Planning Commission - 09/09/1985 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 9, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia
Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula
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
(7:35) A. EDEN POINTE APARTMENTS, by Eden Pointe Partnership. Request for
Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 15.3 acres, Planned
Unit Development District Review, with variances, on 15.3 acres,
Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to RM-2.5 on 15.3 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 15.3 acres into one lot for construction of a
143-unit apartment complex in 9 buildings. Location: Southeast
quadrant of Pioneer Trail and Homeward Hills Road. A continued
public hearing.
•(8:35) B. DATASERV, by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment on 17.4 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural
to I-2 Park on 9.56 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.4 acres into
one lot and one outlot for construction of an office/warehouse
building. Location: Southeast corner of West 78th Street and
Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing.
(9:05) C. EDEN PRAIRIE CONVENIENCE CENTER, by K. Charles Development Cor-
poration. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from
Office to Commercial on 2.3 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment on 13.5 acres, Zoning District Change from Office to
Commercial Regional Service on 2.3 acres, with variances to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 2.3 acres
into one lot for construction of a 25,000 square foot office
building and restaurant building. Location: Northwest corner of
Highway #169-212 and Eden Road. A continued public hearing.
(9:35) D. LION'S TAP, review of excessive fill (beyond permit approval), from
Lion's Tap grading operation deposited on Sever Peterson's land.
Location: Northeast corner of U.S. #169 and County Road #4.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
**NOTE: The times listed above are tentative, and may be significantly
earlier, or later, than listed.
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 9, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner,
Robert Hallett (7:35 p.m.), Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula
MEMBER ABSENT: Julianne Bye
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Don Uram, Assistant
Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to adopt the agenda as
printed.
Motion carried--5-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. EDEN POINTE APARTMENTS, by Eden Pointe Partnership. Request for
Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 15.3 acres, Planned
Unit Development District Review, with variances, on 15.3 acres,
Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to RM-2.5 on 15.3 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 15.3 acres into one lot for construction of 143
apartment units in nine buildings. Location: Southeast quadrant of
Pioneer Trail and Homeward Hills Road. A continued public hearing.
This item had been continued from the August 12, 1985, Planning Commission
meeting in order to allow proponents to redesign the plans responsive to the
concerns of the Commission, surrounding residents, and Staff.
Mr. Peter Beck, representing proponents, reviewed the history of the project
to date. He then noted the changes which had been made to the plan,
including: The project had now been reduced to 143 units; the most southern
building had been removed from the plan and units from that building had
been included within other structures on the property, creating different
building types and architectural variety; the interior road had been
redesigned to allow for greater stacking distance to Homeward Hills Road; a
pedestrian system had been added for internal circulation; a greater buffer
Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 9, 1985
had been created to the existing 9 Y single family residents to the west and
south, including increased setback and increased plant materials; building
materials were modified to include 75% brick; fencing was eliminated and
replaced by landscaping materials; trash enclosures of architecturally
compatible materials had been added; and, grades of the driveways had been
reduced to 5-6% for the south driveway and 8% for the north driveway.
Mr. Beck stated that the distances between buildings for the redesigned
project were also increased, in order that no unit was looking into another
unit. Mr. Beck noted that 70% of the property would be in open space.
Regarding the concern of the neighborhood raised at the previous meeting
dealing with the impact of apartment units on single family residences, Mr.
Beck stated that proponents had reviewed other projects in other
communities. He indicated that proponents had found that a project of the
type and quality they were proposing had no negative impacts on single
family neighborhoods in terms of value of the single family properties.
Mr. Beck stated that all of the conditions listed in the Staff Report were
acceptable to the proponents, and that they would be willing to comply with
these items.
Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
regarding the project. He stated that Staff was still concerned about the
acloseness of the two buildings at the northeast corner of the project.
Planner Enger reported that he had discussed the matter of the icy road
conditions of Homeward Hills Road with the Director of Public Works. Upon
review of, the Director did not find any record of complaints for the road.
The Director of Public Works also indicated that there would be no
significant impact on such road conditions based on the difference between
103 and 143 units on the property.
Planner Enger stated that he had also discussed the matter of potential
crime problems with the Public Safety Department. They informed him that
their studies had shown that when a neighborhood loses its identity, i .e.
neighbors stop recognizing each others cars, or do not know each other,
crime increases. With respect to this project, Public Safety noted that
these were small buildings, with a greater chance for residents within each
structure recognizing each other, and therefore, would likely not be a
location for crime to increase. The Public Safety Department also informed
Planning Staff that there was no evidence to support any conclusion that
multiple family developments bring an increase in crime to adjacent single
family neighborhoods.
Marhula asked if this project had been reviewed by the Mill Creek
Homeowners' Association, or if it was required to be. Mr. Beck responded
that he had reviewed their bylaws and did not find any such provision.
