Planning Commission - 02/28/2005 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2005 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Larry Kacher, Vicki Koenig, Kathy
Nelson, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray
Stoelting, Jon Stoltz, William Sutherland
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources;
Al Gray, City Engineer; Mike Franzen, City Planner
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All Commission members were
present.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Nelson, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion
carried, 9-0.
III. MINUTES
A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 24, 2005
MOTION by Stoelting, seconded by Nelson, to approve the January 24 minutes as
published. Motion carried, 7-0-2 with Brooks and Koenig abstaining because of absence
from that meeting.
B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 14, 2005
Brooks asked that the first paragraph on Page 8 be corrected to read: "Brooks asked if
Franzen could address the issue for the cul-de-sac waiver and the City's opinion relative to
a potential couple easements where the road may ultimately have a second access point."
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the February 14 minutes as
corrected. The motion carried, 8-0-1 with Nelson abstaining because of absence from that
meeting.
IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2005
Page 2
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. HENNEPIN VILLAGE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE OFFICE TO LOW AND
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL by Dan Herbst, Hennepin Village LP.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Low-Medium
Density Residential on 17 acres and planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment on 17 acres. Location: North of Highway 212, east of Spring Road.
Herbst presented a brief overview of the proposed project. He explained that they
are working with a 17-acre parcel and are requesting a change to the
Comprehensive Guide Plan from Office to Low-Medium Density Residential and a
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 17 acres. Herbst reviewed
with the Commission the project location and presented an update on the roadwork
being done on Charleson Road. He explained that the parcels they are discussing
today lie east and south of residential and they are currently proposing 41 lots.
Herbst pointed out that the entire site is out of the 65 DNL and only a slight corner
is in the 60 DNL sound alternative. He stated that they would be introducing a new
product to this project that will be a conventional small lot for a single-family
home. This site renders itself more to residential than office. Herbst explained that
they are proposing a sidewalk system that will connect with the trail system
running along the south side of Charleson Road. The builder will be Ryland
Homes. Herbst pointed out that this site sits below all of the rest of the terrain.
Herbst explained that the City has an excess amount of office but are short on
housing and there appears to be an over supply of office into the far distant future.
There is a need for additional housing in the City. There are more jobs in the
community than households. This residential plan will generate approximately
$140,000 in park fees. Herbst stated that this proposal will generate less traffic than
an office proposal and the product they are proposing is needed on this site and is
something that is not offered at this time. This site feels more residential than
office or industrial. Herbst said they are exceeding MAC requirements as they
relate to sound insulation.
Franzen presented the staff report explaining that they did receive two e-mails in
support of the project. The first was received from Dave Swartout at 10028 Indigo
Drive and the second was received from Gina Pellegrini, 15825 Porchlight Lane.
Franzen explained that the staff report includes two options for this project. Staff is
recommending approval of the Guide Plan Change form Office to Low-Medium
Densityh Residential on 17 acres and Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment on 17 acres and that approval is based on the applicant providing eight
affordable units on this site or other residential sites in the PUD. Franzen explained
that the type of housing proposed is not currently in the development.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2005
Page 3
Michael Thompson, on Indigo Drive, said he is a neighbor to Swartout and he
supports Staff's recommendation for single family homes at this location. He feels
this is the highest and best use of that piece of property.
Michael Liar said he will be moving into this neighborhood on Indigo Drive and he
too supports the plan. He feels this proposal will generate less traffic and meets the
needs of this area.
Brooks asked the price range of this new product. Herbst responded that they
would range in price from$380,000 to $400,000. Brooks said they are looking at a
240-acre subdivision and it is not unlikely that they will see some changes along
the way with the market. He indicated that he is supportive of this request.
Koenig asked what the houses would look like and how large the lots are going to
be. Herbst explained that the homes would be two levels. More than 35 percent of
the units will be walk out types with finished lower levels. Herbst displayed a floor
plan of a unit. The lots will be approximately 9,000 to 12,000 square feet. Herbst
indicated that this is a concept plan and that they will be back before this
Commission with final plans.
