Planning Commission - 04/24/2006 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,APRIL 24, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Jon Duckstad, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig,
Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford,
Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Al Gray, City Engineer
Scott Kipp, Senior Planner
Regina Herron, Planner
Julie Krull, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Koenig, Pitzrick and
Stoltz.
II. SWEARING IN OF NEW COMMISSION MEMBERS
• Frank Powell
• Jon Duckstad
Chair Stoelting thanked the past members for all their work and dedication to the
Planning Commission. The past members included, Larry Kacher, Kathy Nelson, and
William Sutherland.
Scott Kipp recited the swearing in statement with commissioners Powell and Duckstad.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Kirk, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 6-0.
IV. MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 27, 2006
MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Koenig, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 2-
0. Kirk and Stoelting abstained.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2006
Page 2
V. PUBLIC MEETING
VI. INFORMATIONAL MEETING
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BANEBERRY HOLLOW by Lake West Development. Request for:
Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential
on 2.06 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.51 acres; Planned
Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.51 acres; Zoning District
Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 2.06 acres; Preliminary Plat of 2.51 acres into
12 lots and right-of-way. Location of property is 10015 and 10065 Pioneer Trail.
Thomas Fretham, of 4930 Baker Road, Minnetonka, and representing Lake West
Development,presented the proposal. He pointed out that the City Staff has
helped them reach the requirements that were set forth for this project. He stated
that the requirements are thoroughly outlined in the City Staff report. Mr.
Fretham said that tonight he would like to take the opportunity to explain their
plan to the neighbors of this development and any concerned residents. He stated
that they are proposing to combine two parcels of land. They are located at 10015
Pioneer Trail, which is an owner occupied home, and 10065 Pioneer Trail, which
is a rental unit owned by Lake West Development. The proposal is for a density
change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a
rezoning change to RM-6.5. Currently the site is guided Low Density Residential
for up to 2.5 units per acres. The surrounding land uses are Medium Density and
Low Density Residential to the north across Pioneer Trail, Low Density
Residential to the east, a park to the south and Medium Density to the west. The
site is zoned Rural. Land to the north is zoned RM-6.5 and R1-9.5, Rural to the
east and south, and RM-6.5 to the west. Mr. Fretham stated that the density
change would allow for 12 units of twin homes on 2.51 acres. At this time, they
would only be constructing 10 units of the 12 unit project. He also stated that
access to this project is proposed from Lee Drive and that this project would
eliminate the current driveway access to Pioneer Trail. He also pointed out that
the proposed cul-de-sac meets City standards. Mr. Fretham utilized the overheard
projector to show access into this project. He also showed the sewer and drainage
systems located on the project. He stated that there would be numerous rain
gardens developed to handle all of the storm water. Mr. Fretham pointed out that
they are in compliance with tree replacement per City requirements. He stated
that there are numerous trees that are dying in this area and it would be a benefit
to the neighborhood to have them replaced. He stated that the first phase of the
project would be the removal of the home and construction of the roads and
utilities.
Stoelting asked Kipp to review the staff report. Kipp stated that on February 27,
this project was first reviewed by the Planning Commission at the Informational
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2006
Page 3
Meeting and at that time the Staff was comfortable with the proposal. The only
concern at that time was that access to Pioneer Trail would be eliminated and
issues of construction traffic using Pioneer Trail. Kipp pointed out that there
would be some waivers with this project but that they would be temporary in
nature. He also pointed out that the City felt that there would only be a modest
increase in traffic flow. The Staff recommendation is for approval.
Powell asked Kipp if there would be walkways adjoining the areas on both ends
of Lee Drive. Kipp stated that there is nothing in place at this time. Fox stated
that there is a protective wetland issue between the two Lee Drive neighborhoods.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input.
Debbie Smaby, representing Autumn Ridge Association on Arrow Wood and Lee
Drive, stated that their main concern was the water draining into the park. She
stated that after rainfall there is a substantial amount of water located on the
baseball field. Ms. Smaby stated that they were initially told that the proposed
units would be in the price range of the low $200,000. She asked Mr. Fretham if
that was correct. Mr. Fretham stated that the houses would be around the
$400,000 range. Ms. Smaby asked how construction traffic will move for the
construction of the 11th and 12'h units. She also stated that the trips went from
150 a day to 70 and the density has not changed and asked what that meant. She
also asked what will happen to the fencing on Lee Drive and Pioneer Trail.
