Loading...
Planning Commission - 06/24/1996 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 24, 1996 7:00 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBER: Michael Franzen, City Planner Scott A. Kipp, Planner I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE--ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. KOPESKY ADDITION by Wayne Kopesky. Request for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5.32 acres and Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres into 13 lots. Location: West 82nd Street. B. RILEY CREEK RIDGE by Hustad Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 62.77 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 62.77 acres,Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 on 62.77 acres, Preliminary Plat of 62.77 acres into 138 lots. Location: South of Pioneer Trail, West of Eden Prairie Road. C. EDEN PRAIRIE RETAIL(OFFICE DEPOT) by CSM Corporation. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public to Regional Commercial, Zoning District Change from Public to Commercial Regional Service, Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat on 4.38 acres. Location: Leona Road and Hwy 169. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT APPROVED'MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION June 24, 1996 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht,Ismail Ismail,Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad,Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen,City Planner Alan Gray, City Engineer Elinda Bahley,Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Clinton and Sandstad were absent; all other members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Wissner, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -JUNE 10, 1996 MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Habicht, to approve the Minutes of the June 12,-1996 Eden Prairie Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 4-0-1 with one abstention by Kardell. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. KOPESKY ADDITION by Wayne Kopesky. Request for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5.32 acres and Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres into 13 lots. Location: West 82nd Street. Franzen gave some background information on the project, explaining it's a standard single family subdivision with no variances,no drainage problems, no tree loss, and no wetland fill. The developer presented the plans for the site. Utilities will be provided. She explained the pond was redesigned since the wetland was delineated. Approximately two thirds of the storm sewer water will be piped into a pond located in the northwest corner of the property. • Planning Commission Monday, June 24, 1996 She explained there are two grading plans, one off-site to the east which would eliminate some steep grading that exists there between the property. The other grading plan submitted shows all the grading on the site. The owners would like to pursue the off-site grading plan. They are negotiating with the property owners to the east to transplant some existing evergreen trees on the site. The owners are seeking approval of both plans in case negotiations fail. Habicht was concerned about the grading differences. Jennifer indicated it's a 2:1 slope existing right on the property line. There is quite a bit of difference in elevation. It would make the transition more gradual. Franzen indicated the number of lots remains the same regardless of what grading plan is chosen. Staff is comfortable with either grading alternative provided they are able to obtain permission from adjoining property owners. Ifthe grading is done within the property,there will be fewer walkouts. Staff recommends approval with the two conditions listed in the Staff Report. Kardell asked if the City Forester only looked at the evergreen trees,or did he also look at the trees on the adjacent eastern property. Franzen indicated the City Forester looked at all trees within the confines of the property. He had both sets of grading plans to review. Kardell was concerned about having an agreement in writing. Franzen explained the staff will require a written agreement Foote opened the Public Hearing. Greg ( ), 18015 Clear Spring Lane, indicated his home is north of the eastern grading location, and was concerned about the overwhelming amount of water that will be on his property. He commented that the Kopesky's were very cordial and good to work with. Scott Heckman, 17737 Cascade Drive,indicated he is in the process of having a home built on Cascade Drive. There are a number of trees behind his site which is one of the reasons he bought this lot. He was concerned about the removal of these trees while he is waiting for his home to be built. No one has approached him about the grading plans and he would like to have a chance to look them over. • 2 Planning Commission • Monday, June 24, 1996 Kathy( ), 17701 Cascade Drive,noted she is also in the process of building a home on Cascade Drive and was also concerned about the grading plan and the transplanting of trees on her property. Paul( ), 17773 Cascade Drive,indicated most of the homes on his street do not have their sod in yet. He just planted seven trees and retaining walls and was concerned that the grading plan would remove everything he just did. He would also like to be notified about these plans. Kardell encouraged Mr. Kopesky and his consultants to let Orrin Thompson know they have to let these homeowners know what's going on