Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 07/17/1973 AGENDA EDEN.PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY,. JULY 17, 1973 7:30 P.M. , Eden Prairie Village Hall INVOCATION - - - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - - - ROLL CALL COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairwoman Norma Schee,,Wayne Brown, Don Sorensen, Patrick Casey, Richard Lynch, Don Teslow, Joan Meyers. COMMISSION STAFF: Dick Putnam, `Village Planner I. MINUTES OF MAY 29, JUNE 19, JUNE 20, and JU'LY 3, 1973, MEETINGS. II. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS: A. !'Mini Storage" , request for Industrial.Park'rezoning from C-HWY, and rural, located east of new Highway 212, west of old #169, and north of new Shady Oak Road. (The old Gregerson Nursery Property.) B. Edenvale South, Planned Unit Development of 200. acres located east of 169 on either side of the new East/\/Vest Parkway,. A mixed residential development. Developer's presentation and discussion. . . III. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Sector Planning in The Preserve- area, Discussion of the Concept Plans. B. Olympic Hills P.U.D. , presentation and discussion of concept as it relates to Sector Planning. C. .Prairie East., 100 acre P.U.D. by Hustad Development Corp, for mixed residential development. Discussion of concept as it relates to Sector Planning. D. The "Master's Condominiums" located in Edenvale, west of the 1st fairway on the site of the existing Edenvale offices. A proposal for two 6- story condominiums with a total of 99 units. Developer's presentation, E. Discussion of tree cutting on Hyde property in Major Center Area, new Land Alteration_ Ordinance, and request for temporary ready mix operation in existing gravel pit on Baker Road. 'IV. ADJOURNMENT. �- MINUTE` EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 17, 1973 7:3 0 p.m. , VILLAGE HALL • MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Norma Schee, Don Sorensen, Richard Lynch, Don Teslow, Joan Meyers, Wayne Brown. MEMBERS ABSENT: Patrick Casey. STAFF PRESENT : Dick Putnam, Village Planner I. MINUTES OF MAY 29, JUNE 19 , JUNE 20, and JULY 3, 1973 , MEETINGS. Moved by Teslow and seconded by Meyers to approve the minutes of these meetings without correction. Motion carried unanimously. II. PETITIONS & REOUESTS: A. Hustad Office Site located south of 169 and north of Co. Rd. 1 at the old Larson property. This item was not on the agenda and no action was requested from the Planning Commission. The Planner explained that the use of the single family home as an office was being viewed as a temporary use on this site pending the completion of the airport study and land uses within that area surrounding Flying Cloud Airport. The changes proposed by Hustad Development Corporation to the building would be strictly interior and would be cleaning up and putting in a new drive for the site. Mr. Bonner • explained that the property is not requested to be rezoned to Office, but merely to remain under the Rural category with the understanding that a temporary office use would not establish a precedent for other use on that site, and no expansion of the existing facility would be permitted. Mr. Sorensen suggested that some agreement as to time should be worked out-that written notice would be given to change the. use, either by the Village or the developer - between the Village Attorney and the Hustad Development Corporation. The consensus of the Commission was that the use was appropriate on an interim basis without locking the Village or the private developer into a specified use at this time, and that no substantial additions should be made to the structure as an office use. B. Hipp's 2nd Addition, request for preliminary plat approval for 19 single family lots and 5 outiots in the Mitchell Heights P.U.D. located adjacent to Mitchell Road and south of Scenic Heights Road. This item was not listed on the agenda and was an addition- so that a public hearing on the preliminary plat may be held before the Council. • The Engineer's Report was summarized by the Planner with the recommen- dation that the preliminary plat be approved as submitted. It was noted that there is one less lot along Heather Avenue due to the geometries than was originally submitted in the P.U.D. and rezoning application. The plat corresponds to all the requirements for engineering and utilities required by the Village. Planning Commission Meeting -2- July 17, 1973 Meyers moved, Sorensen seconded to recommend to the Tillage Council approval of preliminary plat for Hipp's Mitchell Heights 2nd Addition • for the use of 19 single family lots and 4 outlots to be platted into town houses at a later date and 7 outlot C to be used for walkway purposes. . Motion passed unanimously. C. Mini Storage Industrial Warehousing Use, located on the Greguson Nursery property between new Highway 212 and old # 169, just north of Shady Oak Road. Mr. Bruce Hubbard, developer of the Mini Storage facility, presented the plan proposing individual storage facilities to be used by,residential homeowners for storage of furniture, snowmobiles, etc. and