Planning Commission - 10/28/1985 MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, October 28, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Robert Hallett, Julianne Bye, Christine
Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Dennis Marhula
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Stan Johannes
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; 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 Bye, to adopt the agenda as printed.
• Motion carried--5-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to approve the minutes of the
October 7, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--5-0-0
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. 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, Preliminary Plat
of 31.7 acres into one lot, one outlot, and road right-of-way, and
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 31.7 acres for
construction of 252 apartment units. Location: West of U.S. #169,
and North of Research Farm. A continued public hearing.
Staff reported that the City had received a letter from the proponents
withdrawing their proposal from consideration by the City at this time.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 28, 1985
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing and
return the item to the proponent, without prejudice.
Motion carried--5-0-0
B. MENARDS EXPANSION, by Menards, Inc. Request for Planned Unit
Development Amendment Review for the construction of a shelter.
Location: Menards Building, adjacent to Plaza Drive. A continued
public hearing.
Staff and proponent had discussed the matters of concern on this project
since the last Planning Commission meeting. Proponent currently is in the
process of revising plans and has requested additional time to do so. Based
on the amount of change involved, proponent has requested extension for two
meetings.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to continue the public
hearing to the November 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting to allow
proponent opportunity for revision of plans.
. Motion carried--5-0-0
C. 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. A
continued public meeting.
This item had been continued from previous Planning Commission meetings
awaiting the evaluation of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) regarding the location of the fill on Mr. Peterson's property. Zoning
Administrator Jean Johnson reviewed the findings of the DNR. She noted that
their report indicated that there would be no significant change in the
flood plain, no measurable change in the upstream, or downstream, areas of
the flood plain, and that their report recommended approval, with
conditions.
Planner Enger reviewed the proposed conditions of a land hold agreement
which had been discussed at previous Planning Commission meetings in order
to prevent premature development of this area.
Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he felt parking should not be allowed on
this fill area and that a barrier of some sort should be strategically
placed in order to prevent parking by Lion's Tap patrons on this fill area.
He added that he felt the construction of the barrier should be a condition
of allowing the fill to remain in place.
Dodge stated that she found it difficult to approve the request "after the
fact."
She stated that she was concerned about the potential for setting a
precedent by approving this fill within the flood plain after it had already
been accomplished. Dodge stated that she felt the fill should be removed.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 28, 1985
Planner En9 er stated that it would be necessary to set a reasonable time
limit to remove this amount of fill .
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request for fill of Sever Peterson at the northeast
corner of Highway #169 and County Road #4, based on plans and data presented
and on file at City Hall, subject to the recommendations of the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, the conditions of the proposed land hold
agreement, and the condition that fencing, or some other barrier, be located
at the right-of-way line of the property and County Road #4 in order to
prevent parking on the fill area by patrons of the restaurant to the west.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Dodge -voted against)
D. HOYT TECH 5, 6, & 7, by Technology Park Associates. Request for
Planned Unit Development District Review, Zoning District Change
from Rural to Office for 3.77 acres and from Rural to I-2 Park for
9.21 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.01 acres. Location: East of
Golden Triangle Road and south of West 76th Street. A continued
public hearing.
This item was continued from the October 7, 1985, Special Planning
• Commission meeting due to concerns regarding the site design with respect to
the natural features and transition.
Proponent had made all the changes requested at the last meeting as
suggested by the Planning Commission and as outlined in the Staff Report of
October 4, 1985.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of October 25, 1985, regarding the revised request.
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--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hoyt Development for Planned Unit
Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to Office
for 3.77 acres and from Rural to I-2 Park for 9.21 acres, for Tech 5, 6, and
7, based on revised plans dated October 23, 1985, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports dated October 4, and October 25, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 28, 1985
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hoyt Development for Preliminary Plat of
17.01 acres for Tech 5, 6, and 7, based on revised plans dated October 23,
1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated October 4,
and October 25, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
E. 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 continued public hearing.
Staff reported that the proponents had made major changes to the development
proposal . Of greatest significance, proponents had eliminated their request
for an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation for the
property and reduced the total number of units to 19, which met the existing
Low Density Residential designation of the property. Staff noted that there
were still concerns from the existing surrounding residents regarding sewer
and water, storm water drainage, and traffic, in particular.
Mr. Charles Habiger, proponent, reviewed the changes made to the plans in
detail , including straightening of the street, elimination of a cul-de-sac,
units were removed in some areas, less trees were being removed, the
steepness of the street through the project was lessened, less fill would be
needed with the revised plan, there would be a reduced amount of hard
surface cover, and less grading would be needed with the revised plan. Mr.
Habiger discussed the architecture of the structures, noting that the living
units were oriented toward the flood plain natural area for the best views.
