Planning Commission - 07/30/1974 - Special AGENDA Special Meeting
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday , July 30, 1974
7:30 PM City Hall
Invocation y o Pledge of Allegiance s Roll Call
I. MINUTES OF JULY 16 , 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
II. PETITIONS & REQUESTS . PUBLIC HEARINGS.
A. Eagle Enterprises , Prairie Village Mall request for Community Commercial
zoning , C-Com. , and Multiple residential use on the approximate 10 acre
site located in the northwest corner of T.H. # 5 and Co. Rd. # 4. Reconsi-
deration of site plan as directed by City Council.
Suggested Action: Consideration of impacts to regional road systems and
objectives of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Approve,
deny, or continue application by Eagle Enterprises.
B. Gonyea Investment Co. , Prairie Acres, P.U.D. and rezoning request for
• Community Commercial, Highway Commercial, and Residential for about
30 acres located in the northeast corner of T.H. # 5 and Co. Rd. # 4.
Presentation by developer of revised plans.
Suggested Action: Consideration of impacts to regional road systems and
objectives of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Approve,
deny, or continue application by Eagle Enterprises.
III. REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS.
A . Crestwood 73 Outlot A, by Alex Dore nkemper located south of Co Road 1
in southwestern Eden Prairie. Request to divide outlot A into 3 lots.
Suggested Action: recommend approval , denial, or continuation.
B. Homart, Eden Prairie Center, discusssion of revised site plan for the 113 acre
regional shopping center. Landscaping and site design consideration to be
approved or modified.
IV. ADJOURNMENT.
ADDITION TO AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission July 30, 1974
•
II. PETITIONS & REQUESTS Presentation,.
C.Edenvale Plaza Shopping Center by Eden Land Corporation . Request for
PUD development approval and rezoning from Rural to C-Com. The site
is a 13.5 acre parcel within Edenvale at the northeast corner of Mitchell
Road and State Highway # 5. The Public Hearing will be held August 6,
] 974 in the Eden Prairie High School.
Suggested Action: Continue to August 6th meeting.
.r
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
. SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, July 30, 1974 7:30 PM Citv Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Lynch, Don Sorensen, Skip Lane, Joan Meyers,
Wayne Brown
MEMBERS ABSENT: Norma Schee, Herb Fosnocht
STAFF PRESENT: Dick Putnam, City Planner
Mr. Sorensen chaired the meeting - -
I. MINUTES OF TULY 16 , 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Lynch moved, Lane seconded, to accept the July 16th Minutes as published.
The motion carried with 3 ayes, ( Sorensen, Lynch, Lane), and 2 abstains,
( Meyers , Brown ). Meyers and Brown were not present at the July 16th meeting.
II. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
A. Eac�cz Enterprises, Praire Village Mall, request for Community Commercial
zoning, C-Com. , and Multiple residential use on the approximate 10 acres
site located in the northwest corner of T.H. # 5 and Co. Rd. # 4. Reconsideration
of the site plan as directed by the City Council.
Mr. Lance Norderhus presented the Eagle Enterprises proposal. They are requesting
• approval for the Ist phase of the PUD which is a 10 acre parcel of community commer-
cial. The 2nd phase will be 4.4 acres of multiple. The shopping center has
81, 000 sq.. ft. with Super Valu as the major tenant. The parking ratio is 6:1 with
a total of 430 spaces . He slated that the County presently does not want a left turn
lane and the County will put one in when and if it is needed. Mr. Norderhus then
outlined the elevation and colors of the building. He added that a 5' retaining wall
would be a buffer along the north side.
Mr: Sorensen asked if only the 2 major tenants would display signs. Mr. Norderhus
responded that Super Valu and the hardware store would have signs and the
remaining stores would be on a directory.
Mr. Brown asked if Mr. Norderhus had discussed his plans with.the Immanuel
Lutheran Church. He replied that he had not.