by commer- cial establishments that need additional storage space. He indicated that the demand for such facilities is materializing in the Metropolitan Area due to outside storage restrictions being established by various communities within residential areas and the demand for additional storage space for commercial uses. He indicated the buildings would have a storage base ranging from a minimum of 50 sq.ft. or 5x10 com- partment up. The rental would be a minimum of $12 per month for the 50 sq. ft. and would increase as the square footage required rose. He indicated the zoning of the property today was Rural on the north section and Highway Commercial on the south. He would be requesting • a rezoning to I2-Park for all of the property. The property to the north of this site bordering 212 is vacant land with the Eden House Restaurant and Motel. Adjacent to the south i.q the Wright Animal Hospital. Concern was expressed by the Planning Commission about the visual appearange of this site from new Highway 212, as it is the entrance to Eden Prairie, and from the surrounding land uses. The treatment of the building in terms of material and landscaping is extremely critical and it was requested that the developer provide more information relating to the building appearance as well as the views from off the site. Sorensen moved, Meyers seconded to refer this proposal to the Staff & asked the developer to work with the Staff to provide more information for the Commission by their next meeting. Motion passed urenirrously. D. Edenvale South P.U.D. of 200 acres located east of 169, north and south of the proposed East/West Parkway. Paul Jensen of Landmark Engineering presented a slide presentation illustrating the brochure and aerial and site slides. He.indicated that Eden Land Corporation was requesting P.U.D. Concept Plan approval and Rezoning Preliminary Plat approval for the 1st Phase, which is a • single family sub-division. Mr. Jensen outlined various physiographic considerations that were used in planning the potential uses as well as the more definite planning. The plan calls for a mix of housing types and land uses, from Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 17, 1973 Highway or Community Commercial use of 8.7 acres on the corner of 169 and the East/Udest Parkway with apartment multiple building types • adjacent to 169, single family smaller lots of approximately 11,OOOsq.ft. north and south of the East/West Parkway with condominium units over- looking the Lake Edenvale area. Through the center of the site would be a school park area of 24.5 acres and 7.4 acres south of the East/We st Parkway with some half acre lots and approximately 18 town house units proposed south adjacent to The Preserve area. VVithin the 200 acre P.U.D. a mix of housing from 10-15 units per acre apartment densities to low density single family on half acre lots would be possible. Mr. Don Peterson described the type of commercial use as one that would incorporate the residential units adjacent with a gas station, supermarket, small hardware, drug store, and office space on the 8.7 acre site. He indicated the proximity to the Vo-Tech School might indicate the development of a fast food restaurant at this location also. Questions were raised by the Commission about the proximity of this commercial use with The Preserve center located approximately z mile to the east on the East/'West Parkway and the Major Center Area with Homart Regional Shopping Mall and the Community Shopping Center located approximately 2 mile to the north. Another question was raised about the spreading out of commercial and office uses to intersections of major roads throughout the community. It was pointed out that the intent of the Major Center Plan and that of developing community or institutional centers such as The Preserve center or the Edenvale Shopping Center, office, church site as well as the proposed center such as in the Bluffs area was to group these facilities at definable locations and not put them on high volume roads that intersect with other community arterials. The question.of how the open space would be handled was addressed by Mr. Peterson when he indicated that the southern 7.4 acres of parkland, which is marsh property, would be dedicated to the Village. The 24.5 acre school/park area has approximately 12 acres owned by the School District today, which was a land swap with Eden Land Corporation and Edenvale. The remaining 12-13 acres would either be purchased by the Village or School District or dedicated by Eden Land Corporation if a school was developed. The exact transfer mechanism has not been determined. The large area of approximately 15 acres north is the site of Lake Edenvale or low marshy area. This land is not indicated as park nor open space in the plan but Mr. Peterson indicated that the intent would be to preserve that land as open space, dependent upon the storm sewer ponding areas and the land use surrounding it. No mechanism for conveying that property to the public has been suggested at this time, but should be discussed. • Other smaller open space areas such as the ponds and the sloping hill sides would be owned by the homeowner's association or in the single family areas, through easement arrangements. Mrs, Meyers asked what the provision for play areas would be in close proximity to the units, Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 17, 1973 and that it appeared the open space areas were really wetland areas, according to Mr. Jensen's slides. 