Mr. Habiger noted that the City Fire Marshall had expressed concern
regarding the extension of water through the project. The plans, as
submitted, did not indicate whether adequate water pressure would be
available for those units located at the end of the road. Mr. Habiger
stated that proponents would be submitting calculations to the City
Engineer's office regarding this. He noted that proponent's consulting
engineers had indicated that there would be adequate pressure for emergency
purposes.
Mr. Habiger stated that it was clear that one of the major concerns of the
surrounding residents was the traffic to be generated by such a development.
Mr. David Koski, Barton-Aschman, Associates, traffic consultants for
proponents, stated that based on their calculations, the total number of
vehicle trips per day from the development would be approximately 160, 49 of
which would occur during the PM peak hour and 33-40 of which would occur
during the AM peak hour. Mr. Koski discussed various street signage
methods, which would aid in control of the intersections involved in this
neighborhood and provide greater safety for the residents. Mr. Koski stated
Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 28, 1985
that it was his conclusion that the amount of additional traffic introduced
into this neighborhood by this development would not induce additional
hazardous traffic conditions.
Mr. Habiger reviewed slides of the area from locations surrounding the site.
He stated that the cost of the units would be between $97-130,000 each. Mr.
Habiger then reviewed the average demographic background of the purchasers
of such units.
Mr. Habiger noted that another concern of the existing surrounding residents
was that of the potential loss of property value to their property as a
result of development of multiple family units adjacent to their single
family units. He stated that he had contacted the City Assessors in Eden
Prairie, Edina, and Bloomington, all of whom had informed him that they knew
of no situation where the construction of multiple family units had
decreased the value of single family units in a neighborhood.
Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
of October 25, 1985, with the Commission.
Marhula stated that he felt the site plan had been well prepared in terms of
protection of natural features. He stated that tended to agree with the
traffic counts discussed by Barton-Aschman, and agreed that there would not
be a significant amount of traffic volume increase in this area.
• Marhula stated that one of the remaining questions regarding the project was
the matter of establishment of a multiple family residential development in
an area designated for Low Density Residential and surrounded on three sides
by existing single family homes. He pointed out that the only access to
this multiple family area would be through the single family residential
area. There would be no separate access for the multiple family project.
Marhula stated that, typically, the City tried to avoid this type of
situation.
Gartner stated that she felt the traffic would be the same for 19 multiple
family units as for 19 single family units, therefore, she did not believe
the traffic would be a problem for this area based on this new proposal .
Acting Chairman Hallett asked how many existing single family homes would
have a direct view to this development. Mr. Habiger stated that there would
be three directly adjacent to the site. He stated that there would be two
others, which were not abutting the property.
Mr. Al Bode, 16090 Alpine Way, speaking on behalf of the neighbors, stated
that everyone he knew who had moved into this area had checked with the City
and had been told that the property was zoned R1-22 and that the
Comprehensive Guide Plan designation for the property was Low Density
Residential . The developed area of this neighborhood consisted of large lot
single family homes, only, no multiple residential . He stated that he felt
the construction of multiple residential units would be inconsistent with
the existing development in the area. He pointed out that the developer had
to be aware of the existing development of the neighborhood upon purchase of
the property.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 28, 1985
Mr. Bode stated that the neighborhood was also concerned due to the
statements being made that the Twin Cities area was suffering from a "glut
of townhome development" overall . He stated that this was a concern in that
the property may eventually become rental, versus owner-occupied property,
with the potential for becoming run down.
Mr. Bode stated that another major concern was that of construction timing.
He stated that, since the property could only be accessed by routing through
the existing single family neighborhood, construction would have a
significant impact upon the existing neighborhood.
Ms. Gina Borden, .16180 Alpine Way, stated that she had made the investment
in her home based on the information of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. She
stated that she felt that townhouse residents had different lifestyles and
created a different type of neighborhood than a single family neighborhood.
Ms. Borden also expressed concern about the potential traffic increase.
Mr. Dwight Harvey, 16190 Alpine Way, stated that he did feel that the slides
presented by the developer accurately represented the view he would have
from his home located south of the proposed development. He stated that he
felt the units would be visible from his home.
Mr. Harvey expressed concern regarding the extension of sanitary sewer to
the property, indicating that he had spoken to the property owner to the
• east of the proposed development and had been told that no one had
approached him regarding extension of the sanitary sewer across this
property to service this development. He added that this property to the
east had been maintained as a private wildlife santuary by the owner for
some years and that the majority of the property to the east was located
within a designated flood plain area. Mr. Harvey also stated his concern
regarding the amount of fill that would be required for the development of
the property as proposed. He pointed out that the units would eventually
reach a point 58 feet higher than the existing grade of the property
including the amount of fill and structure height.
Mr. Harvey also expressed concern regarding the drainage from the site to
the southeast. He stated that this was a normally dry area and that he was
concerned that the amount of development involved would cause standing water
to exist in the area, allowing for a breeding spot for mosquitoes.
