Planning Commission - 01/28/1985 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, January 28, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. RESEARCH FARM ADDITION, by Northrup King. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment from Sports Center, Low Density Residential and
High Density Residential to Regional Commercial, Office, Industrial,
and Multiple Residential for 189+ acres. Location: West of Highway
#169, at Anderson Lakes Parkway. A continued public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Landscaping/Screening Ordinance Amendment
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, January 28, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Dennis Marhula (8:30 p.m.), Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen (7:45
P.M.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Stan Johannes
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was mde by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to adopt the agenda as
• printed.
Motion carried--4-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to adopt the minutes of the
January 14, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--4-0-0
(Torjesen arrived at 7:45 p.m.)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. RESEARCH FARM ADDITION, by Northrup King. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment from Sports Center, Low Density Residential and
High Density Residential to Regional Commercial , Office, Industrial,
and Multiple Residential for 189+ acres. Location: West of Highway
#169, at Anderson Lakes Parkway. A continued public hearing.
Mr. Richard Putnam, Tandem Corporation, representing proponents, presented a
Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 28, 1985
series of slides depicting the character of the site and showing existing
types of development which would likely be built on the site based on the
plans proponents were advocating.
(Marhula arrived at 8:30 p.m.)
Planner Enger reviewed the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report
dated January 25, 1985, with the Commission. He pointed out that several of
the site characteristics represented areas of concern to City Staff,
including: the ridge area, the creek bed, the character of Anderson Lakes
Parkway, the visibility of Staring Lake, access to Highway #169, etc.
Planner Enger then reviewed Eden Prairie against other surrounding
communities for amount of land area built, zoned, and guided by
comprehensive plans for industrial development. Eden Prairie was higher
than any other community, with the inclusion of the area of the Browning
Ferris Industries Landfill, second from the highest, excluding the Browning
Ferris property. He pointed out that the City would realize certain
consequences from changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan to industrial in
this area, and outlined the areas of concern, including the need for
additional land for residential development.
• Planner Franzen reviewed Alternative #3 of the Staff Report which was an
alternate plan for a Comprehensive Guide Plan change. He stated that it was
Staff's opinion that this would be a plausible alternative for development
of this property, which would deal with proponent's requests and Staff's
concerns.
Marhula asked about the status of the improvements to Highway #212 and the
impact of those improvements upon development of this site. Staff responded
that the alignment for Highway #212 was currently being reviewed by the
Transportation Committee. Marhula asked whether the land uses proposed by
Northrup King would be appropriate if existing Highway #169 was downgraded
in the future due to the realignment of Highway #212. Staff responded that
the traffic engineers for the proponents had predicated their traffic study
on the basis of Highway#212 being built and realigned. The realignment of
Highway #212 would have an impact on this site in that its construction
would ultimately decrease the traffic volumes for Highway #169 in this area
down to the levels of traffic existing at this time.
Chairman Bearman asked if a time table had been established for the
construction of Highway #212. Staff responded that this had not been done
yet.
Torjesen stated that he would prefer an extension of the residential land
uses on the east side of Anderson Lakes Parkway across Highway #169 to the
west in order to maintain the residential character of this road. He added
that, in general , he felt Alternative #3 of the Staff Report represented a
good solution for maintenance of the balance of uses within the
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Marhula suggested that it may be appropriate to "exchange" locations of the
uses within the proposed plan by showing residential use along either side
Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 28, 1985
of Anderson Lakes Parkway at its intersection with Highway #169 on this
property in exchange for relocation of the commercial/industrial uses shown
by proponent to the southwest portion of the property.
Gartner stated that she was not in favor of creating a "strip" zone of
commercial/industrial usage along Highway #169. Planner Enger stated that
there was a mixture of uses along highway frontage within the community,
pointing out that much of I-494 in its north/south alignment through the
community was residential in character, while the east/west portion of I-494
through Eden Prairie was oriented towards office and commercial uses. He
added that there was a mixture of uses along Highway #169 through the
community, as well . The Staff report pointed out that, regardless of the
use ultimately designated for this development along Highway #169, there
would be difficulty in ascertaining the best design of any use, while
creating the least impact on the land use and on Highway #169.