the property behind them. Mr. Chin, 17713 Cascade Drive,was concerned about loosing the trees on his property as a result of the grading plan. He was also concerned about who will be responsible for the cost of the transplanting and any drainage problems as a result of the grading plan. He would like some type of agreement in writing. Jennifer indicated Mr.Kopesky will be taking on the cost of the tree planting and the cost of the all the grading. She does not believe the grading will effect the drainage in any way. Kardell noted this area has drainage problems and was concerned about future problems. Wayne Kopesky,owner,indicated his intent is to produce an environment that will be much more palatable than what exists there today. His intent is to also work with all the present and future homeowners on the property. They will be happy to build retaining walls or do whatever possible to save as much trees as possible. Ismail asked how many homes will be effected. Kopesky indicated there are currently seven homes that will be along the east side that will be effected with this project. They will have to have approval from everyone to go ahead with the project to grade it and put a double row of trees for screening at his cost. He believes it would be fair to supply the trees at no cost to the individuals on the north end but share in the cost of transplanting them at$100 a tree. This will all be in writing. Janet Lee, Clear Spring Road,indicated she is one of the owners to the north. There is a pond south of her home. She thought the double row of trees will be beautiful but was concerned about the second row of trees being too close • 3 Planning Commission • Monday, June 24, 1996 to the pond because it's very hard to determine. Franzen indicated the best way is to stake where that pond will be. Habicht commented it's a nice project with a lot of symmetry. Off-site grading is a good plan which will provide transition from the subdivision to the other. He recommends the project with the revision that they have the consent of the lot owners on the east side. Kardell concurred. She was concerned about the residents being adequately informed and supports the revision. MOTION 1: Kardell moved, seconded by Habicht, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION 2: Kardell moved, seconded by Habicht, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Wayne Kopesky for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5.32 acres into 13 lots based on plans dated June 21, 1996,and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 21, 1996 with the provision attached that there be a written instrument between the seven east adjacent property owners and Mr. Kopesky with respect to both tree replacement and grading plan for each of those lots. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION 3: Kardell moved, seconded by Habicht, to recommend to the City.Council approval of the request of Wayne Kopesky for Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres based on plans dated June 21, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 21, 1996 as supplemented. Motion carried 5-0: B. RILEY CREEK RIDGE by Hustad Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept review on 62.77 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 62.77 acres,Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 on 62.77 acres, Preliminary Plat of 62.77 acres into 138 lots. Location: South of Pioneer Trail, West of Eden Prairie Road. Beth Simenstad, representing the developer, reviewed her development proposal with the Commission. This project is a combination of seven separate property owners that have come together and there will be 138 single family lots. It has two phases but are only concerned with the first phase at this point. Phase one has 35 proposed lots. • 4 • Planning Commission Monday, June 24, 1996 She reviewed the request for frontage waivers in order to provide some kind of variety within a project that is all single family. They are attempting to provide smaller lots in order to allow homes to start in the $180,000 to $200,000 range. Tree loss is 52%overall,but would be less than 30%if it were not for the loss of a shelterbelt planted years ago by the owner. She addressed the concerns of the residents regarding storm water runoff and current drainage problems along the hilltop. She indicated that installing a storm system in this project would alleviate some of those issues. Franzen reviewed the Staff Report with the Commission. The key issue for the Planning Commission was if there was a benefit to the City by granting the waivers for smaller lots and street frontages. The proposal is similar to Fairfield(1988)by Centex Homes with a mixture of small and large lots. In 1988 the small lots were used so that homes could start at $150,000. The homes will start at$180,000 in this project. ' • Part of this site is in the Airport B Zone. MAC has indicated they will purchase the property after the EIS is completed and if the airport is expanded. The approval of this project may prompt MAC to consider purchasing the B Zone now. The B Zone does not legally exist but is part of a Joint Zoning Board which has not been established. The Joint Zoning Board requires City involvement. The City told MAC it would not participate and MAC has not pushed the issue. He reviewed the two phase drainage plan. There is a temporary pond south of phase one which would capture storm water runoff from that phase until the balance of the property is developed. The Parks and