Planning Commission - 09/23/1985 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 23, 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. 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. Location: Southeast corner of West 78th
Street and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing.
(7:50) B. PRALLE ADDITION, by James R. & Kay L. Pralle. Request for
Preliminary Plat of 1.05 acres into two lots. Location: Southeast
corner of Paulson Drive and Ullman Circle. A public hearing.
(8:00) C. ALPINE VILLAGE, by Habiger & Associates, Inc. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential on 7.58 acres, Zoning District Change
from R1-22 to RM 6.5 on 7.58 acres, with variances to be reviewed by
the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into two
lots for construction of 30 townhomes. Location: East of Alpine
Trail, South of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad.
A public hearing.
(8:45) D. RAMADA INN, by Ramada Inns, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change
from C-Regional to C-Regional-Service on four acres, with variances
to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of
12.54 acres into one lot and two outlots for construction of a 180-
room hotel . Location: Northwest corner of' I-494 and Prairie Center
Drive. A public hearing.
AGENDA
September 23, 1985
Page 2
(9:30) E. FARRINGTON WOODS, by Barnett-Range Corporation. Request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 31.7 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review with variances on 21.6 acres, Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 21.6 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 31.7 acres into one lot, one outlot, and road right-of-way,
and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Reivew on 31.7 acres for
construction of 252 apartment units. Location: West of U.S. #169,
and North of Research Farm. A public hearing.
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 23, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Robert Hallett, Julianne Bye, Christine
Dodge (9:15 p.m.), Virginia Gartner, Stan Johannes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Dennis Marhula
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Donald Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas,
Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, 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 Johannes, to approve the mintues of
the August 26, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--3-0-1 (Bye abstained)
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to approve the minutes of
the September 9, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--3-0-1 (Bye abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. 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 10.1 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.4 acres into
one lot and one outlot. Location: Southeast corner of West 78th
Street and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 23, 1985
This item was continued from the August 26, and September 9, 1985, Planning
Commission meetings in order to allow the proponents the opportunity to
revise the plans in accordance with the approved design guidelines for the
Prairie Center Business Park Planned Unit Development Concept.
Staff had met with the Developer several times since the last Planning
Commission meeting and mitigated all the technical problems raised by the
Commission and in the Staff Report of August 23, 1985.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report evaluating the revised request. With respect to the proposed
expansion of the development to the south, Planner Franzen noted that Staff
was most comfortable with the alternative whereby DataSery would expand its
own facility in a "mirror image" to the south. The other alternative showed
another building for a different use, and indicated encroachment into the
treed area to the southeast. The second alternative also represented less
total square footage of structure on the site, but a similar structural
appearance to the building shown in Phase I.
Mr. Bob Worthington, representing Opus Corporation, briefly reviewed
additional changes made to the plan since the last Planning Commission
meeting.
• Acting Chairman Hallett asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of DataSery for Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment on 17.45 acres for an office/warehouse structure, based on
revised plans dated September 16, 1985, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Reports dated August 23, and September 20, 1985.
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of DataSery for Zoning District Change from
Rural to I-2 Park on 10.1 acres for an office/warehouse structure, based on
revised plans dated September 16, 1985, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Reports dated August 23, and September 20, 1985.
Motion carried--4-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 23, 1985
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of DataSery for Preliminary Plat of 17.4
acres into one lot and one outlot for an office/warehouse structure, based
on revised plans dated September 16, 1985, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Reports dated August 23, and September 20, 1985.
Motion carried--4-0-0
B. PRALLE ADDITION, by James R. & Kay L. Pralle. Request for
Preliminary Plat of 1.05 acres into two lots. Location: Southeast
corner of Paulsen Drive and Ullman Circle. A public hearing.
Planner Franzen explained that proponent was requesting, basically, a
revised lot line between two parcels in order to obtain control over a treed
area between the two lots. In order to accomplish this, a preliminary plat
was required.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of James and Kay Pralle for Preliminary Plat
of 1.05 acres into two lots, based on plans dated September 4, 1985, subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 20, 1985.
Motion carried--4-0-0
C. ALPINE VILLAGE, by Habiger & Associates, Inc. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential on 7.58 acres, Zoning District Change
from R1-22 to RM 6.5 on 7.58 acres, with variances to be reviewed by
the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into two
lots for construction of 30 townhomes. Location: East of Alpine
Trail, South of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad.
A public hearing.
Mr. Charles Habiger, proponent, stated that he had held meetings recently
with residents in the area surrounding the proposed development and that,
based on those meetings and the findings of the Staff Report, he would like
to request a continuance to see if the concerns could be mitigated by
redesign.
