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informing them that this project has been withdrawn.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.