Hallett stated that he felt the balance of land uses would work out well
based on proposed Alternative #3 for Comprehensive Guide Plan land uses for
this site. He stated that he felt any building of an industrial nature
could be accomplished in an attractive manner which would fit the
neighborhood, if proper controls, through a design framework manual, or
other planning tools, were adopted. Hallett stated that he would also
prefer to see residential usage located adjacent to the existing residential
• area to the west of the Northrup King property.
Schuck stated that he, too, preferred Alternative #3 for Comprehensive Guide
Plan land uses for this site. He added that he felt office/service uses
could be appropriate in this area, if properly done and tightly controlled.
Chairman Bearman asked about difference between the number of daily trips
which would be generated by residential development of this property, versus
the mixed uses development as proposed. Mr. Mitch Wonson, Benshoof and
Associates, traffic consultants for proponent, explained that residential
development of the property would result in approximately 3,800 more trips
per day than a mixed development as proposed.
Torjesen suggested that the commercial portions of the property could be
developed with a "residential character" as had been done in other parts of
the community.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt strongly that a design framework manual
was necessary before action could be taken on the requested Comprehensive
Guide Plan change. He stated that he felt the most important thing to
accomplish with this stage of review would be to make certain that
development controls were in place so that the residents, City, and
proponents would know precisely what type of development would take occur in
this area.
Chairman Bearman suggested that more residential use within the property may
be better since the type of traffic generated would have less impact on peak
hour situations.
Marhula stated that he felt the width of the commercial area along Highway
#169 shown in Alternative #3 should be widened in order to allow for greater
Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 28, 1985
opportunity for good design of a commercial park instead of a commercial
strip. Schuck and Hallett concurred.
Torjesen expressed concern about the balance of designated uses within the
Comprehensive Guide Plan. He suggested that proponents look at ways to
reduce the office and office/service uses and increase the residential uses
within their proposed plan.
Schuck suggested that proponents try to better define what was meant by
"office" and "industrial" usage within their plan so there would be no
questions as to whether light, or heavy industrial uses, or office or
office/service uses would be expected in the future.
Mr. Ed Ludtke, 12630 Crowfoot Court, pointed out that he was the only
resident from the area present at this meeting. He expressed concern that
others were not present as he was aware that other residents had concerns
about the development, too. He asked if the residents could be renotified
about the project, since this project had been continued so many times at
the Planning Commission level.
Torjesen stated that he concurred with Marhula's earlier suggestion
exchanging locations of the commercial usage along future Anderson Lakes
Parkway for residential use currently in the southwest corner of the
• property. He added that he also concurred with the need for a design
framework manual for this property prior to any action being taken on the
proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan change.
Hallett stated that he liked the idea of a corporate headquarters site to
the north of Staring Lake on the property. Gartner concurred.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to continue the public
hearing to the February 11, 1985, Planning Commission meeting and that Staff
be directed to renotify the residents regarding the continuation of the
hearing on this project.
Motion carried--6-0-0
(Schuck left the meeting at 10:15 p.m.)
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Landscaping/Screening Ordinance Amendment
Staff explained that the purpose of the proposed amendment to the section of
the Code currently dealing with landscaping was to quantify the amount and
size of landscaping expected by the City proportionate to the size and
height of the building. The proposed amendment was similar to ordinances in
effect surrounding communities; however, it was written to be more
Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 28, 1985
responsive to the difference between heights of buildings. Also proposed by
the amendment was a bonding requirement for screening of rooftop mechanical
equipment. It was Staff's opinion that this would help the City to enforce
what the Code currently requires.
Torjesen asked if the requirements of the proposed amendment would add
appreciably to the cost of the landscaping and screening of any particular
project. Staff stated that, in their opinion, the proposed amendments would
not do so, but would rather provide for uniformity throughout the City.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City
Council adoption of the proposed Landscaping/Screening ordinance changes.
Motion carried--5-0-0
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
• MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett.
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m.