However, he noted that all of the residents in the Mill Creek development
were notified of the neighborhood meetings held by the developer.
Marhula asked if this western portion of the Mill Creek Planned Unit
Development had been approved prior to the development of the single family
neighborhoods to the west and south. Planner Enger stated that the entire
Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 9, 1985
Mill Creek development had been approved in 1973, while the single family
residential neighborhoods to the west and south had been approved in 1978
and 1979.
Dodge stated that she felt brick was a preferable exterior material to what
was previously proposed.
Mr. Greg DuMonceaux, 9733 Mill Creek Drive, stated that he would have a
clear view of the project from his home in Mill Creek. ' He stated that he
was aware that there would be more development to the west and that he
thought most of the residents of Mill Creek were also aware that development
of this property was expected, and that the type of development would be
Medium Density Residential. Mr. DuMonceaux stated that he felt it was a
good project and that the developers had been sensitive to the views of the
property from Mill Creek. He added that he felt the exterior materials
shown presented a positive image of the project.
Mr. Mark Boomgaarden, 11870 Runnel Circle, indicated that he was concerned
about the zoning of the property. He stated that he felt the density should
be less than proposed. Mr. Boomgaarden also expressed concerns for the
proposed holding pond in the southeast corner of the property, traffic, and
road improvements that may be required by the development of this property.
Ms. Jan Daly, 12260 Travois Road, stated that she agreed with the concerns
• of Mr. Boomgaarden, adding that she did not feel the developer had proven a
case for the need of more apartments in the City of Eden Prairie,
particularly in this location. Ms. Daly stated that she was still
uncomfortable about the possible increase in crime in her neighborhood.
Mr. Ken Meyer, 9741 Portal Drive, stated that he would prefer lower density
on the site. He added that he preferred the proposed brick exterior
materials for the development.
Mr.Greg Damlo, 12117 Cartway Curve, asked about the future upgrading of
Homeward Hills Road. He questioned whether the upgraded road would be
located "closer" to the existing single family residents, or to the proposed
multiple family development. He asked that the City consider not locating
the upgraded road closer to the single family residents on the west side of
Homeward Hills Road. Mr. Damlo stated that he preferred the proposed brick
exterior materials and that he would like to see a minimum percentage of
brick required on the structures. Planner Enger stated that City Code
required 75% of the structure to be brick, unless a variance was granted.
He noted that Staff was not supporting such a variance.
Ms. Linda Rudberg, 12100 Travois Road, stated that she supported the use of
brick as an exterior material for the property. She asked for more
information as to the impact of this development on the value of their
homes.
Mr. Marty Mehl, 9821 Laguna Circle, stated that he appreciated that the
developers had removed the south-most building from the development, and
that he favored brick as an exterior materials for the property_. He
indicated that his major concern was the density of the project and the
potential for increased crime, road improvements, public services, etc.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 9, 1985
caused b more people in one lace. Mr. Mehl stated that he felt the
Y p p p
project would be better for the existing residents if it were in private
ownership, instead of available for rental .
Mr. Damlo asked how many units would be allowed under RM-6.5 zoning.
Planner Enger estimated that it would be approximately 108 units.
Marhula stated that he felt Staff should review the plans for upgrading of
Homeward Hills Road to determine whether additional right-of-way was
necessary from this development and to determine the location of the road
bed within the right-of-way.
Marhula stated that he felt the question of density for any project should
be looked at carefully. He stated that there could be a difference between
density and the number of units for a particular project. Marhula stated
that less units would not necessarily mean a better project. For example,
an RM-6.5 zone could possibly be the appropriate zoning for a ten-story
apartment building. The density may be allowable under the RM-6.5 zone, but
the design of the project may not be completely acceptable for the area.
Chairman Schuck stated that the City could not control whether the units
were rental, or not, any more than the City could control whether a single
family home was rented out.
• Regarding the proposed ponding in the southeast quadrant of the property,
Planner Enger stated that most of the projects within the City provided a
sedimentation pond for stormwater run-off purposes. At this point, it was
still possible to proceed either way with the pond for the southeast portion
of the property, i .e. it could be an open water pond, or a pond which would
hold water only temporarily during wet times of the year. Mr. Beck stated
that proponents would be willing to work with the neighborhood to determine
what type of pond would be most acceptable to them, prior to Council review
of the project.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Eden Pointe Partnership for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 15.3 acres for construction of 143
apartment units in nine buildings, based on revised plans dated August 30,
1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated August 9,
and September 6, 1985.
Motion carried--6-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 9, 1985
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Eden Pointe Partnership for Planned Unit
Development District Review and Zonin District Change from RM-6.5 to RM-2.5
on 15.3 acres for construction of apartment units in nine buildings,
based on revised plans dated August 30, 1985, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Reports dated August 9, and September 6, 1985, and with the
following added conditions: 1d. Redesign the elevations to provide for 75%
brick per City Code requirements; le. Review the design plans for the
upgrading of Homeward Hills Road and the impact of the future design on both
the existing single family homes to the west and the proposed development.