Nelson asked if because of the size of the lots, will there be any need for variances
for setbacks or would they all meet Code. Franzen responded that the lots will be
9,000 to 11,000 square feet in size and the 9,500 square foot lot setback
requirements will be necessary. They are talking about density of less than 2.5
units per acre. Franzen stated that the applicant should be able to subdivide and
meet those requirements. Nelson stated that Staff is recommending approval based
on providing affordable units. She asked what they mean by affordable units and
what the dollar level would be. Franzen answered that affordable for new
construction is somewhere between $200,000 and $250,000. The requirement is
not for a particular product type. It could be single-family or townhouse as long as
it is affordable housing. They are offering the developer the flexibility to pick what
works best for them. Nelson asked if there is a guarantee that these homes will
remain affordable in the future. Franzen said that more than likely the affordable
units would be townhouses. Since they are unable to add on to those units, they
will not increase in value like the single-family homes.
Sutherland asked if the units would be finished out at three or four bedrooms.
Herbst said they would be and the first phase is proposed to be 1,600 to 1,700
square foot units with four bedrooms up. Herbst explained that they will be coming
back before this Commission with specific pricing, lot size, etc. Sutherland
questioned the proposed berm to be located at Hamel and Charleson Road. Herbst
responded that they are not directly involved with that. This was a joint settlement
between the City, MAC and the landowner at that time to do the berming. Herbst
said he did not believe the berm is mandatory at this time but is only shown as an
alternative. The berm was never part of their agreement. Franzen explained that the
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2005
Page 4
berm was not part of the discussion. The City's comments on the final EIS
document recommendation was that some type of screening be done.
Seymor pointed out that the proposed concept plan shows 41 lots. He asked if they
are looking at as many as 60 lots. Herbst explained that he talked to the builder,
Ryland Homes, today and they said they are proposing 41 homes.
Motion was made by Rocheford, seconded by Nelson, to close the public hearing.
The motion carried, 9-0.
Motion was made by Rocheford, seconded by Nelson, to recommend approval of a
request for Comprehensive Guide plan Change from Office to Low-Medium
Density Residential on 17 acres; and Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment on 17 acres based on plans stamp dated February 25, 2005, to the City
Council.
Koenig asked if there are any issues with outdoor airport noise. Franzen explained
that the concern would be with the interior noise reduction down to 45 ABA for
indoors. Koenig asked if the outdoor noise would be a problem. Franzen said they
would be able to hear the planes.
Thompson stated that he has lived in this neighborhood since May and finds Flying
Cloud Airport to be entertaining. He enjoys watching the planes taking off and
landing. He has not found the noise to be objectionable.
Nelson asked if the motion for approval should be amended to include approval be
subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated February 25, 2005.
Rocheford said it should be and accepted Nelson's recommendation as a friendly
amendment.
Motion was made by Nelson, seconded by Brooks, to amend the motion to include
subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated February 25, 2005. Vote
was called on the amended motion with all members voting aye. The motion
carried, 9-0.
B. HARTFORD CORPORATE CAMPUS by John Brandt, Hartford Group, Inc.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Regional Commercial to
Community Commercial on 1.02 acres; Comprehensive Guide plan Change from
Regional Commercial to High Density Residential on 1.33 acres; Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 2.35 acres; Planned Unit Development District
Review with waivers on 2.35 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to
Community Commercial on 1.02 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-
2.5 on 1.33 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 2.81 acres into 2 lots and road right-of-
way. Location: Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2005
Page 5
Frank James, General Counsel of the Hartford Group, said they are proposing a
mixed-use project to be located on the southwest corner of Franlo Road and Prairie
Center Drive. He provided the Commission with a description of the proposed
project and displayed color renderings of the site plan. James said they have had a
number of contacts with City staff with regards to the various issues raised at
previous meetings. The primary issue appears to be the right-of-way alignment and
site lines along Prairie Center Drive and Franlo Road. Concerns have been
expressed about the location of the office building on the corner and it was
suggested that they make adjustments to improve the site plan. James explained
that they have developed a revised site plan taking into account Staff's suggestions.