'Mould the wetland areas be preserved • or would they be filled to createplay spaces. Mr. Peterson indicated that it was their intent to preserve the open space areas in their natural character and that play spaces would be provided in other areas. Mr. Jensen explained the single family plan, which would utilize smaller lots averaging about 31 , 000 sq.ft. of net area, or 14,000 sq.ft. if the quasi-public open space area were included. There was some concern about the heavy woods identified in the natural features inven- tory that was proposed as lots for the smaller single family home sites. There seemed to be concern about the ability to build on 11,000 sq.ft. lots with side yards of 5-15 ft. within such a heavily wooded area and in fact attempt to preserve the character of it. Mr. Peterson said that approximately z to 3/4 of the trees in this area would have to be taken down to build this development in the wooded area. Sorensen asked that the definition for the private open space should be sought so that public usage of some of these facilities would be possible. This was in agreement with the sector work for this area. The Edenvale South proposal was referred to the Park & Recreation Commission at their next meeting for recommendation, the Human Rights Commission, and to the Staff for a report and recommendation. • III. REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Sector Planning Bep_ort in The Preserve area. Discussion of the concept plan. Mr. Bill Bonner, planner for Hustad Development Corporation, presented a summary of work to date by the four developers - Olympic Hills, Preserve, Edenvale, and Hustad Development Corporation - regarding the frameworks for open space systems, road systems, and land use which they have put together. Mr. Bonner indicated that there were 3 easily definable areas: 1) to the west of Neill Lake; 2) from Purgatory Creek east to 18 and north of Co. Rd. 1; and 3) south of Co. Rd. 1 and north of Purgatory Creek. He indicated that the units per acre in all 3 of the areas was between 3.3 and 3 .8'units per acre. These unit per acre figures were computed with a variety, in that some included, for example, Olympic Hills Golf Course at 163 acres open space in that calculation with no public use of that property. The Planner indicated that the work that the developers had done would be of great help to the Staff and the Village Officials in making decisions on the specific development proposals presented and help to identify certain concerns which must be addressed. One would be the mechanism established to relate homeowner's associations or existing residential • areas with the new semi-public or public community facilities. For example, Jonathan and Chaska are having a problem in overuse of certain quasi-public facilities. Jonathan has issued a card identifying their residents so that they may discriminate against those not resi- dents of Jonathan. In this sector of the community with the large Planning Commission Minutes -S- July 17, 1973 Planned Unit areas, the ability to jointly utilize many of the quasi- public and public facilities is mandatory and, hence, a mechanism • should be established to work closely with these groups. Another concern was that of the provision of community facilities and their relationship with those of commercial. Mr. Hustad indicated that the institutional center idea of which the Preserve center, a new one located in southeastern Eden Prairie adjacent to new Co. Rd. 1, and one located in southwestern area across Purgatory Creek would satisfy many of the desires of the School District, the commercial, community service, and Village needs rather than scattering commercial/school sites throughout the community. The ability to get the interaction of a small town was felt to be valuable by this type of development. The question of how much open space is usable and to what use is it put must be answered as it relates to the total number of units proposed. For example, the Olympic Hills Golf Course now being fenced does not offer a great deal of use to those that are not members. Likewise, Purgatory Creek is a valuable open space resource but will not offer the active field game or major recreation spaces, and is rather a scenic and natural conservation amenity. Mrs. Meyers asked that we work with the individual developers to identify enough areas for active play space as well as a smaller scale recreation need for the community. She also wished to know where community park or open space uses may occur in this area. It was pointed out that with the problems in the • acquiring of funds for the Anderson Lakes Regional Park that the Moorings site is in doubt and that the high land prices requested