Mr. Harvey stated that the property owner must have had the knowledge that
the property was surrounded by single family residential units, since his
home and others in the neighborhood were approximately 20 years old. He
stated that he did not feel that it should be the responsibility of the
neighborhood residents to share in the cost of a bad economic decision by
the property owner, simply because the owner could make more money by
building townhouse units on the property.
Mr.David Quanbeck, 16150 Hillcrest Lane, stated that he had an uneasy
feeling about placing multiple family units at the end of a single family
neighborhood, as had been expressed by one Commission member. He pointed
out that he felt the large lot single family character of the neighborhood
should be maintained by development of this property in the same way.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 28, 1985
• Mr. R. Hoffman, 15950 North Hillcrest Court, stated that he did not feel the
area should be developed as multiple family, but as single family
residential to maintain the character of the existing surrounding
neighborhood. He stated that he had not received notice of the hearing.
Staff was asked to check into this situation. Mr. Hoffman also expressed
concern for the potential increase in traffic problems in the event this
development was allowed to take place.
Ms. Mary Walentiny, 7030 Alpine Trail , stated that her major concern was
that of increased traffic in the area. She noted several examples of heavy
traffic which she had witnessed recently.
Gartner asked about the sanitary sewer extension across the property east of
the proposed development. Planner Enger stated that the developer had
apparently not discussed this with the property owner to the east. He
stated that this matter would have to be settled prior to final approval of
the development.
Bye asked if there had ever been a proposal for multiple residential
development in this neighborhood. Planner Enger stated that he was not
aware of any such proposals.
Mr. Barry Kramer, 7000 Alpine Trail, stated that he felt the property should
be developed as single family residential . He noted that the developer had
• stated at a previous meeting that, if the property were developed as single
family, it would likely be developed with less than 19 units as allowed by
the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Mr. Kramer stated that he felt this would be
preferrable from many points of view in that it would reduce the impact of
development of this property in terms of traffic, grading, maintenance of
natural features, etc.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked if it would be possible to develop the
property with 19 single family homes. Planner Enger stated that it would be
possible, but that it would take a tremendous amount of grading and fill .
Marhula stated that he felt three issues remained, which needed to be
addressed prior to Commission action on this item, including land use,
traffic, and the sanitary sewer connection. Other commissioners concurred.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to continue the public
hearing to the November 12, 1985, Special Planning Commission meeting in
order to allow proponent opportunity to answer questions regarding land use,
traffic, and sanitary sewer connection for the development.
Motion carried--5-0-0
F. PARKWAY OFFICE/SERVICE CENTER, by The Brauer Group, Inc. Request
for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density
Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.67 acres, Rezoning from
Rural to Community Commercial on 2.75 acres, Rezoning from Rural to
Office on 0.92 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3.67 acres into two
lots. Location• Northeast corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and
U.S. Highway #169-212. A public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 October 28, 1985
Mr. Don Brauer, representing the owners of the structure, reviewed the
p 9
proposal for relocating the structure known as the Major Media building from
its current location to the northeast corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and
Highway #169, and adding structures to the development for a Community
Commercial/Office development. He then reviewed site characteristics and
existing surrounding land uses with the Commission.
Mr. Brauer stated that the final landscaping plan was still not available as
proponents wanted to meet with the surrounding adjacent property owners
again in order to meet their needs for screening from the uses proposed.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report with the Commission, noting that the areas of concern with the
proposal included access, internal circulation, parking, transition to the
existing and adjacent single family homes, protection of existing oaks on
the property, and pedestrian access from the adjacent neighborhood.
Mr. Bob Casey, 12695 Tussock Court, stated that the residents of the area
had met with the developer prior to the meeting. He stated that he felt
that, if the final details of the landscaping plan could be worked out to
adequately screen the existing single family homes from the proposed uses,
then there would be no objections to the development as proposed.
Mr. Rick Bowlds, 12575 Crowfoot Court, asked how long the project would take
• to complete. Mr. Brauer responded that it was the owner's intention to move
the structure prior to January, 1986. The remainder of the development
would take place in Spring, 1986. Mr. Bowlds asked about potential impact
on the pond to the north from the cars which would be in the parking lot.
Mr. Brauer explained that the Watershed District required the use of
skimming devices on all ponds now, and that one would be installed for
protection of this pond from any negative impacts of this development.
Marhula stated that he felt the land use was appropriate for the area. He
asked if there was concern about the potential for two gas stations, one on
each side of Anderson Lakes Parkway. Planner Franzen stated that the
proposed gas station on the south side of Anderson Lakes Parkway, part of
another development, had never become a formal proposal .