The lay out of the site design does not change but they have modified the location
of the office building. James displayed the revised site plan. They adjusted the
orientation of the office building as well as the corners of the building to take into
account additional setback for the site line. James further explained that another
major change to the site plan was the location of the parking entrances. They
moved the entrances to the backside of the building removing the entrance off of
Medcom Boulevard. The right-of-way requirement has reduced the size of the
building by approximately 1,000 square feet. James indicated that they are
planning to use approximately one-third to one-half of this new office space for
their corporate headquarters with the remaining office suites being rented out.
James explained that they are also proposing a three-story, 24-unit condo building
on this site. They have reduced the number of units to 24. The maximum allowed
density on the site is 17.4 units per acre. The density for this proposal is 18.0 units
per acre. Their intent was to come in at 17.4 units but the additional right-of-way
has put them slightly above the requirement. They are requesting a waiver and that
the right-of-way issues for this site be taken into consideration. James stated that
the condo building would include 56 underground parking spaces, which will be in
excess of the requirement for parking spaces. The units will range in size from
1,550 square feet to just under 1,700 square feet and will include two bedrooms
with a den. The selling price will range from the high $200,000's to the mid
$300,000's. James indicated that they are proposing to construct a portion of
Medcom Boulevard for access to the property at this time and the City will extend
Medcom Boulevard at a later date.
Franzen presented the Staff report explaining that the proposal before the
Commission this evening would require waivers because of the zoning district
more than because of the use of the building. Staff prefers guiding the site Office
and High Density Residential. The mixed-use approach makes sense since the site
is between existing commercial and residential uses. This use results in a better
relationship with the neighborhood and matches the zoning to the actual use of the
building. This use also eliminates the potential for parking shortages and eliminates
the conflict of evening uses and reduces the number of waivers required by the City
Code. Franzen said if the Commission decides to go with office and residential,
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2005
Page 6
Staff would be required to readvertise the public hearing since the use would be
changed. The next available meeting to consider this request would be March 28.
Stoelting asked how the list of waivers would be changed if they went with office
guidance. Franzen said some of the items would be the elimination of the base area
ratio, the floor area ratio and the lot size requirement. Off-site parking would still
be required but there would be no parking waiver on the number of required
parking spaces.
Mary Carla Johnson, 8500 Franlo Road, Eden Hills Condo, said one of her
concerns is with the extension of Medcom Boulevard. She is concerned that they
will not be able to get on Medcom from Highway 212 since it is one of the busiest
intersections in the City and that people will cut through their neighborhood. There
should be a signal at Prairie Center Drive and Franlo Road. Johnson said she is also
concerned that their view will include looking at the condo building when the
project is completed. She indicated that the parking is not really underground but is
underneath parking. On the front of the building facing their development, there are
four levels and on the back of the building there are five levels. Johnson said she is
not comfortable with the underground parking. She also asked what the height
requirements are for this condo building and she wanted to know what the distance
is from the very north edge of their property to the very edge of Medcom
Boulevard and from the north edge of Medcom Boulevard to the front of the
proposed condo. James explained that the distance from the edge of the property to
the edge of the actual road is approximately 13 feet. There is a required 35-foot
setback from the right-of-way line that results in an additional distance of
approximately 12 feet to 13 feet from the setback to the edge of the curb totaling
approximately 45 feet.