Mr. Walter Markgraf, of 7765 Meadow Lane asked where the property's western
boundary was located. Mr. Norderhus stated that it was 150' from the grove of trees.
Mr. Markgraf then expressed concern about the traffic using tha proposed trail to
the park. Mr. Sorensen informed him that a Task Force is presently studying the
pathway system and that the exact location will depend on the demand.
Mr. Gerald Beauvais, 7735 Meadow Lane felt that the diagrams were not to scale
and that the apartment building would be too close to the single family on the north.
Mr. Norderhus responded that if and when the apartment- is built he feels it
should be moved to the southeast. Mr. Beauvais asked where the entrances to the
project would be. Mr. Norderhus replied that west bound traffic would enter only
Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 30,1974
Special Meeting
off of Highway # 5, and the east bound must enter at Co. Rd. # 4.
Mr. Lynch asked what the project trips/day would be by the center. Mr. Norderi0
said estimations were 4,200 trips/day on Co. Rd. # 4 & 9,000 trips/day on
Highway 4 5.
Ms. Lynda Enger, 16221 Westgate Trail, expressed the conern that with 2 centers
there would be a traffic problem and something would have to be done.
Mr. Sorensen asked if water, storm sewer , and sanitary sewer were available
to the site. The planner responded that water and sanitary sewer were available
Ruth Quaal , 16191 Westgate Trail, objected to the grove of trees that would
be destroyed by the apartment units Norderhus replied that this would be another
reason to rearrange the units on the Site.
Mr. Huessy , 16371 Westgate Trail, asked why x after the City has designated a
commercial centerjthat these projects .come up in different areas.
Mark Baumann of Westgate Trail also questioned the proposal since the MCA would
have many stores.
Tom Walters, 7680 Meadow Lane, asked if there was similar development in
Edenvale. Mr. Sorensen replied that there is a commercial site approved at
Mitchell and new Valley View Road and another proposed at Mitchell and Highw f
and two others proposed at the 4 & 5 intersection.
Chuck Heinemann, 7521 Westgate Trail, asked when the Commercial Needs Study
would be completed and stated that he felt it would be important. Mr. Sorensen
stated that the study has not yet been authorized by the Council.
Gary Gilbertson, 7531 Westgate Trail, asked for the Commissions attitude
regarding such proposals without a study. Mr. Sorensen said that there was never
any intention of delaying projects , but it is difficult to plan properly without
additional information.. He added that since the study was not completed it was
felt the developrs had a right to a decision.
Meyers said that some members of the Council felt that a complete Guide Plan
review was needed and that the staff has been directed to compute the data
since 1968 to see how land has developed under each land use.
Sorensen added that it is policy to review the Guide Plan and the staff is working
as best they can with the work load. He suggested passing action on tl'Zproposal
until the second item was handled.
B. Gon_yea Investment Co. , Prairie Acres, PUD and rezoning request for community
commercial, highway commercial, and residential for about 30 acres located in
the northeast corner of T.H. # 5 and Co. Rd. #4. •
The planner informed the Commission that Gonyea had a revised plan and that
there is a petition from some residents in the area.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 30, 1974
Special Meeting
Mr. Carl Dale presented the revised plan which combines a number of uses . The
commercial area faces the lot&the apartments above the commercial face the green area.
The project cortains 80,000 sq. ft. of floor space,a good share of which is expected
to be office. One major parking lot is proposed with possible individual parking
provided by the free-standing buildings along Co. Rd. 4. The lot would be
landscaped and a heavy screen placed along the North and East boundary.
Mr. Huessy read the following petition -
(1)
July 28 , 1974
To : City of EDEN PRAIRIE, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Subject: Public hearing cn July 30 , 1974 regarding the planned
development of the property: 37 acres located at the
Northeast corner of Intersection State Highway 5 and
County Road 4 .