Mr. Habiger presented the materials for the development as proposed,
reviewing proposed architecture and site characteristics of the property.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 23, 1985
Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
of September 20, 1985. He noted several concerns regarding the proposed
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to Medium Density Residential including
compatibility with the surrounding existing uses of Low Density Residential,
whether the proposed plan was a "better" Comprehensive Guide Plan
designation was better than the existing designation, and whether the site
plan details substantiated the change. Planner Uram stated that it was
Staff's opinion that the use was not compatible with surrounding land uses,
since the surrounding uses were all Low Density Residential and surrounding
zoning districts were R1-22 and R1-13.5. With respect to a "better" plan
than the existing Comprehensive Guide Plan designation would allow, Staff
noted that, often, clustered units could more effectively save natural
features of a property, but that this had not been shown with this plan due
to the density proposed. And regarding site plan details of the project
with respect to the requested Comprehensive Guide Plan change, Planner Uram
stated that Staff was concerned about traffic, visual impacts, and
transition with the project as designed. He also stated that, in order to
service this property with sanitary sewer, it would require an extension of
sanitary sewer of 950 ft. from the east and that proponents had not yet made
any arrangements with the property owner to the east whose property the
extension would cross.
Gartner stated that she felt the residents of the community should be able
• to depend on the integrity of the Comprehensive Guide Plan and felt that the
neighborhood had reason for being concerned about this requested change
based on the plans proposed. Gartner stated that she liked the proposed
architecture of the project, but that she felt this was an inappropriate
location for a project of this density.
Bye stated that she did not feel that a project of this density would be an
asset to this neighborhood. She added that she was concerned about the
traffic situation with the addition of these units, as well.
Johannes asked if a single family residential plan had been prepared for
this site and how many units of single family residential would be allowed
on this property based on the current Comprehensive Guide Plan designation.
Planner Uram stated such a plan had been prepared by the developer and
rejected, adding that 19 units would be possible under the current
Comprehensive Guide Plan designation.
Johannes asked if more of the natural features would be saved by multiple
residential, or single family residential, development of the property.
Planner Uram stated that it was possible that the multiple residential
development of this property could save more natural features. Johannes
stated that he was not certain that single family homes would be the best
unit type for this property and added that he, too, was concerned about the
traffic matters presented.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked if there was land east of Purgatory Creek
which was developable and whether the extension of the road proposed would
be necessary to service such property. Planner Enger stated that there was
developable land in this area, but that the extension of the road was not
necessary for that property to develop. Acting Chairman Hallett asked what
the advantage would be to allowing this road to be extended across Purgatory
Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 23, 1985
Creek. Planner Enger stated that it would allow for another outlet for
traffic out of that area, through the Alpine Way neighborhood, , and provide
for additional access for public safety vehicles.
Mr. Al Bode, 16090 Alpine Way, expressed concern for the proposed change to
the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation for the project. He stated that
his decision to purchase a home in this area was based upon the fact that
the area was nearly completely developed as single family residential and
that the City's plan indicated the same type of use for this remaining open
property. Also, the property was zoned R1-22, a single family residential
designation.
Mr. Bode also expressed concern for the phasing of the project. He
questioned how long construction traffic would be present and have an impact
on the existing residential neighborhood, considering the fact that there
was only one access to the property, which was through the existing
neighborhood. He also questioned how such a small townhouse project could
support an association in order to deal with snow plowing, architectural
controls, etc. Mr. Bode expressed concern that such a small association may
not survive the costs of such maintenance requirements and the project may
become run down for lack of maintenance.
With respect to other developments in the City, Mr. Bode stated that he had
seen parks, trails, or other amenities dedicated to the City as part of the
• development. He stated that this was not the case with the proposed project
and asked who, besides the developer, would have anything to gain by the
development of this property as proposed.
Mr. Dwight Harvey, 16190 Alpine Way, stated that his property was located
directly south of the proposed development. He stated that he supported and
agreed with the comments made by Mr. Bode regarding the development. Mr.
Harvey stated that he felt the development of this property may have a
negative impact on the creek and wildlife in the area. In addition, he
stated that he felt there was a problem with lack of transition to his home
to the south and that of his neighbors. He presented pictures to the
Commission of the property as viewed from his home. Mr. Harvey stated that,
while some trees did exist between his property and the proposed
development, they were deciduous trees, which would provide little, or no,
screening for the majority of the year. He stated that he felt three-story
townhoues would be very visible from his home, especially since the
elevation of his property was greater than that of the proposed development.
Mr. Harvey also expressed concern about the intentions of the developer to
request a public improvement project for extension of sanitary sewer to the
property. He stated that he felt this would be a burden to the City
financially.
Mr. David Quanbeck, 16150 Hillcrest Lane, expressed concern about the
traffic. He stated that he felt that, due to the topography, if single
family homes were developed on this property, it would likely be a
development representing ten to twelve units, as opposed to the maximum
possible of 19, which would mean substantially less traffic than the
proposed 30-unit townhouse project. Mr. Quanbeck stated that he felt the
developer was proposing a rather unusual situation by trying to locate so
Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 23, 1985
many multiple residential units at the end of a single family neighborhood,
with only one access, that being through the single family neighborhood.
Mr. Quanbeck questioned the wisdom of this based on emergency vehicle access
needs.
Letters from residents, including two petitions, which were submitted prior
to the meeting, were read into the record and made a part of the permanent
file on the project. Concerns expressed were the same as those stated by
neighbors (above).
