Planning Commission - 06/12/2000 - Workshop APPROVED WORKSHOP MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY,JUNE 12, 2000 6:00 p.m., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Kenneth E. Clinton,
Frantz Corneille, Randy Foote, Vicki
Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Susan Stock,
Ray Stoelting
STAFF MEMBERS: Krista Flemming, Planner I
Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and
Natural Resources
Mike Franzen, City Planner
Alan Gray, City Engineer
Scott Kipp, Senior Planner
Leslie Stovring, Environmental
Coordinator
Donald Uram, Community
Development/Financial Services Director
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Corneille called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners
Brooks, Clinton, Corneille, Koenig, Stock, and Stoelting. Staff: Fox, Franzen,
Gray, Uram.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Stoelting, seconded by Koenig to approve the agenda. Motion
carried 6-0.
III. MINUTES
IV. WORKSHOP TOPICS
A. Planned Unit Developments, Waivers, and Density Transfer
Franzen said the city staff and boards will consider the city's potential returns
when granting a waiver. An example was moving a building to a different
part of a property like the Bryant Lake building. The waiver from 200 to 148
feet allowed more trees to be preserved.
COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MINUTES
Page 2
June 12, 2000
Corneille asked if during consideration of the concept plan the developer
does not have or need approval of all specific engineering details of the plan,
what are appropriate questions for the developer?
Franzen said the board could ask such questions as whether there is enough
capacity in the roads to handle the development; if the developer has
provided transition in the project; whether the developer is preserving the
land's natural features; the density of the project as related to surrounding
area and related buffer zones.
Franzen cited another waiver example with a wetland parking setback for the
Wingate Hotel. There was an increase in the buffer zone setback in exchange
for parking moved closer to the street.
Brooks asked for clarification on the setback for wetlands.
Franzen said in this case the developer agreed to preserve trees, created more
buffer than the minimum. There were retaining walls close to the buffer; the
developer did not want to damage the wetland buffer. The city is more
restrictive on high quality wetlands and less restrictive on low quality.
For the buffer zone on the ADC parking ramp, the developer slid buildings
from a 75 foot setback to 35 feet to preserve the wetland and create a buffer
next to residential. The building came close to the road, there are industrial
uses on either side of road. The city could have required a 75 foot setback
and a large buffer zone but that would have reduced the size of the building.
Developers may also use a PUD waiver as a density bonus if the city is trying
to encourage a particular type of housing. One example is increased density
to 28 units/acre for more senior housing for Eden Shores. Some units are
owned, some are assisted living, the units were made affordable by the
increased density. It was important to fulfill housing goals by the Senior
Issues task force but also to make the housing compatible with the
surrounding residential area.
Corneille asked whether in cases such as ADC and Wingate, there was a
mechanism to share with the community the logic behind the board's actions
and decisions. Franzen said the public meetings and the Eden Prairie News
Newspaper.
Franzen said density transfer was moving density from one part of a project
to another. He cited the north side of 494. In 1996 with a master plan
amendment the developer built taller than the ordinance and closer to the lake
COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MINUTES
Page 3
June 12, 2000
but in exchange did not build on the hill. As a result, the 12 acre hill was
preserved.
Koenig asked why developers included water bodies or wetlands in density
measurements when they can't build on them without a waiver. Franzen said
density is calculated by ordinance on the gross acres. The gross density can
be transferred to a net area provided all other code requirements are met.
Koenig asked if a PUD was approved in 1990, then would they be obligated
to comply with current ordinances? Franzen stated the developer must
comply with current ordinances. PUD approval from city does not mean the
city is obligated to rezone. The PUD provides a general view. The Dell Road
and Hwy 5 had PUD approval for commercial. The traffic level was higher
than expected, so the city decided not to approve the project.
B. Performance Standards of the City Code
Franzen explained how the landscape ordinance was created. He added that
the city requires a landscape guarantee to make sure landscaping survives
with a cost estimate of replacements of 150%. Franzen then described how
Home Depot met performance standards of the city code.
Brooks said if developers are consistently coming in with 20-30 percent
greater landscaping than required, the city could change requirements to
greater landscaping.
Franzen said since the city was 90 percent developed, changing the
requirement for the remaining 10 percent would not be significant.
Stoelting asked about zoning requirements for sidewalks? Franzen said
sidewalks are required along collector roads and minor residential streets.
Franzen showed the exterior material sample board of acceptable building
materials. Plain concrete block is not an acceptable alternative.
Brooks noted that Office Depot facing Highway 212 has plain concrete
block. Franzen said the exposed plain concrete is an expansion wall and
would be face brick on the addition as required in the approved plans.
V. ADOURNMENT
MOTION by Clinton seconded by Stock to adjourn. Motion carried, 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.