by The Preserve may not permit public acquisition. Mrs. Meyers also questioned the small number of local collector or through-streets and would this overload those systems. Mr. Hustad responded that they did not want a large number of through streets through the residential areas and wished to discourage through move- ment, confining those movements to Co. Rd. 18 and #169 with westerly movements on Co. Rd. 1 and the East/West Parkway. Mr. Sorensen asked about the means of developing the institutional areas in that would the areas used by the public for schools, parks, etc. be dedi- cated by the developer or would the municipality be asked to purchase these at a later date. Mr. Hustad indicated there was no answer at this time and that they would be working closely with the Village, and School District in developing these centers. The Planning Commission referred this matter to Staff, Park and Recreation Commission, and Human Rights Commission for review and recommendations at their next meeting. B. Olympic Hills P.U.D. Presentation and discussion of the concept plan presented by Olympic Hills Golf Club. There was no representative of • Olympic Hills present at the meeting and the matter was continued until the next meeting, August 7 , 1973. Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 17, 1973 C. Prairie East, 100 acre Planned Unit Development by the Hustad Development Corporation for mixed residential development in south- eastern Eden Prairie. Mr. Bonner, planner for Hustad Development Corporation, briefly summarized the proposal as it was presented over a month ago to the Planning Commission. He indicated the various housing types of single family residential in the $50-$70,000 price range and the town house quadriminium units proposed by Don Hustad, architect, that would be in the upper $40-$50,000 price bracket. Other uses would be the terrace multiple condominium structures proposed on the Mill Creek site located in the northeastern corner of this site. These would be developed at a later date and the areas identified as higher density residential located in the southeastern area next to 98th Street's exten- sion and 18. Mrs. Meyers asked the question of the play spaces provided within the site. Mr. Bonner identified in the quadriminium site the tennis court, putting green, and swimming pools provided for those residents, but that these were not intended for the use of the single family areas. There was no play space provided outside of the greenways for the single family units and they would rely on the Village open space areas. The Planner asked Mr. Bonner, who deferred to Mr. Hustad, about the • provision of housing of a moderate price range. He noted that the pro- jects approved by the Hustad Development Corporation to date -- Creekwoods of $40-$60,000 homes, Mill Creek with $40-$50,000. town house units, Creek Knolls with $50-$100,000 home sites, and now Prairie East project with $50-$70,000 and $40-$50,000 units -- all seem to provide housing for the upper income families. Putnam questioned whether there were plans by Hustad Development Corporation to provide housing of a low and moderate income range within any of the projects within southeastern Eden Prairie, particularly in Prairie East or any of the projects now under construction. He noted that the Village policy as exercised with Edenvale and The Preserve was to . require those developments to provide in the initial phases housing for a wide range of incomes. In those two P.U.D.'s, the provision of federally subsidized 236 rental town house and apartment units was incorporated in the early stages of development. Likewise, moderate priced single family clustered home sites under $30,000 and in the mid-$30,000's are being provided in both Edenvale and The Preserve. The official Village policy is identified in the Housing Task Force document and calls for a provision of a wide housing range in all larger scale developments. Mr. Hustad was very sympathetic with the goals and objectives of the • community and participated heavily, he indicated, in formulating these objectives. He also indicated that he asked the Metropolitan Council to conduct a demonstration housing project over two years ago but was not accepted. He indicated that they viewed the southeastern area of Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 17, 1973 Eden Prairie in the Bluffs and The Preserve sector as being better ` suited for the upper income units because of the high amenities and • rolling terrain. He could not specify the timing nor the location of sites that would be available for low and moderate income housing within the Bluffs or Preserve sector area, but that the Hustad Development Corpo- ration would be open to provision of such units if suitable federal pro- grams or housing types are developed, but that at this time, there were no definite plans for incorporation of subsidized or low cost private market units. The Prairie East project was referred to Staff, Park and Recreation Commission, and Human Rights Commission for a report and recommen- dation at their next meeting. D. Masters Condominiums