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 the Brauer Group, Inc., for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood
Commercial for 3.67 acres, for the Parkway Office/Service Center based on
plans dated October 21, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated October 25, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 28, 1985
• MOTION 3: '
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of the Brauer Group, Inc., for Zoning
District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial for 2.75 acres and
from Rural to Office for 0.92 acre, for the Parkway Office/Service Center,
based on plans dated October 21, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated October 25, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of the Brauer Group, Inc., for Preliminary
Plat of 3.67 acres into two lots, for the Parkway Office/Service Center,
based on plans dated October 21, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated October 25, 1985.
Motion"carried--5-0-0
G. ALLSTATE DISTRICT CLAIMS OFFICE, by Opus Corporation. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to Office, and Preliminary Plat of
2.62 acres for the construction of a insurance claims office.
• Location: Highway #5 and Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing.
Mr. Bob Worthington, Executive Director of Governmental Affairs, Opus
Corporation, reviwed the site characteristics and surrounding existing uses
with the Commission. He then reviewed the proposed development plans in
detail . Mr. Worthington noted that there was no objection to the requested
access to the property to the north.
Mr. Worthington stated that there was concern about the potential for people
to drive through from the bank, across the Allstate property, accessing the
parcel north of Allstate, making this a service road across these
properties, if a use such as a fast-food restaurant were approved. He
stated that there would be no objection to the use of the parcel to the
north as an office, however.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of October 25, 1985.
Mr. Walter Carpentar, current owner of the property proposed for
development, as well as the property to the north and east, expressed
concern about access to the property to the north. He stated that he was
considering a "supper club" type of restaurant for the site. Mr. Carpentar
stated that his major concern was for access to the property for north-bound
traffic. He suggested that a median cut could be located between the
Allstate site and the property to the north to alleviate this.
Planner Enger stated that it had been known for some time that this site
would have right-in, right-out access only due to its proximity to the
intersection of Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive. He stated that
this represented limited flexibility for this property, making it more
Planning Commission Minutes 10 October 28, 1985
conducive to development as an office use, as opposed to a restaurant, or,
particularly a fast-food restaurant.
Mr. Carpentar stated that he had discussed the possibility of a "protected
lane" across the east side of both the Allstate property and the parcel to
the north with the representatives of Allstate and that Allstate had
indicated no objection to such an alternative.
Marhula stated that he felt the proposed development was well prepared. He
expressed concern about access to the northern parcel, based on information
from the owner. He asked if it would be possible to "flip-flop" the uses.
Mr. Worthington stated that this had been reviewed as an alternative early
in the process. However, the parcel to the north was not as flexible in
that a major easement existed along its southern boundary, disallowing any
flexibility in lot size or in building location on the lot. He stated that
Allstate required a larger lot to meet its needs.
Dodge stated that she felt the decision about access should be made at the
time of a proposal for the site to the north. She added that she felt it
would be unfair for the Commission to make it a requirement of this site
plan, without knowing wat the use would be to the north.
Gartner stated that she felt the protected lane was an acceptable
alternative.
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 Opus Corporation for Zoning District
Change from Rural to Office for 2.62 acres for Allstate District Claims
Office, based on plans dated September 25, 1985, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 25, 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 Opus Corporation for Preliminary Plat of
2.62 acres for Allstate District Claims Office, based on plans dated
September 25, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
October 25, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
Planning Commission Minutes 11 October 28, 1985
• VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. PRAIRIE VILLAGE APARTMENTS--Redevelopment Plan
Planner Enger explained that it was a requirement that the Planning
Commission review the redevelopment plan of Prairie Village Apartments, a
senior housing project proposed for subsidy, and make certain findings to be
passed on the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the City Council. He
stated that the redevelopment plan was an important part of the Tax
Increment Financing District, which was part of the overall financing
package for this project to provide lower rents for low and moderate income
elderly individuals.
Gartner asked how large the Tax Increment Financing District was for this
development. Planner Enger stated that it consisted of the project
boundaries, only.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked if a solution had been found to a safe access
across County Road #4 for residents of this development. Planner Enger
stated that this would be accomplished with the improvements to County Road
#4 anticipated by Hennepin County in the near future.
Gartner asked if handicapped individuals were considered eligible for this
project. Planner Enger stated that they were.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council adoption of the findings dated October 25, 1985, regarding the
Redevelopment Plan for the Prairie Village Apartments project.
Motion carried--5-0-0
B. FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE--Amendment to Code and mapping to meet Flood
Insurance Rate Map Criteria.
Planner Enger explained that the Federal Government was in the process of
certifying the City's flood plain districts in order to provide for better
insurance rates for individuals with property located in a flood plain
within the City. He stated that the City already had the required
regulations in place as part of Chapter 11 of the City Code. The wording
changes requested by the Federal Goverment were necessary to adopt the
insurance rate mapping, only.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the amendment to the Flood Plain section of Chapter 11 of the
City Code, per the memorandum dated October 25, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 12 October 28, 1985
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge.
Acting Chairman Hallett adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m.