Recreation Department recommended a five foot wide concrete sidewalk and an eight foot wide bituminous trail to be built along either side of the main residential collector streets in phase one and two. Staff recommended road connections because they are needed to distribute traffic more evenly within the project and the surrounding areas including emergency vehicles. Staff recommends approval subject to the recommendations in the Staff Report. • 5 • Planning Commission Monday, June 24, 1996 Kardell referred to the HPC's recommendation and was concerned about the timing. Franzen explained the historic issue indicating that prior to the City Council the HPC would make a recommendation about Eden Prairie Road. Kardell asked if there has been any discussion with the proponent about an easement on the open space to protect the back of those lots that back up to the creek. Franzen indicated there would be a conservation easement on lots with trees. Kardell was concerned about whether or not the City will require them to have an architectural diversity of homes like they did in the Fairfield project. Franzen indicated this will be required. Wissner asked if the developer had considered doing "cottage homes" or a single level home between $140,000 and $160,000 for "empty nesters". Simenstad commented they looked at a product that was available in Maple Grove. Wissner stated that when she saw how small the lots were she believed it . would be a good place for"cottage homes" so they would have a diversity of ages in the development. She does not believe the homes will sell at$180,000 there was no justifications for the waiver, and there are not enough homes of a lower cost to be a benefit to the City. Foote opened the public hearing. Dave Rasmussen, 16275 Valley View Road,urged the Planning Commission to send the plan back to the developer to retain the character of the neighborhood. They purchased their home because of the rural character and are opposed to the removal of the cul-de-sacs. He was concerned about the safety of children and the increase in crime without cul-de-sacs. He believes the safety of the children outweighs the convenience for emergency vehicles. Bill Bearman,9630 Eden Prairie Road, expressed concern about the grading plan effects on Eden Prairie Road because of the site lines. He noted that the guide plan allows up to 2.5 acres per unit but that doesn't mean they have to max out the number of units per acre. He was also concerned about the plan during construction to protect Riley Creek. Bob.Becker, 16597 Kenning Road,noted he would be the recipient of all the headlights that come out on Pioneer Trail. He expressed concern about the • 6 Planning Commission Monday, June 24, 1996 increase in traffic and about the number of exits and entrances. He suggested creating a right turn lane on the north side of Pioneer Trail. He commented that this project being built along the airport line is misleading. Bill Schiebler, 16749 Pioneer Trail, noted he bought five acres of land included in the phase one development part of this plan and complimented everyone he has worked with. He believes he has the longest standing building permit on record for the City of Eden Prairie. He was concerned that he may possibly effect every person sitting in the room. He's not privy_to the number of ordinances or the date that it was enacted, but it was his understanding that in the late 1970's an ordinance was enacted by Eden Prairie prohibiting expansion northwest of the airplane strip at Eden Prairie Airport. This would then effect this development. He described the road to the west of the end of the runway noting that it needs a tremendous amount of fill. He was concerned about the draining conditions. He asked if Staff could find out the name and date of the ordinance, and how it's going to effect everyone. It is his understanding that if they are going to expand and supersede the ordinance existing,they would . have to have public referendum to be able to establish this. His concern is that no one has been notified about any of this. Franzen commented the ordinance is number 51 of the weight restriction ordinance. Staff will check this out further. Susan Howe, 16380 Valley View Road, expressed concern about the increase demand and the open space in the park with all these people. She was concerned that this development does not include any park within for children to play. She referred to the report from the Minnesota Land Trust involving the cost of community services. They did a study and determined that the cost of services for developing all this land is greater than the amount of property tax revenue that will come in. She was concerned that this would put.a greater tax burden on the City. She would rather see the airport expansion go through and have the traffic overhead than all this additional traffic from the project and pay$20,000 on top of that. Three years ago she put in a brand new well and septic system and was concerned that it may have to be removed. George Lundin, 16403 Valley Road, noted he owns three and half acres adjoining this property that Hustad is trying to develop. He would rather not 7 Planning Commission Monday, June 24, 1996 see the development take place. He would like to see a plan that would include the large landowners so they don't have much impact from this development. He was concerned that his taxes are going to be so high that he will not be able to afford to live there. Robert Danielson, 16333 Valley Road,noted the development being proposed