Planning Commission - 02/11/1985 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, February 11, 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. Proposed Amendments to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 Districts
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
. MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, February 11, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed
Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett
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 made by Torjesen, seconded by Marhula, to adopt the agenda as
printed.
Motion carried--5-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Marhula, to approve the minutes of
the January 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Johannes abstained)
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.
Planner Enger stated that at its January 25, 1985, the Commission directed
the proponent to revise the Comprehensive Guide Plan request to conform to
Alternative #3 of the Staff Report of January 22, 1985, with modifications
as outlined in the minutes of that meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 11, 1985
During discussions with the proponent after the January 25, 1985, meeting,
Staff was informed that proponents were returning to their original
proposal, which involved industrial guiding for the property south of
Anderson Lakes Parkway and which would decrease the amount of multi-family
residential for the remainder of the property.
Staff was told that a single buyer was interested in purchasing all of the
property south of Anderson Lakes Parkway. A general development plan was
not envisioned by the buyer at this time, and Staff inquired whether, or
not, the proponent would be willing to structure specific restrictions, in a
form similar to a design framework manual, which would direct the future
development in a low intensity fashion. As of the time of the meeting, no
such restrictions had been submitted by the proponent.
Mr. Ed Roessler, Northrup King, stated that Mr. Douglas Skanse of the
Douglas Corporation, was the person interested in purchasing the portion of
the property south of Anderson Lakes Parkway and that they would be willing
to answer any questions the Commission may have regarding the proposal .
Mr. Richard Putnam, Tandem Corporation, representing the proponent, stated
that proponents had presented Alternative #3 for the proposed Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change to the potential buyers of the property. The potential
buyers had found the proposal unacceptable for their purposes and requested
• proponents to return to their original proposal for change to the
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Mr. Putnam stated that the plan was now the same as before, with a large
industrial area south of Anderson Lakes Parkway. He responded to the
concern stated at the previous Planning Commission meeting regarding
maintaining the residential character of Anderson Lakes Parkway. Mr. Putnam
stated that the road was cut lower than the surrounding properties for the
majority of its length through this project. Also, the road could be
landscaped and designed much like Mitchell Road south of Highway #5, or like
City West Parkway. He stated that the views from Highway #169 would be the
most difficult as this area of the property was most open and most visible
from other surrounding properties. Mr. Putnam added that this was one of
the reasons that uses built on the south-southeast portion of the site would
be critical , and that proponents agreed with the need for development
controls in this area.
Mr. Putnam suggested that there were two major ways to control the
development to the south. One way would be through architectural parameters
which could be placed on the structures built in this area. A second way
would be by use of larger setbacks. He suggested that a manufacturing use,
with architectural controls and larger setbacks, could be acceptable as a
use on the area south of Anderson Lakes Parkway.
Mr. Putnam stated that the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan shown in
Alternative #3 would force transition between the residential uses and the
commercial/industrial uses to take place across a flat portion of the site
instead of at a point of natural topography as suggested by the proponents
plan. He stated that he felt the proponent's original plan met transition
requirements with distance, compatibility of the uses proposed, and a buffer
area between the existing residential units and the proposed uses.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 11, 1985
Regarding the concern of the Planning Commission for land use balance in the
community, Mr. Putnam stated that he did not feel that the change from
residential uses to industrial uses would mean a misplacement of residential
uses. As to the City possibly having too much land available for
industrial, Mr. Putnam stated that he did not feel the BFI area would be
developed as industrial, and the property designated for industrial use
along the railroad tracks in the southwest quadrant of the City would also
likely not be developed as industrial due to its natural features of wooded
areas and wetlands.
Mr. Putnam suggested that the City could require the property to be
developed under the Planned Unit Development process to be certain that
development controls were prepared for this site.
Chairman Bearman stated that it was incorrect to state that the overriding
concern of the Commission was about the land use balance in the community at
its last meeting. While it is a matter to consider, he stated that it was
not an overriding issue regarding this project. Other Commissioners
concurred. He pointed out that the Planning Commission had taken the
position that a completely residential development for this property was
probably not the highest and best use of the property, but that mixed use
development would likely be appropriate. Chairman Bearman added that, at
• the last Planning Commission meeting the Commission had discussed specific
areas of concern regarding the project and had given direction to the
proponent as to what types of issues could be dealt with in order to provide
for an acceptable project for both the City and the proponents.