The location of the road bed within the right-of-way may be more towards the
east; and 1f. Modify the landscape plan to provide additional berming and
plantings along the south portion of the property; 1g. Determine the type of
stormwater holding pond to be constructed in the southeast portion of the
property after conferring with the residents to the south of the project and
the City Engineering Department.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City
Council' approval of the request of Eden Pointe Partnership for Preliminary
Plat of 15.3 acres for construction of 143 apartment units in nine
buildings, based on revised plans dated August 30, 1985, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports dated August 9, and September 6, 1985,
and with the following added conditions: 1d. Redesign the elevations to
provide for 75% brick per City Code requirements; le. Review the design
plans for the upgrading of Homeward Hills Road and the impact of the future
design on both the existing single family homes to the west and the proposed
development. The location of the road bed within the right-of-way may be
more towards the east; and 1f. Modify the landscape plan to provide
additional berming and plantings along the south portion of the property;
1g. Determine the type of stormwater holding pond to be constructed in the
southeast portion of the property after conferring with the residents to the
south of the project and the City Engineering Department.
Motion carried--6-0-0
B. DATASERV, by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment on 17.4 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural
to I-2 Park on 9.56 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.4 acres int
one lot and one outlot for construction of an office/warehouse
building. Location: Southeast corner of West 78th Street and
Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing.
Mr. Bob Worthington, Opus Corporation, reviewed the revised plans with the
Commission. Changes had been made responsive to the Commission and Staff
concerns, including the following: The loading dock area was completely
enclosed; the south wall indicated a different architectural treatment
involving jogs in the building, brick as the exterior material, and window
bands similar to the office portion of the structure; landscaping and
Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 9, 1985
• screeninghad been increased along the road frontages b g g y placing "proof-of-
parking" areas along the perimeter of the site and landscaping within those
areas, which also had the effect of increasing the front setbacks from 50
ft. to 69 ft. ; a 20 ft. wide, bermed and planted island had been added to
the parking lot; and mechanical equipment would be grouped and screened with
architecturally compatible material .
It was also noted by Mr. Worthington that proponents intended to preserve
the wooded area along the south and southeast portions of the property. He
added that, at the next meeting, proponents would be prepared to show the
Commission how the expansion of the structure would be located on the
remainder of the site and, in the event that the DataSery building was not
expanded, how another building for another user would work on the site.
Mr. Worthington stated that proponents did not want Commission action at
this meeting; however, they would want to have any additional comments and
direction the Commission may have prior to requesting a Commission
recommendation at the next meeting.
Johannes asked if the band of windows would be continued across the south
side of the structure in order to continue the office-like appearance of the
structure to the warehouse portion of the structure. Mr. Worthington
acknowledged that this would be done.
Chairman Schuck stated that he preferred the jogs which had been introduced
to the south side of the structure. He added that he would prefer to see a
door on the loading dock area. Chairman Schuck stated that the revised
plans appeared to be more in keeping with the guidelines which had been
established and approved for the Prairie Center Business Park.
Johannes asked if the entryway to the loading docks would be sufficiently
screened by the landscaping proposed. Planner Enger explained that the area
would likely be well screened based on the locations of the plant materials
on the site. He stated that Staff would review this in greater detail upon
receipt of the revised landscape plan from the proponent.
Hallett asked if it would be possible to include a band of windows along the
north side of the structure as well . He added that he concurred with
Chairman Schuck that the redesigned project was more in keeping with the
guidelines for the Prairie Center Business Park.
Hallett asked if the berms along the front yards of the property would
remain in the event that the proof-of-parking areas were needed along the
perimeter of the site. Planner Enger explained that the effectiveness of
the berms would remain and that if the proof-of-parking areas were needed,
there would likely be "internal" retaining walls installed against the
berms, instead.
Marhula stated that he was satisfied with the manner in which the loading
dock was now being treated. He noted that there had been a history of the
sensitivity of this site to grading work, adding that there were cuts
proposed of up to 30 ft. He asked that proponents be aware of this in the
construction of this project on the property.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 9, 1985
i
Marhula encouraged proponents to present detailed plans of the future plans
for the south portion of the property as action on the north portion may be
dependent upon future plans for the south portion. Mr. Worthington stated
that these plans would be available at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Marhula stated that he concurred in the concerns of Hallett regarding the
proof-of-parking areas of the site. He also asked if there were any
internal sidewalks planned in the area of the parking lot in order to
provide for safety of pedestrians in this area. Mr. Worthington stated that
this would be added to the plans and shown in greater detail at the next
Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to continue this item to
the September 23, 1985, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponents
opportunity to complete revisions to their plans.