TO WHOM IT YKAY CONCERN:
We the undersigned respectfully request the Eden Prairie
• Planning Commission to ascertaih, that the property mentioned
above . is being developed with the utmost regard towards the
environmental and aesthetic situation in existence today in
this important , central part of Eden Prairie.
To assure an all around beneficial and aesthetically
acceptable development of this area the following consid-
erations are .being proposed:
1 . The developer, as-, chosen by the City of Eden Prairie
shall prepare and submit a detailed development Flan of land use building style , access -roads etc. preferably in the form of
a scale model , showing how this area is to be developed.
2 . A second public hearing shall be held on the final-
X"
ized design of the - Total Development -- and announced to the
citizens of Eden Prairie , Minnesota.
3 . The developer shall not be allowed to build "High-
Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 30,I974
Special Meeting
petition continued
rise." buildings or multiple storied complexes higher than
two (2) stories . In particular in the northern (upper)
sector of the property, only buildings should be built,
which blend into existing residential patterns and architec-
tore of the Westgate development in terms of height 'and
density.
3) No roads shall' be built within 200 feet adjecent
to the :,estgate residential bounderies.
4) she developer shall be required to build only
"slanted roof buildings" and n o flatroof buildings..
5) .the developer shall_ not be allowed. to construct.
large , unsightly P a r k i n g areas, exceeding 2 Acre,, without
interspersing tree and shrubbery islands and/or I n spaces.
Q All acces roads shall 'be designed for optimum
traffic flow as well as aesthetic appearance(meandering) preferably
--ith Gn� road patterns, so as to limit road width and total
road surface. areas.
7) the ponding area near HYty 5 at the South-last
corner shall be retained and improved as a Natural Part; - lild-
life area ,accessible to the public.
8) A "green belt areas' of at least 100 feet shall
be designed adjecent to the northern and eastern bo7anderies of
the property.
a
the undersigned believe these considerations to be
tecluiicaly feasable, fair ', and generaly non-obstructive and
have been proposed with the intent to help make the ;den Prairie
' Center" a truly enjoyable human 'sbio sphere's as well as a
profitable development.,
Planning Commission Minutes - 5- July 30,1974
Special Meeting
The petition was signed by 53 residents ,,
He further added that the central large parking lot would be unacceptable,'
commercial development would bring too much traffic, the City already has a
commercial district, the roads proposed by the residential area are unacceptable,
and that the pond should be retained in as natural state as possible
Ronald Hilk, 7461 Westgate, said that he was under the impression that the
property behind Westgate would be single family and felt that if it goes to
commercial or multiple it would affect their property values.
Mr. Sorensen asked the developers if they felt the area could support 3 centers.
Norderhus felt that the area could support 185,000. sq. ft. by 1975. Dale did not
feel the area could support 3 centers, or even 2 identical centers.
Ruth Quaal felt the development would destroy the wildlife feeding area,
Sorensen asked the planner if there had been any evaluation of the revised Gonyea
Plan. The planner replied that the staff still has questions as to the Commercial
Needs Study, The. Guide Plan review & 212's alignment , so there has been
no detailed review.
Sorensen felt that both concepts have merit and that a good deal of thought and
concern has gone into them. He personally complemented the developers for
their work.
Mo tion•
Lynch moved, Lane seconded, to refer both items to the staff for the purpose
of drafting a resolution of denial based upon
1 . traffic generation
2. projected traffic volumes
3. pending County and State road improvements.
4. objectives of the Guide Plan.
The motion was unanimously approved.
C. Edenvale Plaza Shopping Center by Eden Land Corporation. Request for PUD
development approval andrezoning from Rural to C-Com. The site is a 13.5 acre
parcel within Edenvale at the northeast corner of Mitchell Road and State Highway
5. The Public Hearing will be held August 6th in the Eden Prairie, High School.
Mr. Peterson was not prepared to present the proposal
III, REPORTS &RECOMMENDATIONS.