Schuck pointed out that the only "new" piece of information since the last
meeting was the fact that the Douglas Corporation was an interested
purchaser of the property south of Anderson Lakes Parkway. He stated a
marketing decision was not one upon which to base planning related decisions
for the City.
Torjesen stated that the first review of this property, by Hoyt Development,
involved a purchase agreement based on approval of a certain land use. The
Commission had agreed to re-open the hearing on this item after denying the
Hoyt request to give Northrup King better insight as to acceptable land
usage of the property. He stated that he felt Northrup King was justified
in asking the City to make such a determination; however, the Commission
would be remiss in acting upon a marketing decision for land use. Torjesen
stated that he felt the Commission and the proponent had come quite close to
reaching a compromise at the last Planning Commission meeting to the benefit
of both the City and the developer; however, the plan being presented at
this time did not appear to meet that compromise position.
Torjesen stated that he did not feel the City should approach Comprehensive
Guide Plan issues based on purchase agreements, especially since
Comprehensive Guide Plan matters were not intended to be use specific.
Schuck stated that it was obvious that a marketing decision had been made
related to the Comprehensive Guide Plan change requested. He stated that,
while he understood the pressures of marketing decisions for a developer, he
agreed that the City could not make decisions based on this approach.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 11, 1985
•
Schuck indicated preference for Alternative #3, with the modifications
discussed by the Commission at its previous meeting.
Johannes stated that he felt he could support the compromise plan including
office/industrial uses, but he added that he was uncertain that the extent
of this type of use, as shown by the developer, was justified.
Marhula stated that he felt the compromise plan reached at the meeting of
January 25, 1985, was a better plan, benefitting all concerned.
Mr. Putnam asked what the problem was with treating all the flat area south
of Anderson Lakes Parkway as one unit of land totalling 75 acres and
therefore having it be one use. He stated that he felt the geographic break
of the hill to the west was the best location for a change in uses.
Torjesen responded that the Comprehensive Guide Plan showed this area as low
density residential for the most part. He stated that, at their last
meeting, the Commission had concurred that total residential development of
this property was not necessarily appropriate; however, the compromise
reached seemed an appropriate mix of uses. Torjesen stated that development
of the property with so much office and office/service was equally
inappropriate, in his opinion. He added that he felt the compromise
discussed at the last meeting also offerred opportunity for development of
the office and commercial areas to be of residential character in
architecture, whereas, the plan now proposed by Northrup King did not offer
such opportunity.
Mr. Putnam stated that he felt the alternative offerred at the last meeting
concentrated too much multiple residential development in one area of the
community, if currently built would represent approximately 20% of the total
amount of the units currently within the entire City.
Chairman Bearman pointed out that the existing Comprehensive Guide Plan
already had made such a designation for this area for location of this
amount of residential development due, partly, to its proximity to services
offerred in the Major Center Area. The purpose of the compromise solution
was to better plan the commercial area along Highway #169, as the Commission
had agreed that total residential development of the property was not
appropriate.
Planner Enger pointed out that there is often a tendency, when a plan has
been reviewed over a long period of time, for details to be overlooked. He
stated that one of the important details of this plan involved some type of
commitment for restrictions and controls over the proposed industrial
development south of Anderson Lakes Parkway. He stated that nothing along
these lines had been offerred by the proponent, which would make this
portion of the property other than a typical industrial site. He noted that
Mr. Douglas's operation was a manufacturing use.
• Staff had discussed this with Tandem Corporation prior to the meeting,
asking them to describe the controls they would use in more concrete terms
for the area south of Anderson Lakes Parkway. They had suggested that the
site would be developed in a manner similar to Lee Data or CPT; however,
nothing was presented at this time in writing for the Commission, or Staff,
Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 11, 1985
to review.