Dale Ellsworth, 11983 Tiffany Lane, said he moved into this area because of the
trees and he is concerned with the number of trees that will be removed and have to
be replaced for this project. Many of the residents in the area have similar concerns
and issues with green space. Ellsworth said they are also concerned with the
waivers for density along with traffic concerns and safety issues for families in the
area. He indicated that there is no compelling rationale for issuing the waivers.
Stolting said it appears that there are some concerns about the future traffic flow
down Medcom Boulevard coming from Highway 212 and how that traffic flow
might change when Medcom is completed. There have also been comments
regarding underneath and underground parking as well as the height requirement
for the condo building. He asked Staff and the developer to address these issues
and to also address the issue of tree replacement.
Franzen explained the method used for measuring building heights in the City. The
maximum height for the condo project is 45 feet. If the developer changed the roof
design a little, they would be in compliance with the ordinance. The building
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2005
Page 7
height is measured according to the Uniform Building Code. Franzen further
explained that the design feature on the commercial building makes it higher than
allowed,however, if they remove the design feature it will not be as attractive.
They may want to consider a height waiver. Franzen said what they are proposing
for an office building is not out of character for what they are trying to do in a
residential area.
With regard to tree removal, Franzen explained that the property owner planted
most of the trees on this site. When the tree ordinance was done years ago, they
weren't thinking about sites that had planted trees but rather larger forest areas to
preserve woodland areas. Franzen indicated that the tree loss would be very high
because of the number of trees planted on the site. This particular site will only
allow 150 inches of total tree replacement. They will not be able to replace trees at
this particular location. Overall, the City will benefit by having trees planted in
their park system. The developer will be maximizing the number of trees and the
size they can fit on this site. The trees will be larger and will be planted at the
beginning of the project. Staff has asked the developer to use a decorative approach
to the landscaping rather than a quantitative approach.
Fox explained that when the City originally did the tree ordinance it was their
intent to preserve the natural woodland areas. They did not take into account
zoning. The downtown area zoning is a high-density type of zoning and reduces the
footpath for planting. This is a tight site and underlying zoning drives the higher
tree loss in this case.
Gray reviewed with the Commission the future traffic flow of Medcom Boulevard
and reviewed the history of the road. He explained that the City has been planning
the extension of Medcom Boulevard for a long time. Gray said he did not feel there
should be any concern that this road will become a major way for people to
commute between 212 and Preserve Boulevard and Anderson Lake Parkway. They
do anticipate signalization of the Franlo Road intersection in the near future.
With regards to underground parking, James presented the elevations of the condo
building and explained that this site is not a flat site. It has a significant slope from
the south to the north and from the east to the west. The building will be
constructed on a downhill slope that will result in more underground parking being
exposed. The parking is underground as much as the topography of the site allows.
Stolting pointed out that the staff report talks about office guiding and zoning as an
alternative. He indicated that this would eliminate a lot of the requested waivers
associated with coomunity commercial zoning. He asked the Developer if they had
any strong feelings for considering office-guided zoning versus community
commercial.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2005
Page 8
James responded that with conversations with staff, they believed it would push the
project out given the reduction in waivers. The potential downside would be the
limited types of use. However, James said they would be agreeable to office
zoning.
Nelson said she liked the condo plan and asked if they will all be two-bedroom
units or if they were subject to change. James said he did not think they planned on
doing any three-bedroom units or one-bedroom units since this would change their
count. Nelson asked if the office building would only be two stories high. James
responded that the office building will be two stories and it is their plan to use 75
percent to 80 percent of the second floor. Their own internal growth may result in
their using the entire second floor. They like the flexibility to occupy as much
space as necessary and to rent out the remaining office suites. Nelson said her main
problem with this proposal is the 17-foot setback from Prairie Center Drive and 12-
foot setback from Franlo Road.
Franzen explained that since this is a corner lot, the front yard setback requirement
from Prairie Center Drive and Franlo Road required by the City Code is 35 feet.