located in Edenvale west of the first fairway on the site of the existing Edenvale offices. Proposal for two 6-story "8 story" condominiums totaling 99 units. Mr. Weis, president of Weis Builders, Inc. , introduced a development team of Mr. A.T. Hanson and Mr. Forrest Russell, the site planners, and Mr. James Cooperman, architect, and Mr. Jim Barnes, attorney and partner in the project. Mr. Russell and Hanson presented the natural inventory of the site, stressing the importance of preserving the southerly hill where the Edenvale office is today with its natural oak • vegetation. They indicated they tried many alternate solutions for land use on that site from single family to modular housing to cluster to town house to conventional apartments and that the only way to utilize that site to get 99 units was through the medium rise structures being proposed. The developer indicated that the cost of building the medium rise buildings was not as advantageous as those of low rise construction but that the site dictated a special design type. The building type would be of pre-cast concrete panels with poured in place masonry concrete sonstruction and fireproof. The developer was asked about the provision of life safety features, such as sprinkler into the entire building. He responded that the cost would be $196, 000 more to do that rather than to put in the standpipe system. He then noted that the standpipe was included in that and that the differential between sprinkler and no sprinkler would be approximately $150,000 from his best estimate. Mr. Barnes pointed out that from a marketing standpoint the sprinklers would detract possibly $500 'from what they could sell the units for rather than add on in cost. Therefore, their feeling was that sprinkler inclusion in this building was not feasible. The provision of fire lane or access around the structure on what were identified as pedestrian trails -would seem to be possible if a 10 or 12 ft. pathway of suitable sub-grade was constructed. • The Commission members asked about the inclusion of the existing single family home now used as Edenvale's office as a single resi- dential unit and if this was appropriate. Mr. Don Peterson and Mr. Bill Simes from Eden Land indicated that it was a basically economic decision and that the value of that structure on that site would be too Planning Commission minutes -8- July 17, 1973 great to tear out. Also, to move the structure would require tree cutting and extensive regrading. The developer indicated that using that structure • as a recreation building would be unfeasible in that it was not connected to the condominium units and would receive use approximately only half of the year due to the weather and its location. Therefore, con- sidering the economics of it as well as its relationship to the site, the most logical use would be as a single family unit as a member of the condominium association. Certain questions were not answered related to the maintenance and ground care of that unit but would be addressed at a later date. Mr. Putnam asked that if it were truly an economic reason for leaving the house in constructing the 99 units, he wondered if at a price of approximately $2,000 per unit for 100 units that the land cost would be approximately $200,000 to the developer or profit for Eden Land Corpo- ration. If the property was used for single family detached homes of the expensive nature, would lot values of $15-$20,000 and 14 or 15 homes may be built on that site, that the profit to Eden Land Corporation would be between $200-$300,000 for the development of that land. He indicated the seeming inconsistency between the building type of 6-story or 8-story medium rise approximately 80 ft. from that of a single family residential unit, and that perhaps the alternate use of the site would be for other than 99 unit account. As he pointed out, the change in concept plan can be readily accommodated in that other sites in Edenvale have . been converted from multiple to commercial and from town house to single family with little difficulty. Mr. Peterson did not feel that single family would be appropriate on this site for two reasons: 1) it would destroy the site by requiring extensive grading and would probably permit only four single family homes to be built on the site; 2) the holding time for development of those units would not be consistent with the economic model for Eden Land Corporation. There was concern about the basic height of the structure in that in some areas it would be 8 or 9 stories tall and that this located outside of the Major Center Area may not be consistent with the development goals for Eden Prairie or Eden Land Corporation. The density of this site at approximately 13 units per acre would not normally be considered a medium or high rise density, rather a 2 and 3 story building type scale. There was great concern by the Commission members about the advis- ability of locating high rise structures, medium rise structures through- out the community and not confining them to the Major Center Area. Others on the Commission felt that the ability to develop with respect to the site was very important and that they were not sure of the posi- tive or negative points to developing higher buildings outside of the • Major Center Area. The project was referred to the Staff for a report with special emphasis on the fire safety provisions and alternate land use options. Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 17, 1973 E. Discussion of the tree cutting on the Hyde property in the Major Center Area and the new Land Alteration Ordinance. • Mr. Putnam briefly summarized the events as he understood them that led up to the removal of approximately 100 trees on the Feeders, Enc. property on the northwestern corner of the Eden Prairie Major Center Area south of Highway 212 and West 78th Street. The timing by the developer in cutting the significant trees of oak, elm, basswood was prior to the approval of the Major Center Area document and in direct conflict with the goals, objectives, and specific development plans for that area of the M.C.A. , as the developerwas well aware. Putnam pointed out on the plan submitted for the Hyde-Bermel-Teman properties by Barton-Aschman Associates of Minneapolis which indicated the on grading and tree cutting of the are which Mr. Hyde cut the trees and that the tree cutting though not suggested at this time by Barton- Aschman was consistent with the development plan which they presented to the Park and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission. The reasons for the submission were that the amount of fill required to develop the Highway Commercial use and residential pods in the flood plain would necessitate the mining and leveling of the hill on the north edge of the major west facing hill in the Major Center. The Village asked Jim Murphy from Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff to do a quick grading study of the Hyde property to determine if the necessary amount of fill to develop in the flood plain for the Hyde • property could be obtained by restricting grading to the north or the hill sloping down to West 78th Street which does not have major vege- tation and leaving intact the hill to the southwest where most of the trees were removed. His preliminary grading work indicated that approxi- mately 200,000 cubic yards of granular material could be graded from the Hyde property and utilized to build two pods in the flood plain as proposed in the Major Center Plan and the Bartca -Aschman plan without eliminating the trees and hillside as the Barton-Aschman proposal indi- cated. Mr. Putnam notes that he talked to Mr. Richard Podolske,planner with Barton-Aschman, and made him aware of the preliminary grading work which Howard, Needles completed and asked if this was consistent with their work. Mr. Podolske indicated that they did not do a detailed grading study but rather only two sections through the site with general estimates of the amount of material available. He also indicated that they were looking at using material from the Hyde property for the Teman and Bermel properties for fill, but that that fell through when the owners did not continue to work together. Putnam indicated that he felt that the consultant advice that Feeders, Inc. received was perhaps not as accurate as it should be and that the tree cutting was an undesirable result of the statements made by Mr. Podolske to the Park and Recreation Commission and Planning Commis- sion, that Hyde's property was undevelopable without mining that hillside and definitely contributed to his action of cutting the trees. It must be pointed out that the representatives for Feeder's, Mr. John ICeefe as an attorney and Barton-Aschman, did not recommend the tree cutting,as Mr: Hyde implemented his plan in a rather authoritarian way Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 17, 1973 without consideration of the Major Center Task Force planning or ' Village planning work. • The Planning Commission expressed a great deal of displeasure with this and felt that the emergency land alteration ordinance would be helpful on a temporary basis, but that more .exacting and definite ordinance should be constructed to deal with development and natural features in the municipality. F. Brief summary: Eckiund & Swedlund's Hidden Ponds concept sketch proposal and changes from the original P.U.D. and lotting concept. Putnam indicated the dredging and site work that wnet on without know- ledge of the municipality and without approval,and that the pond was dug where the 4 acre play field was to be. The plan which has now been revised maintains the pond leaves some of the areas in their natural form and also provides for a significant play area. The amount of open space is between 30 and 40 acres under the latest proposal, whereas before it was below 20 acres. The Commission agreed that this proposal was worthwhile pursuing and that zoning and preliminary plat work could proceed by the developer. IV. ADTOURNMENT. • The meeting adjourned at 12:3 0 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Wayne Brown Secretary Planning Commission August 7, 1973, meeting was cancelled due to the lack of a quorum of Commission members. •