Loading...
Planning Commission - 03/28/2005 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2005 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION 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; Michael Franzen, City Planner; Alan Gray, City Engineer; Carol Pelzel, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All Commission members were present except for Rocheford and Sutherland who were absent. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried, 7-0. III. MINUTES A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 14, 2005 MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Koenig, to approve the March 14 minutes as published. Motion carried, 7-0. IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HARTFORD CORPORATE CAMPUS by John Brandt, Hartford Group, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Regional Commercial to Office 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 Office on 1.02 acres; Zoning District change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 1.33 acres; and Preliminary Plat of Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 2 2.81 acres into two lots and road right-of-way. Location: Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive. Franzen reported that on March 22 the City received an e-mail from Frank Janes of the Hartford Group stating that they are withdrawing their Franlo Road application and asked that it be removed from the Planning Commission's agenda. Franzen explained that letters had been sent to the residents within 500 feet of the property informing them that this project has been withdrawn. A number of other letters had been included in the Commission's agenda material and will become part of the official record. These letters were from various residents that were concerned with the proposed project. Franzen indicated that a letter had also been received today from Robert Bouten, 8460 Franlo Road, regarding this proposal. His letter states that this property was planned for commercial use so the tree removal and traffic concerns are to be expected with a commercial development on Prairie Center Drive. It is Mr. Bouten's hope that the next project before the Planning Commission on this property will meet with much less rigid viewpoints. Franzen stated that Staff is recommending that the Commission close the public hearing and return the development plans to the developer without prejudice. Brooks stated that after reviewing the letters received,he found a number of points made relative to the Commission not providing direction and that Planning Commission members are on different sides of the fence. Brooks said he always felt that the density for this project was too high. The proposed office building was larger than he would like to have seen and the condo units' density included larger numbers than he liked. If the density had been scaled down, Brooks said he would not have been opposed to changing the use of this parcel. Stoltz said he is in agreement with Brooks. The Commission had the opportunity to see the proposed project at least three times and the scope of the project was too big from day one. The issue was not the extension of Medcom Boulevard but was the density they were trying to place on that parcel. Koenig pointed out that the letters mentioned the extension of Medcom Boulevard as being a hardship. She asked Staff to comment on whether or not it is necessary to extend Medcom. Gray responded that the extension of Medcom Boulevard has been in the City's transportation plan for approximately 17 plus years. When looking at the necessity for this road extension, they need to realize that it is not just about this property but is about the whole commercial area and housing. Gray indicated that this is a regional corridor and its main function is to move traffic through Eden Prairie. If they do not extend Medcom, ultimately there will be a demand from this area to signalize Highway 212 and Medcom Boulevard. This would result in close spacing of signals, which produces accidents and traffic backups. They need to look at Medcom Boulevard for long-term and the ultimate business and housing growth that will take place in this area. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 3 Nelson asked if the City would go ahead and extend Medcom before this property is developed. Once the road is extended, it will cease to be an issue for this site and a developer will better be able to see what can go on this site. Gray explained that one of the things standing in the way of extending Medcom Boulevard has been the right-of-way. By waiting for a development on the corner property, right-of-way will be provided. To proceed in advance of a development would require extensive right-of-way acquisition and could potentially place the City in a position of condemnation. Seymour said it appears that the extension of Medcom Boulevard is an important piece of the puzzle for that area. He said he agrees with the Commissioner's comments regarding the density of this project. This is a small and difficult site to develop. It will take some creativity to get a project that will meld into the neighborhood. Franzen indicated it is difficult to find fault with commissioners who support the guide plan and the zoning code, for after all, most of Eden Prairie has been developed in that manner. He added that credit could be given to those commissioners who supported affordable senior housing, for after all, it is a goal of the guide plan. Lastly there is nothing wrong with commissioners that have taken a potion to resolve a land use compatibility problem with the adjoining neighborhood by supporting a mix of housing and office. If there is a common thought for all commissioners it would be that there is too much development on the site. Franzen said it is healthy for a commission to have different points of view regarding this parcel and he feels because of those discussions they will eventually end up with the right project on this site. This site is no different than other sites with road connection, tree loss, and intensity impacts on neighbors. The issue may not be so much the use of the property but the best development plan. Motion: was made by Koenig, seconded by Stoltz, to close the public hearing and return the development plans to the developer without prejudice. The motion carried, 7-0. B. THE POINTE ON LAKE RILEY (2005-5)by G & L Land Investments, LLC, request for Planned nit Development Concept Review on 4.5 acres; Planed Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.5 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 4.5 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 4.5 acres into four lots. Location: 9004 Lake Riley Road. Steve Longman,partner of G & L Land Investments, asked that the Commission table consideration of this item to the April 11 meeting. They are currently working with the neighbors of this project and are very close to having agreement on their proposal. They would like a little more time to work with the neighbors. Stoelting asked if the agenda for the April 11 meeting would allow for consideration of this item. Franzen reported that there are two items scheduled for Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Page 4 the April 11 meeting. They are relatively simple items and if the Commission chooses to do so, they could accommodate continuance of this project. The attorney representing Ron and Virginia Lund stated that the Lund's own the house adjacent to the proposed development. They have been in discussions with the developers on this project and they feel they have strong legal and factual grounds to oppose this development as proposed. The attorney indicated that they are very close to an agreement with the Developer and some additional time to resolve their differences is being requested. Koenig expressed her appreciation to the Developer for going the extra mile and working with the neighbors. Motion: was made by Brooks, seconded by Koenig, to recommend continuance of this item to the April 11, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried, 7-0. VII. MEMBERS REPORTS On behalf of the Commission, Stoelting expressed his appreciation to Brooks for the service he has provided on this Commission. Brooks will be leaving his position on the Commission and Stoelting said Brooks' business experience and understanding of the business drivers associated with these projects and the dynamics involved will be missed. Brooks' ability to listen to these presentations and to zero in on the defining issues will also be missed. Stoelting pointed out that Koenig and Nelson will continue to serve on the Commission and he thanked all of the Commissioners for their support and comments. Stoelting indicated that he would continue to serve as Chair of the Commission and Nelson will serve as Vice Chair. VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS IX. NEW BUSINESS X. PLANNERS REPORTS XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Brooks to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried, 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.