Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 09/10/1984 AGENDA Monday, September 10, 1984 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ( 7:40) A. EDEN COMMONS, by the Chasewood Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 for 218 multiple family residential units, Preliminary Plat of 12.5 acres into one lot, and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review. Location: Northwest corner of Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard. A continued public hearing. ( 8:30) B. EDENVALE II, by Richard Anderson, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment within I-2 Zoning District for Office/Warehouse and Preliminary Plat of 4.57 acres for one lot. Location: Southwest quadrant of Mitchell Road and Valley View Road. A public hearing. ( 9:15) C. CARDINAL CREEK VILLAGE, by Chimo Development Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Environmental Assessment Worksheet for 350 units of multiple family development on 40.7 acres. Location: North of Cardinal Creek, east of Baker Road. A public hearing. V. NEW BUSINESS (10:00) A. SECTOR STUDY CITY WEST/ROWLAND ROAD AREA VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: The times listed above are tentative and may be significantly earlier, or later, than shown. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 10, 1984 8100 School Road 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen (8:15) MEMBERS ABSENT: Stan Johannes STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Marhula, to adopt the agenda as printed. Motion carried--5-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS October and November Planning Commission Meeting Schedule Due to legal holidays on Mondays during the months of October and November, the schedule of the Planning Commission meetings for those two months required change in order to allow for two meetings each month. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to adopt the following schedule for Planning Commission meetings during the months of October and November, 1984: Monday, October 15, 1984 Tuesday, November 13, 1984 Monday, October 29, 1984 Monday, November 26, 1984 Motion carried--5-0-0 III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Gartner, to adopt the minutes of the August 28, 1984, Planning Commission meeting, with the following change: Page 4, paragraph 1, sentence 2 be changed to read, "Chairman Bearman stated Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 10, 1984 that, to his knowledge, there had never been a case of this type proven in the City, except perhaps in the area of the landfill in the southeast portion of the City." Motion carried--4-0-1 (Marhula abstained) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. EDEN COMMONS, by the Chasewood Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 for 218 multiple family residential units, Preliminary Plat of 12.5 acres into one lot, and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review. Location: Northwest corner of Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard. A continued public hearing. Mr. Joe Crook, representing proponent, reviewed the revised plans with the Planning Commission. He pointed that the number of units had been reduced from 218 to 204. Parking was now shown at two spaces per unit, although proponents still prefered to use 1.8 spaces per unit. In response to one of the recommendations of the Staff Report suggesting that proponents locate buildings parallel to the interior road with a 30-foot setback to the road, proponents stated that they would prefer a 25-foot setback. • Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report, of September 7, 1984. He pointed out that there were still several plans which needed to be submitted before Staff could complete review of the revised project, including a grading plan and a landscape plan. Chairman Bearman stated that he still felt the project was too dense as shown. He pointed out that he felt there were too many buildings, and that there was too much of the lot covered by impervious surface. Marhula asked for a review of the architecture of the project. Mr. Crook reviewed the elevations with the Commission. Marhula stated that he felt the spacial relationship between buildings, particularly in the area between Buildings 11 and 12, was too tight. Marhula stated that he felt the patios of the two buildings were quite close to each other, and, in the case of Building 5, the patios would be very close to the road planned through the site. Some of these space differences were as small as 15 feet. Hallett stated that he supported the Staff recommendations for "loosening up" the site plan. Chairman Bearman asked about elevators and whether there was a requirement for them in these structures. Planner Enger stated that they were not required in buildings of this size. Gartner stated that she felt the landscaping along Franlo Road was still a major concern for the project. Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 10, 1984 MOTION: Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Hallett, to continue the public hearing to the September 24, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried--5-0-0 B. EDENVALE II, by Richard Anderson, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment within I-2 Zoning District for Office/Warehouse and Preliminary Plat of 4.57 acres for one lot. Location: Southwest quadrant of Mitchell Road and Valley View Road. A public hearing. (Torjesen arrived at 8:15 p.m.) Mr. Scott Anderson, proponent, reviewed the site characteristics and architectural elements of the buildings proposed. Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of September 7, 1984, with the Planning Commission. Planner Enger stated that a portion of the lot was located within the Purgatory Creek Conservancy Area. He stated that, as shown on the plans, proponents were suggesting the construction of a retention pond for flood retention purposes. He stated that the location chosen for this pond would result in the removal of significant amount vegetation from this site from the point of view from screening. He suggested that there were several alternatives available to this type of design: 1. Parking could be decreased on this site, which would allow more room for the location of the pond further south on the property. This would also mean a required decrease in the size of the building. 