Merlyn Jacobson, of 10211 Lee Drive, representing the association on Lee Drive
stated that they have the same concerns as Debbie Smaby. He also pointed out
that they are very concerned with the trees on the northeast section of the
property. He utilized the overhead projector to show location of the trees.
Stoelting summarized the issues brought forth. They are as follows:
1. The concern of water flow and water backing up into the park area.
2. Traffic access when units 11 and 12 are being constructed.
3. Validate that there would be a sidewalk on Lee Drive.
4. Address the tree issue and the trees located on Pioneer Trail.
5. Why did the trips per day go down from 150 to 70.
6. What will happen to the fencing on the left side of the project.
Mr. Fretham utilized the overhead projector to show were the tree removal would
take place. He pointed out that the areas behind the homes would not be
impacted, and especially the mature trees. He stated that in regards to the fence,
they do not know who put it up or who it belongs to but that part of it will have to
come down during construction. As far as the fence on Lee Drive, they can take it
down or leave it up. Mr. Fretham pointed out that the sidewalk will be extended
from Lee Drive to Pioneer Trail. He stated that as far as construction flow there
seems to be some confusion. He stated that they will not be putting up all 10 units
at once and that they would like to leave the driveways there for construction
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2006
Page 4
purposes. He stated that as far as the construction traffic, 96 trips would be
accurate for 12 units, 70 trips would be accurate for 10 units, and 150 trips when
the neighboring property to the east develops. Mr. Fretham said that are far as
ponding in the park, they are directing it away from the park and creating rain
gardens. So in actuality, the park would remain drier. Stoelting asked Gray to
verify this. Gray stated that this project would be able to handle its own water
drainage.
Koenig asked Fox if this project had a 78 percent tree loss. Fox stated that was
correct. He pointed out that the tree loss is always high on projects that are
building roads and houses,but that the builders will mitigate trees in the area.
Fox stated that the project proponent is complying with the City in regards to tree
mitigation and replacement.
Stoelting asked Kipp if there are temporary waivers involved for lot 12. Kipp
stated that was correct since it will remain in the rural zoning district at this time
and that the project proponent would have to submit a detailed plan for lot 12 in
the future. Kipp also stated that in regards to any access concerns on Pioneer
Trail, the contractor will have to go through the City and County.
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0.
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Duckstad, to approve the Guide Plan Change
from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 2.06 acres;
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.51 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 2.51 acres; Zoning District Change
from Rural to RM-6.5 on 2.06 acres, Preliminary Plat of 2.51 acres into twelve
lots and road right-of-way based on plans stamped dated April 19, 2006, and the
staff report dated April 21, 2006. Developer will work the City and County in
regards to access on Pioneer Trail. Motion carried 6-0.
B. GANDER MOUNTAIN by Oppidan Investment Company. Request for:
Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Regional Commercial on 4.69 acres;
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.69 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review on 4.69 acres; Zoning District Change from I-2 to
Regional Commercial Service on 4.69 acres; Site Plan review on 4.69 acres;
Preliminary Plat of 4.69 acres into one lot. Location of property is 12150
Technology Drive.
Dennis Crow, representing Oppidan Investment Company, presented the
proposal. Mr. Crow pointed out that this project would be located next to the
Xcel Energy substation. He also stated that Gander Mountain is a sporting
business that has its roots in Minnesota and now there are over 98 stores
throughout the United States and that Oppidan Investment Company has been
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2006
Page 5
partnering with Gander Mountain in the development of these sporting goods
stores. Mr. Crow said that this unit will be unique because it will have
underground parking. He also pointed out that this site has some challenging
characteristics; its triangular shape and the easements from the Xcel Energy
substation. He said that because of these issues, it dictated the location and
footprint of the building. He said that the architectural design of the building is
that of a north woods structure. Mr. Crow addressed some of the issues that Staff
addressed in the staff report in regards to recommendations. In regards to the
wetland issue,he saw this area as not having an issue and felt that in the future
this area would eventually dry up. He also said that they have submitted an
application to wetland delineation. Mr. Crow said that they are not opposed to
adding a sidewalk to Technology Drive. He said that they will also be eliminating
the retaining walls and in regards to the landscaping plan, they will be working
with Staff to revise this. Mr. Crow pointed out that they will be asking for a
parking waiver. He stated that in all of the Gander stores, they have parking
spaces at a ratio of 4 spaces per 1000 gross square feet of building or 5 spaces per
1000 gross square feet of building and have met the surge for traffic.