Because of the way the building sits on the property, the corner goes down to 17
feet and because of the right-of-way, the average setback is somewhere between 25
feet and 30 feet to the property line. The average setback to the road is greater than
35 feet to 45 feet. Franzen further explained that the side yard setback that relates
to the green space residential portion is normally required at 20 feet. On this site it
is 12 feet but considering the green space it is reasonable to look at a 12-foot
setback in this situation.
James stated that they have setbacks of 43 feet and 75 feet. From the building to
the curb line, they have 41 feet. In the staff report, they talk about the right-of-way
line. The setback is much greater to the curb line.
Nelson asked if the developer has ever considered a three-story building with a
smaller footprint. James responded that the construction costs for that would not
make the project financially feasible. It would be a significantly more expensive
building. Nelson asked if there is any planned expansion of Prairie Center Drive
and Franlo Drive up to the right-of-way line. Gray said there is not at this time.
This would result in a six-lane roadway and there would be significant setback
issues with buildings in the corridor.
Brooks indicated that the residents in this neighborhood would like to see
something that would generate less traffic built on this site. Staff is recommending
a better use for part office and residential. Brooks said it is not the best site in town
for a restaurant and retail but is one of the few remaining parcels in that area. The
Developer's proposal will require 13 waivers and if the Developer took the City's
recommendation they will still be looking at eight waivers. Brooks said he has a
hard time approving this site with any waivers. They would have to be minor in
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2005
Page 9
nature. They have looked at setbacks on right-of-ways for other projects and he
feels they should all be treated the same. Brooks said he would have difficulty in
approving this project as proposed considering the number of waivers that would
be required. Brooks pointed out that a letter had been received from Mr. Flaherty
dated February 17 stating that in his opinion this site is overdeveloped as presented
today.
Kacher read the comments made in Mr. Flaherty's February 17 letter and asked
that staff respond to those comments. Franzen said Flaherty's comments are valid.
The proposed project is not a very large project and the project's reasons for
changing the guide plan and current waivers is more apparent on a small site. This
particular project does not present clear and obvious reasons for waiver. For this
site they should consider if they are solving any particular problems. This project
may not have strong compelling reasons for changes but it may solve land use
incompatibilities. Should this site remain guided regional commercial trees will
still have to be removed and lights, traffic and noise will still be a problem. The
Commission must decide if this is the best use of the property. They need to
consider the neighborhood characteristics. Franzen said he does not disagree with
the points made in Mr. Flaherty's letter,however, the Commission must consider
all issues when looking at any project.
Kacher said he appreciates the work that has been done on this project. Some times
requirements justify purchasing a particular piece of property that is relatively
expensive and then comes in conflict with the standards of the City and creates a
situation that does not present compelling reasons for changing those standards.
Kacher said he was not sure this proposal is the best compromise or solution for
this piece of property. There do not appear to be any compelling reasons for
changing the guide plan.
Rocheford said he agrees with Kacher. It appears that the asking price for this piece
of property is so high that the developer has to build so many things on it and
request so many waivers to make the project work. He questioned whether or not
the price of the property is too high. Rocheford said he would like to see something
put on this piece of property that is more reasonable.
Franzen explained that the market would determine what the price of a piece of
property is going to be. The price of the property has to do with the zoning and
guide of the property. Franzen said he does not think the City should get into a
situation where they approve something because of the price of the land.
Everything they have seen in commercial property has higher intensity and density.
Nelson asked if a three-story office building on this parcel would work since it
would provide more space on the site. Franzen pointed out that that would still be
an office use of the property. There could be other ways to design an office
building and condo that may have height issues but not setback issues. Franzen said
the developer might consider developing a different design including office and
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2005
Page 10
condo. He stated that based on the information reviewed the best use for this site
may be commercial and there is nothing wrong with taking that position. The
downside is that lights and traffic may present a potential conflict with the
residential area to the south of this site.