2. The pond could be located on the golf course. 3. The pond could remain in the same location as shown on the plans, however, vegetation could be replaced on the golf course. Marhula asked for an explanation of the internal circulation and use of the site. Mr. Anderson stated that the trucks and loading dock areas were located on the south side of the building, adjacent to an existing industrial use. This allowed for the office portion of the building to be facing Purgatory Creek and the golf course. Marhula asked if the access to the parking lot was by steps, or, if the access was at-grade. Mr. Anderson responded that the access was anticipated to be at-grade. Marhula expressed concern that the amount of storage shown within the pond would not be adequate to replace the amount of lot area being filled and covered with impervious surface. Mr. Warren Israelson, proponent's engineer, stated that the existing pond to the west of this site was also being excavated an additional two to three feet deeper than it currently existed to allow for storage purposes for both lots. Chairman Bearman asked about the transitional zone and how it applied to this site. Planner Enger responded that this was part of the Conservancy Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 10, 1984 District for Purgatory Creek. He stated that one of the things the City would not want to do would be to have truck docks facing the creek area. It is better to have the parking in the transitional area and have it well screened, than to have truck docks in this location. Planner Enger pointed out that the City looks more carefully at the uses that are shown within the transitional zone. Regarding the ponding proposed, Planner Enger pointed out that most of the lower parking lot shown on the site plan would be within the area of the 100-year flood plain. At such times, the parking lot would be flooded. Mr. Israelson discussed the elevation of the parking lot, its relationship to the flood plain, and flooding potential for various storm years. It was pointed out that the critical area right now was the culvert in Martin Drive, which backed up approximately two feet with a ten-year flood occurence. Planner Enger pointed out that the 25-year storm within the north parking lot would mean that the parking lot would be under two feet of water. He stated that removal of the north row of parking would eliminate that area from potential flooding of vehicles under the 10- to 25-year storms, and would allow for additional room for ponding. Planner Enger suggested that proponent might consider elevating that area along the north edge of the parking lot to a point where only eight inches of water, instead of two feet of water, would be the result of a 25-year flood occurence. Hallett asked what the position of the Purgatory Creek Watershed District would be regarding allowing a parking lot in a flood plain. Staff responded that parking lots were an allowed use within the 100-year flood plain. Torjesen asked about the Conservancy Area as it affected this project. Planner Enger pointed out that the northeast corner of the parking lot was within the Conservancy Area. He explained that the Conservancy Area had been adopted as a policy document by the City Council at the time of review of the Purgatory Creek Watershed District. Planner Enger stated that it would be situational as to which types of uses would be allowed within the Conservancy Area. For example, the Parkview Treatment Center, and it's parking lot were entirely within the Conservancy zone. Torjesen asked if deepening of the pond would be acceptable based on the location of the ground water table. Mr. Israelson explained how the flow of storm water would work. He stated that, based upon the location and elevation of the water tables, the pond would be able to drain. Torjesen stated that he felt alternative #1 of reducing the building and the parking area for the site would be a realistic alternative for the proponents to consider. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 10, 1984 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Richard Anderson, Inc., for Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 Zoning District for an office/warehouse on 4.57 acres, based on plans Staff-dated September 10, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 7, 1984, and with the following added condition: Proponent shall meet with Staff regarding the parking lot flooding situation and determine which of the three alternatives discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1984, is most acceptable, prior to Council review. Should the solution significantly alter the plan, or should there be difficulty in determination of an acceptable solution, the proponent shall return to the Planning Commission for additional review of the project. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Richard Anderson, Inc., for Preliminary Plat of 4.57 acres into one lot for an office/warehouse, based on plans Staff-dated September 10, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 7, 1984, and with the following added condition: Proponent shall meet with Staff regarding the parking lot flooding situation and determine which of the three alternatives discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1984, is most acceptable, prior to Council review. Should the solution significantly alter the plan, or should there be difficulty in determination of an acceptable solution, the proponent shall return to the Planning Commission for additional review of the project. Motion carried--6-0-0 C. CARDINAL CREEK VILLAGE, by Chimo Development Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Environmental Assessment Worksheet for 350 units of multiple family development on 40.7 acres. Location: North of Cardinal Creek, east of Baker Road. A public hearing. Mr. Mark Jones, a partner in Chimo Development, reviewed a history of the developers and the types of structures they had built within the metropolitan area. Mr. Fred Hoisington presented slides showing the site characteristics and proposed development features. He pointed out the nine acres of flood plain which would be preserved by their development. He also pointed out the location of the Northern States Power easement, through which no building would be allowed. Mr. Hoisington stated that approximately one-third of the site would be preserved in permanent open space with a combination of these two areas. Approximately 80% of this site was in grass lands. The total proposed density for this site was 8.6 units per acre. Mr. Roger Freeburg, architect for proponents, reviewed the architectural styles proposed at the various locations on site. Mr. Jeff Gustafson, one Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 10, 1984 of the development partners, stated that throughout development of Cardinal Creek first, second, and third additions, they had tried to keep everyone informed within the neighborhood of the potential for multiple residential development within this area. He stated that this included the fact that the road would have to be continued through this site for better and safe access through the property. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report, dated September 7, 1984, with the Planning Commission. Chairman Bearman asked if a density transfer from the flood plain areas was being requested by proponents. Planner Enger responded that in other cases, the City had allowed transfer of density from flood plain areas, but, not from areas that were designated as wetlands by the Department of Natural Resources. He added that proponents' site plan was in compliance with these guidelines. Chairman Bearman asked if developers were allowed to build within a flood plain. Planner Enger responded that the Nine-Mile Creek Board of Governors would allow fill of up to 20 percent of a flood plain area, depending upon the situation and the methods used for filling. Torjesen asked to what extent the City had allowed density transfer from flood plains in the past. Planner Enger responded that there were very few cases, if any, where the City had not allowed City transfer from a flood plain area. • Marhula asked if this project would be encroaching upon any wetland areas or public waters. Staff stated that this was not the case, and that the City had not allowed density transfer from public waters areas. However, there were situations where density transfer was allowed from wetland areas. Planner Enger pointed out that the only portion of this site that qualified as public waters was the creek, itself. Mr. Hoisington pointed out that a Type 3 wetland did exist which consisted of approximately one-quarter to one-half acre. However, this wetland area did not qualify as public waters according to the Department of Natural Resources. Torjesen asked what densities matched up with RM-2.5 and RM-6.5 zoning districts. Staff responded that 17.4 units per acre would coincide with RM- 2.5 zoning and that approximately seven units per acre would coincide with RM-6.5 zoning. Torjesen stated that he felt that there was incongruity between the Guide Plan and Zoning Ordinance which should be rectified. Torjesen asked what the density of Kings Forest, to the west, had been approved for, considering their flood plain area. Staff responded that Kings Forest had been approved at approximately three to four units per acre and that approximately one-third of the property was designated as flood plain area. Staff added that St. John's Woods had been approved at a density of over seven units per acre. Chairman Bearman stated that he was concerned about the grading required of • the central hill. He stated that he would prefer to increase the density at the northern end of the property and lessen the density towards the south in order to avoid such severe grading of the hill. Torjesen stated that everything in this area was less dense than the project Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 10, 1984 being proposed by proponents. Hallett asked if the Cash Park Fee would be applicable to this project. Staff responded that it would be. Hallett also asked if walkways were planned for the area. Staff responded that sidewalks were shown along Cardinal Creek Road. Chairman Bearman asked if all the roads in the project were public roads. Planner Franzen responded that there were some private and some public roads. Chairman Bearman asked if there would be Homeowners' Association established for purposes of maintenance of the roads and other private facilities shown on the property. Mr. Hoisington responded that there would be a Homeowners' Association; however, it was possible that there would be more than one such association. Gartner asked what the average price of the units would be. Mr. Hoisington responded that the average price of the units would be $100,000. Chairman Bearman asked about the future road shown at the northeast portion of the property. Mr. Hoisington responded that in order to service a currently land-locked piece of property, in that area, this road had been shown as a potential access to the property. Mr. Gordon Alexander, Jr., 6895 Sand Ridge Road, stated that he felt the sizes of the trees shown in the elevations by the proponents was misleading. He stated that the residents of the area had been promised that luxury townhouses would be built in this area, not apartments or higher density residential units. Mr. Alexander stated that Cardinal Creek Road was a rather curvy and hilly road, with many blind spots along the way. He stated that he did not believe it was appropriate to change Cardinal Creek Road into a collector street for this residential area to the north. He