Motion carried--6-0-0
C. EDEN PRAIRIE CONVENIENCE CENTER, by K. Charles Development Cor-
poration. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from
Office to Commercial on 2.3 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept
• Amendment on 13.5 acres, Zoning District Change on 2.3 acres, with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary
Plat of 2.3 acres into one lot for construction of a 15,750 square
foot building. Location: Northwest corner of Highway #169-212 and
Eden Road. A continued public hearing.
Planner Enger reported that Staff had been in contact with representatives
of the Eden Prairie Convenience Center since the August 26, 1985 meeting.
Since that time, a number of revisions had been made to the existing site
plan, however, those revisions were not yet complete. Proponents had
requested additional continuance of Commission action on this item to the
October 7, 1985, Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to continue to the October 7,
1985, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponent additional time for
revisions to the project.
Motion carried--6-0-0
D. LION'S TAP. Review of Excessive Fill (beyond permit approval), from
Lion's Tap grading operation deposited on Sever Peterson's land.
Location: Northeast corner of U. S. Highway #169 and County Road
#4.
Planner Enger reported that Staff had been in contact with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and found that they are still awaiting
information from Mr. Peterson prior to making their final determination on
this matter.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 9, 1985
Hallett asked whether an agricultural use could be allowed for the fill
area, if a land-hold agreement was executed as discussed at the previous
meeting. Planner Enger responded that it could be allowed in accordance
with City Code, but that this would not mean storage of equipment or outside
storage of any kind. He added that any further development should be denied
until sewer and water were available to the site.
Chairman Schuck stated that, since patrons of the Lion's Tap were using the
filled area on Mr. Peterson's property for parking, some method of policing
the parking, or preventing parking in this area, was necessary immediately.
Hallett stated that, in that regard, he felt the City should make every
attempt to facilitate the realignment of the intersection of County Road #4
with Highway #169.
Mr. Sever Peterson stated that he had no difficulties with the property
remaining in a Rural zoning category in terms of use. He stated that if
parking machinery on the property was not allowed, he would not do so. He
reaffirmed that the would be willing to meet any, and all, requirements of
the Rural District.
Johannes stated that he was most concerned about the possibility of setting
a precedent by allowing the fill to remain in this area. He added that,
while he did not want to cause any financial hardship by requiring the
removal of the fill, he still felt that it may be a necessary alternative.
Marhula stated that he suspected that the major impact of filling in this
floodplain area would be upon Mr. Peterson's property, but that the City
should consider whether other properties would be impacted, as well,
including major roads, such as County Road #4 and Highway #169.
Marhula stated that he felt that the land use matter was a separate issue.
He concurred with Chairman Schuck that the parking by patrons of Lion's Tap
needed to be controlled in the immediate future and suggested that fencing,
or some other type of barrier, be installed to prevent such parking.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the fill on Mr. Peterson's land, subject to the
following: 1) A land-hold agreement being signed by Mr. Peterson including
conditions precluding development of the property until sewer and water were
available to the site; 2) Allowing only Rural use of the site; 3) Immediate
measures be implemented to prevent parking by patrons of the Lion's Tap on
the filled property; and 4) Subject to any conditions which may be imposed
by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Riley-Purgatory-
Bluff Watershed District.
Marhula stated that he felt it was necessary to have the data from DNR and
the Watershed District regarding impact of the fill in the floodplain on
adjacent properties prior to taking any action on this item.
Motion failed--2-4-0 (Chairman Schuck, Dodge, Johannes, and Marhula
against)
Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 9, 1985
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to continue this item to the
October 7, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, pending receipt of findings
from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Riley-Purgatory-
Bluff Watershed District as to potential impact on the adjacent properties
and upon County Road #4 and Highway #169 of filling within the floodplain.
Motion carried--6-0-0
IV. OLD BUSINESS
Highway _#212 Progress Report
Gartner stated that she had recently attended a meeting regarding the
progress of the Highway #212 corridor through Eden Prairie. She stated that
the current schedule was for Highway #5 to its intersection with Mitchell
Road would be completed in 1986, the intersection of Highway #5 with County
Road #4 would be improved in 1987, and the railroad bridge would be replaced
in approximately 1989.
V. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VI. PLANNER'S REPORT
Meeting Dates for October and November, 1985
Staff noted that, due to public holidays, it would be necessary to change
the meeting schedule for the Planning Commission in October and November,
1985.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to adopt the following
schedule for meetings in October and November, 1985:
Special Meeting Monday, October 7, 1985
Regular Meeting Monday, October 28, 1985
Special Meeting Tuesday, November 12, 1985
Regular Meeting Monday, November 25, 1985
Motion carried--6-0-0
VII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett. Chairman Schuck
adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.