Mr. Habiger thanked the residents for their comments and stated that he
would work them and the City Staff to mitigate these concerns, in particular
the impacts of the development upon the existing single family neighborhood.
MOTION:
Motion was made by' Bye, seconded by Johannes, to continue this item to the
October 28, 1985, Planning Commission meeting for modification of the plans
responsive to resident, Commission, and Staff concerns.
Gartner stated that she was not in favor of a Comprehensive Guide Plan
change for the property.
Staff noted that additional notice would be sent regarding the October 28,
• 1985, Planning Commission meeting, to the surrounding residents.
Motion carried--4-0-0
(Dodge arrived at 9:10 p.m.)
D. RAMADA INN, by Ramada Inns, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change
from C-Regional to C-Regional-Service on four acres, with variances
to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of
12.54 acres into one lot and two outlots for construction of a 180-
room hotel. Location: Northwest corner of I-494 and Prairie Center
Drive. A public hearing.
Mr. Dale Beckman, BRW, representing proponents, reviewed the proposed
development, including site characteristics and building features. He noted
that there was the potential for shared parking with the property to the
north of the site.
Mr. Mickey Sheppard, architect for proponents, reviewed the architecture and
design of the structure with the Commission. He noted that the exterior
materials would be mostly brick and glass, with some stucco accent areas.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of September 20, 1985, regarding the proposal .
Bye stated that she liked the project design and the architecture of the
project. She questioned whether the screening of the loading dock was
adequate from the public roads. Mr. Beckman reviewed the sight lines into
the loading dock area and the location of plant materials on various parts
of the site which would block vision of the loading dock from public roads.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 23, 1985
Dodge asked what the possible uses would be for the property to the north.
Mr. Beckman responded that the uses may include a restaurant, small office
building, a banking facility, etc. He added that no use had been finally
determined at this time.
Gartner asked if proponents would be requesting signage along I-494. Mr.
Beckman stated that the proponents felt the site was adequately signed from
the north, east, and west, without signage needed along I-494.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked for Staff's opinion regarding the request for
variance to the required number of parking spaces, which proponent would be
taking before the Board of Appeals. Planner Enger explained that this site
was providing parking a higher ratio of spaces per room than any other
proposal for a hotel in the community. He added that this hotel, unlike
others proposed in the community, did not have additional uses beyond rooms,
such as banquet or convention facilities. Therefore, he stated that Staff
was not uncomfortable with the request for a variance.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked if liquor would be served in the hotel
restaurant. Mr. Beckman responded that there were no plans for this at this
time.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked for questions and comments from members of the
audience. There were none.
• MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Ramada Inns for Zoning District Change
from C-Regional to Commercial-Regional-Service for four acres, with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for a 180-room hotel,
based on revised plans dated September 17, 1985, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 20, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Ramada Inns for Preliminary Plat of 12.54
acres into one lot and two outlots for construction of a 180-room hotel ,
based on revised plans dated September 17, 1985, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 20, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
E. FARRINGTON WOODS, by Barnett-Range Corporation. Request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 31.7 acres, Planned Unit
Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 23, 1985
Development District Review with variances on 21.6 acres, Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 21.6 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 31.7 acres into one lot, one outlot, and road right-of-way,
and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Reivew on 31.7 acres for
construction of 252 apartment units. Location: West of U.S. #169,
and North of Research Farm. A public hearing.
Planner Enger explained that Staff had met with the proponent many times
over the last four months to deal with several issues involving this
proposal . At this time, changes were still needed in the architecture of
the project. However, proponents had not had time to complete these changes
prior to the meeting. Since all the plans had not been completed, there has
been no Staff Report. Proponents requested a brief review by the Commission
at this time to confirm that the direction of the project was accurate and
to determine if there were any other concerns of the Commission prior to a
full presentation at the next Commission meeting.
Mr. Don Brauer, representing proponent, reviewed the plans for the site with
the Commission. Ms. Helen Dowds explained the architecture proposed for the
development, stating that the exterior of the structures would be 75% brick,
or better, material . She stated that there would be four "villages" within
the development, each accessed from a different point along the public road
through the project.
• Mr. Russ Barnett, proponent, indicated that some of the reasons for change
included that Eden Prairie did not currently have any projects quite like
this in the community, and that their marketing research had found a need
for small condominium units in the City. Therefore, the changes in
architecture were being proposed.
Johannes asked if Staff had had an opportunity to review the density of this
project in terms of the closeness of the structures. Planner Enger stated
that this was one of the design considerations which had been worked on by
the proponents earlier in their design of the project.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to continue to the October 7,
1985, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow plan modifications.
Motion carried--5-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 23, 1985
0
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
Actions of the Board of Appeals
Planner Enger reviewed several issues which had been, or were scheduled
before the Board of Appeals. The Commission concurred that land use issues
should at least be reviewed by the Planning Commission in order that their
input could be given to the Board of Appeals for their consideration prior
to action on such matters.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Bye, seconded by Johannes.
Acting Chairman Hallett adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m.
•