stated that he felt it would place an undue burden on the neighborhood and would place the children of the area in jeopardy of their safety. Mr. Alexander suggested a more gradual transition between the single family homes and the multi-family homes proposed by proponent. Mr. Alexander stated that Eden Prairie should protect the children, who often will play in the streets, from a traffic hazard such as Cardinal Creek Road would be, if allowed to carry the traffic from this new development. He stated that he felt the safety hazard, which would result from this development, was an unacceptable alternative to the members of the community. Mr. Alexander added that he felt the density was too high in this area. Mr. Alexander presented the Commission with a petition signed by many of the residents in the vicinity explaining their concerns and objections to the project as proposed. Planner Enger explained the traffic patterns which would likely result from the development of the property. He stated that, based upon rough estimates, the amount of traffic on Cardinal Creek Road through the existing single family and duplex area would increase approximately ten percent, or, by approximately 20 cars during the peak hours and a total of 200 cars in one single day. Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 10, 1984 Torjesen stated that Cardinal Creek Road, as it currently existed, was a very long dead-end cul-de-sac in the City, with serious public safety problems. The homes in this area would have only one possible access, as currently shown, for safety vehicles of any type should an emergency arise. Torjesen stated that during every hearing involving the Cardinal Creek Development, the City had discussed how long they would allow this cul-de- sac to exist without being connected to a secondary access into the neighborhood for safety reasons. He stated that he was certain that every hearing he had attended, it had been stated that this road must be extended through to allow for additional access to the area for safety purposes. Torjesen suggested that .there may be other ways to design this project such that almost all of the traffic would use routes, other than the existing portion of Cardinal Creek Road, for access and egress from the property. Ms. Jeanne Lind, 6909 Edgebrook Place, stated that she did not feel that Cardinal Creek Road was designed to take additional traffic in this area. She stated that there was a bend in the road with a sharp turn through which, at this time, construction traffic would travel at nearly 40 miles per hour. She stated that she felt this was a traffic hazard, due to the number of children in the area. She stated that she felt additional traffic would jeopardize the lives of the children and their safety in this area. Mr. Kevin Kuester, 13124 Cardinal Creek Road, expressed concern for the lack of protective barriers for run-off from construction and the resultant • damage to this creek. He stated that he had witnessed grading within 25 to 30 feet of the creek. Mr. Kuester stated that he was also concerned with the lack of action being taken by the developer on the removal of diseased elm trees within the area. Mr. Floyd Sieffermann, 6997 Edgebrook Place, stated that he felt the developers had made a choice to purchase the land--no one had forced them to do so. He stated that the flood plain and the Northern States Power easement were part of this land purchase. Mr. Sieffermann stated that he felt a transition was needed from the single family to the higher density units proposed by the developers. He also expressed concern that the easement along the north edge of the property, providing access to Baker Road, was not adequate for access to the entire site. Mr. Sieffermann stated that, to his knowledge, there was no direct access to the west to Baker Road. He stated that he felt a cul-de-sac would be better for the children in the area for the current portion of Cardinal Creek Road which was already constructed. Mr. Sieffermann stated that he was concerned with the findings of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the project. He expressed concern for the sedimentation into Nine-Mile Creek from the development of this area. Mr. Siefferman stated that he felt the history of the performance of the developers in this area was not good. He stated that there were tires and signs in the creek. Mr. Siefferman implied that the Gustafson's were responsible for this. Chairman Bearman asked Mr. Sieffermann if he could prove that the developers were responsible. Mr. Sieffermann stated that he could not. Chairman Bearman stated that, while he was aware that construction work could result in much damage, he felt, too, that it was inappropriate to make accusations or innuendos without proof. Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 10, 1984 • Mr. Sieffermann continued listing his concerns, stating that he felt the size of the units proposed were small . He added that he felt the three- story structures were out of character with the development of this area. Mr. Siefferman, again, expressed concern for the safety of the children in this area, if Cardinal Creek Road were to be extended through the project to the existing area. He suggested that the developers should find two entrances to Baker Road instead of accessing the existing Cardinal Creek area. Mr. Oscar Miller, 6521 Baker Road, stated that the easement for access to this property had been granted many years ago. Mr. Miller stated that, while he had no objection to the proposed location of a roadway, he was not interested in paying for a portion of the street, which would overwhelmingly benefit others than himself. Mr. Miller added that he had no objection to the development in general. Mr. Miller stated that he felt the Cardinal Creek residents had a valid concern regarding the traffic in the area and the resultant traffic from the development proposed. He suggested that the developers find alternative access possibilities in order to avoid the situation as