mr. Steelman stated that Mr. Anderson had guaranteed him that
screening would be provided on his lot from the City West
development; however,' to date, he had not seen Mr. Anderson, nor had
Mr. Anderson contacted him regarding the screening to be done on his
property. Mr. Anderson stated that he would rectify the matter
immediately. He stated that he would gladly provide any landscaping
material the Steelmans desired prior to issuance of any building
permit within the City West project.
Mr. Schackman suggested that perhaps there was misunderstanding
between parties taking place. He restated the types of uses and
tenants that would be proposed for the Ryan buildings, which would
be mainly office users. Mr. Schackman suggested that perhaps the
parties concerned could meet to review the uses allowed in the I-2
Park district and eliminate those uses which were considered to be
objectionable to the residents.
Hallett stated that he did not feel it would be appropriate to
eliminate uses in other portions of the City so as to eliminate
competition with the Major Center Area. He stated that he felt each
area should be reviewed on its own merits.
. Marhula stated that perhaps limits, or maximums could be placed on
the percentage of uses in these buildings such as a maximum
percentage of office, warehousing, and assembling uses. He also
suggested that the City may wish to consider an alternate zoning
Planning Commission Minutes 10 May 9, 1983
district for this type of use to be incorporated into the City Code.
Torjesen stated that he agreed with Marhula regarding a possible new
zoning district for the Code.
Mr. Steelman stated that he was not opposed to the development on
the the interior of the Planned Unit Development; however, the
residents had been told the development would appear to be
residential .
Marhula stated that he felt the basis for the problem was that the
use changed without the public being aware of the change. He stated
that he felt the Commission should review the previous records,
including the approved Developer's Agreement for the project, before
taking action on this proposal.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen, to continue the
public hearing on this item pending the following:
1) Planning Staff is requested to furnish the Commission with
copies of the Developer's Agreement for the project with an
interpretation of the agreement as it related to the issues
• of use.
2) The permitted uses in the I-2 Park district should be
reviewed and those found to be objectionable for this area
should be eliminated from those allowed by the district as a
whole at the time of zoning of this site. This shall be
incorporated into a revised Developer's Agreement for the
site.
3) A ratio shall be established for a maximum percentage of
types of uses to be allowed, such as the percentage of
office, warehousing, and assembling within this portion of
the Planned Unit Development.
Motion carried--3-2-1 (Acting Chairman Gartner, Marhula, and
Torjesen in favor; Johannes and Hallett
against; Schuck abstained)
C. NORTHMARK 4TH ADDITION, by Hans Hagen Homes. Request for
Zoning Amendment and Planned Unit Development District
approval of five acres for multiple residential land use and
preliminary plat for 32 townhouse units. Location: West of
Center Way, north of Nesbitt Preserve Park. A public
hearing.
• Hans Hagen, Hans Hagen Homes, reviewed the request with the
Commission for amendment to the request for development of Northmark
4th Addition. Previously, the project had been approved for four-
plexes. Proponent was requesting a change to townhouse units for
Planning Commission Minutes 11 May 9, 1983
•
the development.
Mr. Hagen pointed out that the proposed units would be five feet
lower in height than the original plan. He stated that there were
no objections to the recommendations of the Staff in the Staff
Report.
Acting Chairman Gartner asked for comments and questions from
members of the audience.
Al Schirmack, 11180 Lanewood Circle, asked why proponent was
requesting the change in the plan. Mr. Hagen stated that market
conditions indicated that townhouse units were more desired now than
four-plex type units.
Mr. Schirmack stated that extensive meetings had been held with the
neighborhood regarding the height and location of one- and two-unit
buildings. He questioned where the one- and two-unit buildings
would be located. Mr. Hagen pointed out these areas to Mr.
Schirmack and stated that the overall view of the units would be
five feet lower from the area where Mr. Schirmack's home was
located.
Mr. Hagen stated that the values of the units would be between $65-
75,000 per unit.
David MacIntosh, 11210 Lanewood Circle, asked about the exterior
finish of the units. Mr. Hagen responded that the exterior material
would consist of shingles with a cedar roofing material.
Marhula asked about the drainage of the site overall and how the
drainage plan affected the trail on the west side of the site. Upon
review, it was pointed out that the drainage to the trail would
require correction so as not to flow across the trail. Mr. Hagen
stated that he would have the drainage corrected in that area.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Hallett, to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Hallett, to recommend
approval of the Zoning Amendment and Planned Unit Development
District approval of five acres for multiple residential land use
for Northmark 4th Addition by Hans Hagen Homes, based on plans dated
• April 7, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated May 6, 1983, and subject to correction of the storm
water drainage to the trail along the west side of the site.
Motion carried--6-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 12 May 9, 1983
MOTION 3•
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Hallett, to recommend
approval of the preliminary plat of Northmark 4th Addition of five
acres for 32 townhouse units by Hans Hagen Homes, based on plans
dated April 7, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated May 6, 1983, subject to the correction of the storm
water drainage to the trail along the west side of the site.
Motion carried--6-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
A. Review of the Revised Tax Increment Financing Plan for Major
Center Area
• Staff presented a memorandum from the Finance Director, John Frane,
asking the Planning Commission to consider affirmation of the MCA
road system, stating that it was in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Eden Prairie.
Torjesen stated he still had objections to the overall concept of
Tax Increment Financing adding that he felt it stimulated growth
inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Guide Plan, and
further, that such decisions should be left to the general public.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the
City Council, to affirm that the revised Tax Increment Financing
Plan for the Major Center Area does conform to the Comprehensive
Plan for development of the City of Eden Prairie.
Motion carried--5-1-0 (Torjesen voted against)
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Torjesen, seconded by Johannes.
Acting Chairman Gartner adjourned the meeting at 1 :05 a.m.
• Respectfully submitted,
Kate Karnas
Planning Secretary