Planner Enger stated that one of the difficulties of proposed Alternative #3
for use designations for this property, was the matter of transition between
the residential and commercial areas south of Anderson Lakes Parkway. It
had been suggested that proponents work with Staff for methods of
accomplishing such a compromise. Instead, proponents chose to return to the
Commission with the plan showing industrial usage south of Anderson Lakes
Parkway.
Chairman Bearman stated that these issues had been discussed at the previous
Planning Commission meeting and that suggestions were made as to how to
accomplish the transition in general terms. The Commission had expected
that proponents would return with specifics.
Planner Enger pointed out that in the City had to be concerned not only with
what uses would be developed immediately, but also what uses would be
developed over a period of time. In addition, the City had to be concerned
with the highest and best use of the property overall, not just an immediate
marketing plan for the land.
Planner Enger stated that, in the cases of both Lee Data and CPT, the City
was aware of all the details of the proposed developments, including such
matters as architectural detail for the structures proposed. Comprehensive
Guide Plan changes in those cases were based upon much more detailed
information than was being offerred by the proponents of this Comprehensive
Guide Plan change.
Planner Enger stated that Staff was reluctant to suggest the Planning
Commission adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan without such
details being worked out and presented ahead of time in order that the
details could also be part of the recommendation for approval for such a
plan.
Chairman Bearman asked if the City could require the use of a Planned Unit
Development process for all the property south of Anderson Lakes Parkway.
Staff responded that this was a legal question, but that they did not expect
that the City could require a proponent to develop via the Planned Unit
Development process, if all zoning requirements were met by the proponent.
If the property were to be guided Industrial, then any industrial user
meeting the zoning ordinance requirements could potentially receive approval
from the City.
Torjesen asked for clarification of Alternative #3 involving the areas
proposed for RMjRH, or Medium and High Density Residential use. Staff
responded that the intention was to show that the higher density could be
allowed, if proper transition and site planning were accomplished for the
site.
• Torjesen asked if the Comprehensive Guide Plan uses had been established
through the public hearing process, without land owner marketing plans being
considered, but rather with City needs being considered. Staff responded
that this was correct, stating that it was a general hearing notice process
intended to deal with overall City concerns, but did not make individual
Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 11, 1985
property notifications.
Torjesen stated that he understood the desire of Northrup King to have uses
established for the site, now that certain factors had established that the
current Comprehensive Guide Plan uses were inappropriate, i .e. the
designated area for Sports Complex and the Low Density Residential usage
along Highway #169. He stated that he felt the City should give clear
answers to Northrup King as to which uses would be appropriate for the site,
but that he felt the establishment of such uses based on a marketing plan
would be inappropriate.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt the Commission had given clear
direction to Northrup King at the January 25, 1985, Planning Commission
meeting regarding acceptable uses for the site; however, the proposal being
presented currently was not responsive to that direction.
Torjesen asked if it would be worthwhile to have the Staff and proponent
work together on a revised proposal to be presented to the Commission at a
later date.
Schuck stated that he felt it would not be worth the time of the Staff,
proponent, or the Commission to proceed through such an exercise because
there were no variables to suggest that such a change in the position of the
Commission or the proponent would take place.
• Mr. Ed Roessler, Northrup King, stated that, as the owners of the property,
they felt they had presented the best possible plan for the property. He
asked that the Planning Commission act on the proposal before them, as
opposed to postponing action for any additional input, or additional work
with the Staff on an alternative plan.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
The Commission discussed the area of transition between the office and
residential uses in the area south of Anderson Lakes Parkway as to where a
distinction should be made between the two uses. Staff suggested showing an
area for both uses, represented by "striping" on the Comprehensive Guide
Plan, which would indicate that a transition would be necessary in this
location between the High Density Residential and Office uses. The
Commission concurred and suggested that the area be approximately 15 acres
in size.
Johannes suggested that the north-south road through the property closest to
Highway #169 and south of Anderson Lakes Parkway could be located on the
west side of the area to be designated Office/High Density Residential .