much as possible. Mr. Harold Griffiths, 6401 Kurtz Lane, stated that he was the owner of the land-locked parcel to the northeast of the Cardinal Creek Village proposal . He stated that he was unaware of the developers plans for providing access . to his property. Chairman Bearman suggested that Mr. Griffiths and the proponents meet to discuss their mutual needs for this property. Mr. Hoisington stated that he would do so shortly. Mr. Roland Baumann, 13200 Cardinal Creek Road, stated that, for his household, he would take two trips to and from the north of the existing Cardinal Creek area, however, the remaining trips, for example for shopping and service needs, were made to the south by other members of his household. He expressed concern that this would be true for many of the future homeowners in the Cardinal Creek Village area. Mr. Steve Anderson, 13728 Cardinal Creek Road, stated that he had very recently purchased a home in the existing Cardinal Creek area. He stated that he had several reasons for purchasing the home, which included the children's safety, the education available in the area, home security, the scenic views from the area, and the nice character of the existing neighborhood. He stated that he hoped none of this would be jeopardized by this development proposal. Mr. Scott Anderson, 6825 Stonewood Court, stated that when he had purchased his home, the developers had shown him the exact plans which were being presented to the Planning Commission. He added that his concerns then were the same as they are now, that being the childrens safety. Mr. Anderson suggested that the matters of traffic could perhaps be controlled through a series of stop signs within the area. Chairman Bearman recapped some of the concerns noted by the residents, including: density, traffic, connection of neighborhoods, construction traffic, traffic controls, access, and, in particular with regard to access, provision of adequate access to the property to the northeast. Planning Commission Minutes 10 September 10, 1984 Hallett stated that he was not as concerned about "long cul-de-sacs" and felt that if people chose to live on long cul-de-sacs that they were making a conscious choice regarding safety vehicle access. He added that he felt the City needed many types of housing in this community. Hallett stated that, perhaps the density could be moved further to the north with less dense housing existing to the south to provide more transition to the single family and duplex units within the existing Cardinal Creek area. Hallett asked what the chances were of not having Mr. Miller share in any of the cost for extention of the roadway adjacent to, and possibly on, his property. Mr. Hoisington stated that proponents would be willing to work with the City in whatever manner they felt acceptable for assessing or deferring assessment of cost for the road as it would involve Mr. Miller's property. Hallett stated that he felt the neighborhood would also have a concern in the near future with safe access across Baker Road to the park area which existed there. He stated that, with their concern for the children's safety, the neighbors should stay involved in the safety situations for the area. Torjesen stated that he felt an RM-6.5 zoning would be an appropriate framework for the development. He stated that he felt this would be consistent with development of other properties in the area. Torjesen added that he felt development should proceed only on the assumption that access • to Baker Road, directly west, be developed. Torjesen stated that he felt strongly that the road between the Miller property and the Cardinal Creek Village property, as well as the access to the property to the south, connecting existing and proposed Cardinal Creek Roads, should be carefully planned in order to provide the least impact upon the existing homes and residents in the area. Marhula stated that he felt the impact on the creek of urban run-off should be evaluated prior to the next meeting. He stated that he disagreed with Torjesen regarding the RM-6.5 "cap" for this development. He stated that he felt that a proper transition and higher density could be accomplished well within the limits of the Guide Plan, and within the satisfactory limits of both the developer and the existing property owners. Marhula stated that it may be appropriate, or necessary, to cluster density, which would possibly require RM-2.5 zoning, and provide a better site plan for the area. Torjesen stated that this would be acceptable to him, if the site plan were appropriate. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to continue the public hearing to the October 15, 1984, Special Planning Commission meeting, to allow proponent to revise the plans based on the Staff Report of September 7, 1984, and the concerns reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting of September 10, 1984. Motion carried--6-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 11 September 10, 1984 V. NEW BUSINESS A. SECTOR STUDY CITY WEST/ROWLAND ROAD AREA At its meeting of September 4, 1984, when reviewing the Landmark proposal , the City Council asked to see how the overall Rowland Road/Shady Oak Road area was developing. Council had asked for a chronology of the changes that had been made in the Comprehensive Guide Plan in the City West area, also. Staff was requested to compile this information and present it to the Planning Commission for reaction as to its conformance with the City's long- term, broad plan for the northeast area of the City. MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Schuck, to reaffirm to the City Council that the Commprehensive Guide Plan for the City West/Rowland Road Sector is in basic conformance with the original Comprehensive Guide Plan for this area. Motion carried--4-1-0 (Torjesen against) VI. OLD BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck. Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 12:40 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate Karnas Recording Secretary