A, Crestwood 73, Outlot A by Alex Dorenkemper located south of Co- Rd. 1 in
southwestern Eden Prairie, Request to divide outlot A into 3 lots.
The planner referred the members to Mr. Coleman's letter and briefly read the
Engineer's report , 7-30-1974, and pointed-out the attached exhibits.
Dorenkemper stated the planning report read• 135' of blacktop and that he knows
of no instance of where blacktop was requested further than platting would be
allowed.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 30, 1974
Special Meeting
Mr. Coleman said that he does not support Mr. Dorenkemper's past actions,
but for himself he would like to build upon the lot.
To clarify the surfacing required the planner read from the engineering report
The pernanent surfacing on Dell Drive was required only to extend to the
driveway for the Wilson home. It is our recollection that Mr. DorenkemL par
suggested that the cul-de-sac be constructed ertirely beyond the dra Ve:?aV
to avoid plowing excessive snow? from the cul-de-sac into the Wilson drive--
way. This waas not our requirement. "
Dorenkemper asked if the City could 'require blacktop where lots cannot be developed.
To answer the question the planner re-read the above sertbnfrom the report.
Sorensen asked Dorenkemper how he got the land back from Wilson. Dorenkemper
said that the Wilson deed read that he would deed back all except Lot 4 , Block 1
of Crestwood 73 . He said that Title Insurance issued insurance for that parcell of
land so he sold 2 more lots.
Sorensen reviewed the Abstract of Title to the land in question brought to date 6-4-74
and read entry 86 which referred to the Warranty Deed to the Wilsons. He asked if the
deed with buy-back agreement was ever shown to the City staff. The planner, slA&kinc
only for himself, responded no. Mr. Sorensen then reviewed entry 107 in said Ak,. ract
as to a Quit Claim Deed dated 12-4-73 from the Wilsons to the Dorenkempers.
Mr. Sorensen said that at the last meeting he asked certain questions because
Dorenkemper has been in a number of .,occasions on grounds of hardship, and
misunderstanding with staff and previous members . And on two occasions regard-
less of prior grants he would return asking for further allowances . The Iastiime
Sorensen said he pleaded with this body because there might have been a
misunderstanding. He empathized with Coleman, and said that he would be the
first to come to Coleman's defense, but the validity of the City Zoning was
at stake. Mr., Sorensen stated that Dorenkemper had ample time to discuss the
Landhold Agreement with his attorney and that the agreement was specific ,
detailed and could not be mizsunderstood by any reasonable person. He stated that
he would not make any changes for-Dorenkemper which will affect the Landhold
Agreement and zoning . _
Motion:
Sorensen moved that the the Dorenkemper request be denied. The motion was
seconded by Lane, and approved unanimously.
Sorensen added that there is no more room for misunderstanding and that in no
way can this body be fair to ' other residents and developers and continue this
type of action.
The planner infomred the Commission that Mr. Dorenkemper may be asking the
Council to reconsider the Landhold Agreement and if so the matter may be referred
Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 30, 1974
Special Meeting
aback to the Planning Commission. Sorensen said that he felt strongly that
Yegardle.ss of the Land bold Agreement that the Zoning & Platting
Ordinances were at stake.
Coleman regretted having to go through a legal battle to get his money back and
asked if it was the Commission's feeling that no building could be built because
there was no sewer & water. Sorensen said that there could be no building
unless it was a 5 acre lot. He added that he wished there was some way the City
could rectify the situation for Mr. Coleman but if the request was granted other
developers can knowingly use people to accomplish what should not be done
and that they cannot permit innocent third parties to be taken advantage of.
Mr. Coleman said he did not think he had done arrything wrong. Sorensen replied
that he did not intend to imply that he had done anything wrong.
Ms. Johnson , purchaser- of the other lot, stated that they had asked Dorenkemper
if they should talk to a lawyer and he told them a lawyer wasn' t necessary.
Mr. Sorensen said that there appeared that there•might be some element of=fraud
and if so punitive damages might be collected.