MOTION 1;
• Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Torjesen, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 7 February 11, 1985
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City
Council approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Sports Center,
Low Density Residential, and High Density Residential to Low Density
Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Office,
and Commercial , based on Alternative #3 of the Staff Report of January 22,
1985, and subject to the following amendments and additions:
1) South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, west of the area designated for
Office use along Highway #169, approximately 15-20 acres, be
designated as Office/High Density Residential, with the intention
that a transition between the Office area along Highway #169 and the
Medium Density Residential area to the west, take place in this
area. (See attachment)
2) North of Anderson Lakes Parkway, the northwest area of that portion
of the property designated for Medium Density Residential/High
Density Residential , be reduced to include the western half of that
portion shown on Alternative #3, only, with the eastern half
designated as High Density Residential, and with the intention that
a transition between the High Density Residential to the east, and
the Low Density Residential to the west take place in this area.
(See attachment)
• 3) Floor Area Ratios and residential densities shall be specified in
order that the mix of uses for this property may be properly
balanced.
4) The design recommendations from the January 25, 1985, Planning
Commission Minutes, specifically from page 3 and the first two
paragraphs of page 4, shall be included as part of the approval,
and, in summary, are as follows:
a. Commercial development shall be controlled through use of a
design framework manual, which shall include at least the
following, but not be limited to architectural controls,
landscaping standards, signage and lighting plans, and
designation of exterior materials.
b. Types of uses within each proposed zoning district shall be
designated in order that there be no question as to what
types of uses would be expected in the future development of
the property (i .e. office, or office/service). The
developer shall be responsible for provision of transition
between uses.
Motion carried--5-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 11, 1985
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Proposed Amendment to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 Districts
Planner Enger explained the proposed amendments to the R1-13.5 and R1-9.5
Zoning Districts involving minimum street frontage. He explained that these
changes would put in ordinance form the types of changes which had been
regularly recommended and approved for such developments over the recent
past.
The Commission discussed the proposal in detail, asking for examples of
areas where these changes had been implemented. Staff enumerated many of
the projects for which these changes had been part of the approval .
The Commission then discussed whether the R1-9.5 Zoning District was valid
any longer, based upon the original intention to provide opportunity for low
and moderate cost, or starter, housing units within the community. Staff
reviewed the projects which had been approved with R1-9.5 Zoning Districts,
indicating that approximately half of those projects met the needs of the
starter home market. Staff stated that, in this regard, the R1-9.5 Zoning
District was working in that it was providing opportunity for such housing
within the community.
Planner Enger pointed out that at the Joint Planning Commission/City Council
• meeting, there had been discussion about this district, as well , and it was
reported by Staff that the majority of the variances requested within the
R1-9.5 District were in situations where the density of the project
approached 3.5 units per acre. The direction at that time was to allow R1-
9.5 Zoning Districts within the Medium Density Residential areas.
Mayor Peterson suggested that it was possible that a starter home could now
be defined as a multiple family unit, since the price ranges of multiple
family units were much more affordable to moderate income families.
Commissioners expressed concern regarding the potential for too much
development of smaller lots within the community, without the "open look" to
the lots, or without enough space around the lots. Planner Enger explained
that the Comprehensive Guide Plan showed that approximately 80% of the total
land area in Eden Prairie would be developed as Low Density Residential
housing, which would likely be enough to maintain the "open look" to the
community.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the proposed changes to the R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 Zoning
Districts.
Motion carried--5-0-0
i VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 February 11, 1985
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Johannes, seconded by Schuck.
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
•
ATTACHMENT TO MINUTES OF PLANNING
� r.,F',/"•: �) �r/ / COMMISSION -- FEBRUARY 11; 1985 J
R _ R H -
M�
:tl
R(. - H
com
R H
ZA -
o�r---------
C
RL - Residential Low Density
RM - Residential Medium Density C� �
RH - Residential High Density ;
COM - Commercial ....-........... ....
OFC - Office t _ i ti
IND - Industrial
SC - Sports Complex
ALTERNATIVES THREE OR,oD�o�
MY,'('WNORTHRUP KING CO
rr.
ir•>s:""t T" . - —