Rocheford stated that Mr. Flaherty mentioned the high price of the property in his
letter and the developer has indicated that they cannot build up because of the
price. Rocheford said he does not want to be held up by the fact that this is
probably the best way for someone to develop this property because of the price of
the site. Stoelting asked Rocheford if he feels the site should remain guided
Regional Commercial. Rocheford said that at this time, he would like to see it
remain as is.
Seymour said he originally liked the fact that there would be a combination of
office and housing on this site and that the housing had a buffer to the existing
neighborhood. Seymour said he likes the mix use of this proposal. However, he is
not sure that if this site remains Regional Commercial and a restaurant is placed on
the site it would be best to build so close to the residential area. Seymour said at
this point,his preference would be to go with the proposal as presented with the
exception of it being guided to office with high density residential.
Sutherland asked for details about the retaining wall on the west side of the
property. The Hartford Corporate Director of Land Planning explained that there is
a substantial grade change from the front to the back of the building. The retaining
wall at its highest would be 14 feet with an average of about 8 feet to 10 feet high.
He further explained that one of the things unique about this development is its
mixed use. Many of the variances identified relate to the building. The office and
condo buildings compliment each other. They are maximizing the use of the
parking lot and are allowing the residential building to buffer the neighboring
residential property.
Stoltz thanked the developer for the time he spent in developing this project. The
Developer has been before this Commission on October 25 and November 22 and
they have greatly improved the project since those meetings. However, Stoltz said
he still feels that the project is too big for this parcel of land. He does not think it
would be a gain for the citizens if they move forward with this project tonight.
Stoltz said he does not have a problem with mixed use of the land. He indicated
that he is concerned with the scope of the project and with the number of waivers.
Koenig said she was divided on this issue. This is a nice neighborhood and
whatever happens on this site they will be losing a lot of tree mass. She said this
concerns her. She questioned if it would be feasible if at some point they guided
this site as high density residential. This may allow them to get something of value
built for the community such as senior housing or affordable housing.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2005
Page 11
Franzen said this would be a valid approach with the property. The Commission
could ask a developer to look at this property and look at housing for the entire site
but they must realize that any housing on a Commercial zoned piece of property
would involve the raising of the density to make the number work.
Koenig said she would feel most comfortable with high density residential and
asked how the residents would feel about high density residential on this parcel in
terms of building height.
Mary Carla Johnson, of Eden Hills Condos, said they don't want to see a six-story
building on this corner. Johnson said before she could really comment on a
proposal she would have to see what it would consist of.
Koenig said that if the right proposal came along she could support a high-density
residential development. She said she is not opposed to mixed uses but this is a
small parcel and she is not sure they can get a proposal that will fit on this parcel
that everyone is in favor of. Stolting asked if Koenig is open to changing the guide
plan to high density residential and if she would also be comfortable with a mixed
office, high-density residential use. Koenig said the proposal before them this
evening is too much for this piece of property. She would not be opposed to
changing the guide use with the right plan. Koenig said she would like to see all
residential on this parcel.
Nelson asked if this parcel were kept as a commercial site with a restaurant would
a retaining wall still be required. Franzen said it would be. Nelson said that is not
an issue, however, she asked if there are any safety concerns with people walking
off of a 14 foot retaining wall. Franzen said the Developer would do whatever is
required by City Code for a retaining wall. Nelson said she is not concerned with
changing the guide plan to office with the setbacks. Common land lines are pretty
standard when putting together two uses. The building height is fairly marginal and
the 12 feet on the side does not bother her either. Nelson said she likes this project
better than previously presented and likes the floor plan of the condos. She also
does not mind a three-story building because of the large library on the corner. The
developer may want to consider a slightly smaller footprint for the office building
for extra room. She is not against changing to office high density residential.
Nelson questioned whether or not they would want this site to have a full
commercial use.