The planner pointed-out to Coleman and Ms. Johnson that the Council would
make the final decision and the Planning Commission was an advisory body.
Mr. Dorenkemper stated that he did not try to go against the 5 acre rule in the
Ordinance . He said that he was advised that he could split it into 3 parcels
by his engineers and that the City did not grant him a privilege in letting
him plat in the other instances.
Mr. Coleman thanked the Commission for their time.
B. Homart, Eden Prairie Center, discussion of revised site plan for the 113 acre
regional shopping center. Landscaping and site design consideration to be
approved or modified.
Mr. Jan Porter, of Homart, stated that they feel they have the best possible
plan. Herb Baldwin said that the landscape treatment related to the horiculture
aspect of the project only. As a result of the budget he said the light canopy trees
had been replaced with medium canopy. He-stated that the Sears & Powers
landscaping was not shown.
The planner asked- why the 2nd phase of landscaping was not clarified as
requested. Jan Porter replied that the landscaping would be presented when
the 3rd & 4th stores are presented. Mr. Sorensen said he understood there
would be 1 landscape architect for the entire project and that it would be
presented as a whole. He expressed disappointed that the concept has changed
from the original presentation.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 30,1974
Special Meeting
Mr. Porter realized their concern but from their engineering standpoint said it •
is dictated what they can and can't do. He said they were trying to get away from
the original and asked if the Commission liked what they presented tonight.
He added that he did not physically see. how more trees could be added during
the second phase. The planner stated that the landscaping should show what the
plan will look like with the 3rd & 4th stores.
Meyers asked what would happen to the new budget if the 3rd & 4th stores do not
occur. Porter responded that regardless of the other stores this will not be all
the site will get. He stated after construction Homart will still work with the
City and try to allocate. further money if it is deemed necessary.
The planner asked if the plan sent to the Commission corresponded to all areas
of concern. Baldwin answered that it did not answer in total all that was asked
but it was an attempt. The planner felt that*a phase 2 plan should be presented.
and a commitment was needed that the 2nd phase would tie-in to the first phase.
Brown felt he could go along with the plan if there was a commitment as to the
second phase.
Sorensen felt that if this plan had been presented 2 years ago it would have never
of made it and that the City is being asked to take the total burden of inflation and
Homart toe up none of said burden.
DE,l.e Hamilton, of Homart, said that it is important to get the asphalt down as
soon as possible because of weather and to protect the site from erosion.
Sorensen stated that he _ has a tough time reacting at the last minute and would
like to see these things earlier.
Motion # 1
Sorensen moved, Lynch seconded, to reject the horiculture plan presented
tonight unless there is provided a definitive 2nd phase landscape horticulture plan,
and unless there are additional plantings made in the large parking lot areas
to break up the mass and open space and provide definition for the parking align-
ment. The motion passed ( 4-1 ) with Lane voting nay.
Motion: # 2
Sorensen moved, Meyers seconded,--that Homart provide to the City staff as soon
as convenient and possible the details ofthe non-horiculture landscape plans
and the horiculture and non-horiculture plans for Sears & Powers. The motion
was approved unanimously.
Motion: # 3
Sorensen moved, Brown, seconded, to recommend final approval of the site paving
work subject to the condition that should the horiculture plantings require that
provision and modification will be made. The motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 30,1974
Special Meeting
Sorensen moved, to recommend approval of the parking plans submitted
with 55' widths from center line to center line and with the modification
of 9 1 ' stall widths. The motion died for lack of a second.
Lane moved, Brown seconded to approve the parkincr plan with 9' widths and a
60 degree parking angle,,,and 55' cneter to center corridor. The motion carried
( 3-2) 3`ayes ( Brown , Lane, Meyers ) , and 2 nays ( Sorensen, Lynch },
IV. ADJOURNMENT.
Lane moved, Meyers seconded to adjourn at 12:00 midnight.
The motion carried unanimously.