Stoelting asked Herron to review the staff report. Herron stated that Staff
recommends approval based on recommendations on page 5 and 6 of the staff
report.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input.
Chan Ellie,representing American Baptist Homes, at 11985 Technology Drive,
asked what the plans are for improvements on the north side of Technology Drive.
She stated that she is concerned about erosion problems in this area; especially in
their parking lot. Stoelting asked Gray to address this issue. Gray stated that
Gander Mountain will be responsible for their area on Technology Drive and
pointed out that this development many not improve the Baptist Homes parking
lot,but it would certainly not harm the current drainage situation.
Koenig asked Staff to address the issue of parking and would there be an issue
with it during peak days. Mr. Crow stated that all of the other Gander Mountains
have not had any problems with parking and he does not see any parking issues
with this Gander Mountain. Herron stated that she does agree with Mr. Crow and
does not feel that parking would be an issue.
Stoelting asked Mr. Crow to discuss traffic flow in and out of Gander Mountain.
Mr. Crow stated that there are two entry points into the parking lot of Gander
Mountain and that the main entrance is off of Technology Drive. He stated that'/a
of all of the parking will be located in the underground garage. Mr. Crow said
that the underground parking area is a very secure area.
Kirk stated that this style of parking is very effective and sited Best Buy in Eden
Prairie as a good example of underground parking. Kirk did ask a question
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2006
Page 6
regarding shoreline waivers on a recreational lake and asked if these were
common waivers. Herron stated that it is common and sited Costco as a good
example of this.
Seymour asked if this site was originally planned to be an office complex because
it is on the north end of Town Center and earlier in the year the plan had that area
as being office. Herron stated that the plan that was presented earlier in the year
for the Major Center Area Study is a guide and that could be subject to change.
She also stated that this location is not included in the "Town Center"but rather
north of it. Seymour stated that he has a concern for this area and is not sure if
this is the right development to go into the area next to Town Center. Stoelting
asked Staff if this development is what was envisioned for the Town Center area.
Kipp stated that Commission should look at the bigger picture. He reiterated that
the study is a guide for development of the entire MCA and is subject to change.
Kirk stated that he understood Seymour's concerns but also feels that this project
needs to be looked at holistically and that since this project is right on the edge of
Town Center it is a pretty good use of the property. Duckstad commented that it
would be a positive addition to the area but asked if this land use was permissible
in an I-2 District and also questioned why zoning would be changed. Herron
stated that this project is a 100 percent commercial which is not permitted in an
industrial zone; therefore it needs to be changed.
Koenig asked if the elevator was ADA accessible. Mr. Crow responded that is
was ADA accessible.
Koenig asked if more parking spaces could be added to the underground parking.
Mr. Crow stated that there would be no possible way that more spaces could be
added to the underground parking.
Koenig asked Mr. Crow if the company still plans on purchasing Wetland in Sibly
County. Mr. Crow stated that they have a purchase agreement in effect to meet
the 2-1 mitigation based on original wetland delineation defined back in
November. Koenig asked if they could come back to the Planning Commission
after they purchase the Wetland. Mr. Crow stated that would not be feasible
because they want to open the store before Thanksgiving.
Koenig asked Fox about the decorative fencing as part of the mitigation. Fox
stated that numerous factors have to be taken into account such as trees and
wildlife and this decorative landscaping would provide some screening on
Technology Drive.
MOTION by Duckstad, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 6-0.
MOTION by Duckstad, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Guide Plan Change
from Industrial to Regional Commercial on 4.69 acres, Planned Unit
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2006
Page 7
Development Concept Review on 4.69 acres; Planned Unit Development District
Review on 4.69 acres Zoning District Change from 1-2 to Regional Commercial
Service on 4.69 acres; Site Plan Review on 4.69 acres; Preliminary Plat of 4.69
acres into one lot based on plans stamped dated April 17, 2006, and the staff
report dated April 21, 2006. Motion carried 5-1.
VIII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
Koenig stated that she attended the 2nd Wetland Rally this past Saturday and the different
groups attending discussed obtaining funding for water quality and she would like to see
something on the referendum in November in regards to this matter.
IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Kipp stated that there will be two items on the agenda for the May 8, meeting. There is a
variance for a setback on an addition to a home and a development proposal for the Eden
Bluffs Business Park within the Hennepin Village development. Kipp also advised the
commission regarding a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop scheduled
for May 19th during the day to tour some of the Town Square development in the metro
area.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Kirk, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.