Kacher pointed out that earlier in the evening there was talk about the level of open
office space in Eden Prairie. Given that situation, Kacher asked if it made sense to
change the guide plan to add more office to the City. Franzen said it would not
make any sense to add a product type Class A office building. The market does
need office condos. This floor plan allows for small office. Franzen said the office
market in the City doesn't factor into the thinking of what the market is doing.
They need to question what is the best use for the City overall and for the area.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2005
Page 12
Kacher said he would like to see the developer come back with a proposal for
guiding mixed office high density residential.
Sutherland said he is not uncomfortable with the mixed-use concept or changing to
office but he is not comfortable with the mixed residential commercial. Sutherland
said he is concerned with the scope of the present project but he is not
uncomfortable with changing the guide plan to office.
Stoelting said this is the third time this project has been before this Commission.
He thanked the developer for reducing the number of units and for their responding
to the comments from this Commission. Stolting said he is relatively comfortable
with this site being guided office and high density residential. Some of these
waivers could be deleted with some adjustments to the proposal.
Motion was made by Nelson, seconded by Brooks, to recommend a continuance to
the March 28, 2005, meeting, with direction to: (1) modify the application for a
guide plan change to office; (2) modify the application for a zoning change to
office; and (3) make appropriate changes to the plan as recommended in the staff
report that include, reducing or eliminating waivers and adjusting the plan for site
vision. The motion carried, 5-4 with Brooks, Nelson, Stoelting, Seymour and
Sutherland voting aye and Kacher, Koenig, Rocheford and Stoltz voting nay.
C. VARIANCE#2005-02 Petition of Hertz Local Edition at 12790 Plaza Drive, Eden
Prairie. Request to: 1) to permit temporary outdoor display for ten vehicles for a
greater period than 60 days or less of a calendar year(City Code maximum is 60
days); 2) to permit outdoor display area greater than two percent for the base area
ratio of the principal building, that is 1,710 square feet(City Code would permit
150 square feet based on a building size of 7,200 square feet); and 3) to permit ten
stalls to be used for outside display area(City Code permits one parking stall based
on the number of parking stalls required.
Steve Lewis, District Manager for Hertz,reviewed the site plan with the
Commission. He explained that they have designated spaces for a display area and
they are asking for a temporary outdoor display for ten vehicles for a greater period
than 60 days or less of a calendar year. They do have four undesignated spaces.
Lewis stated that they have one service bay that will be used to clean the vehicles
and they are proposing to put a separate entrance door in. They are also proposing
to modify the bathrooms to make them ADA compliant.
Franzen presented the staff report explaining that there is adequate parking on the
site and they are at a location where cars are stored outside. This use would be
appropriate for this part of the community.
Nelson asked if the outdoor storage is strictly for parking spots for cars. Lewis said
that was correct and would be used only for rental vehicles. Nelson asked if there
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2005
Page 13
would be advertising signs placed on the vehicles. Lewis said there would be no
signage placed on the vehicles and they would look no different than other vehicles
in the area.
Motion was made by Stoltz, seconded by Nelson, to close the hearing. The motion
carried, 9-0.
Motion was made by Stoltz, seconded by Seymour, to recommend approval of a
request to permit temporary outdoor display for ten vehicles for a greater period
than 60 days or less of a calendar year(City Code maximum is 60 days); permit
outdoor display area greater than two percent of the base area ratio of the principal
building, that is 1,710 square feet(City Code would permit 150 square feet based
on a building size of 7,200 square feet); and permit ten stalls to be used for outside
display area (City Code permits one parking stall based on the number of parking
stalls required)based on plans stamp dated February 11, 2005, subject to the
recommendations of the staff report dated February 25, 2005, to the City Council.
The motion carried, 9-0.
VII. MEMBERS REPORTS
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
X. PLANNERS REPORTS
Franzen reminded the Commission that there would be a joint planning Commission and
City Council meeting on Tuesday, March 1, at 5:00 p.m. This workshop will be to review
the MCA Study.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Koenig to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried,
9-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.