is at the back part of his property. He expressed concern that after this project is approved, Hustad Land Company does not go away and he will remain with his property without access from the back and no way to develop it. He would lice to see some way to incorporate his property into the current phase of development. A resident residing at 16481 Hilltop Road, was concerned that this development is being considered in phases instead of all at once. Susan Clark, 16501 Hilltop, was concerned about the increase in traffic because her street is more narrow than the average street. She was also concerned about the dangers on the street. There was concern about added cost to the residents if the sidewalk has to be widened. The sewer, the widening of the road, and the increased traffic is not a benefit for her. Foote recapped the concerns as stated by the residents. Speed issues and traffic issues are always a problem not only with this development. He would like to see the ordinance concerning the airport expansion if one exists. Franzen commented regarding the airport expansion,he will have to research this item and get back to the Planning Commission. He explained how they develop adjacent to creeks and lakes has changed in the last five or six years. He discussed the reason for two phases instead of one for developing this site indicating it has to do with the way the property is served by sewer. Staff did not receive a recommendation from the Park and Recreation Department about open space on the property. He reviewed the sidewalk,trail and road system to be put in on the property. He also discussed the ways to improve the storm drainage system. He explained what would happen if the road connections took place and the impacts on the neighborhood versus cul-de- sacs. Staff will ask for barricades during construction. Gray reviewed the street connections proposed and commented he predicts seeing in the long term, a much different balance of traffic at the intersection of County Road 1 and 4 in the morning and evening rush hour as Eden Prairie develops. They will see the intersection upgraded to four lanes. The City can 8 Planning Commission Monday, June 24, 1996 live with cul-de-sacs but some back connections are important in terms of emergency vehicles and squad cars especially during rush hour. Staff sat down with public safety people and they favor road connections which will help the squad cars. Habicht expressed concern about connecting to Hilltop Road and Valley Road. The through roads would not go through on Valley Road or Hilltop Road until the improvements were made to those roads. Al Gray, City Engineer concurred. Gray noted they have not made a final decision to the extent of the gravel road. Gray added that making a physical connection to Valley Road and Hilltop Road could be made when those roads are upgraded. Habicht was also concerned that the accesses were too close together at 200 to 250 feet. Gray explained it's a workable separation for the most part and explained why. Kardell commented the preservation of the creek area and open space is largely a positive. She is not an advocate of a city full of cul-de-sacs. The many street connections proposed is positive in theory and provides a better distribution of the traffic throughout the neighborhood. The improvement in the area overall regarding the storm drainage issues seems to be positive. She is not in favor of approving waivers on lots for homes that today are being told will sell for $180,000 to $200,000 when reality says they will wind up costing$225,000. She mentioned she drove to Hilltop Road and Valley Road and was concerned that those roads are not terribly conducive to traffic. Habicht was concerned about the gravel road and believes it's pliable to get the housing prices down without waivers. He would rather not set a precedent regarding waivers. He was concerned about the proximity to parks from this development. Franzen noted where the future parks and trails are located according to the Comprehensive Parks and Open Space Plan. Ismail commented he is not comfortable with the project and concurred with Kardell's summary. He was uncomfortable with the density. He believes the project is being rushed a little bit and recommends a continuance. Wissner noted she is not comfortable with the waiver issue and would like it reexamined. Franzen stated that the question is should the lot on the south side of Valley Road be combined and included as part of the application in the application for the zoning and platted property. He does not believe the City can require the developer to include adjacent property in the subdivision. Staff can certainly have the developer and City Staff look at multiple ways in which the 9 Planning Commission Monday, June 24, 1996 lots off Valley Road could be developed with or without the property. Foote commented he is in favor of road connections and no variances. MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Habicht,to continue for two weeks to the July 8th meeting. Motion carried 5-0. C. EDEN PRAIRIE RETAIL (OFFICE DEPOT) by CSM Corporation. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public to Regional Commercial, Zoning District Change from Public to Commercial Regional Service, Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat on 4.38 acres. Location: Leona Road and HWY 169. Gary Tushie, architect, reviewed the development proposal with the Commission. He reviewed the overall site plan. The parking lot can be used by the liquor store. The plan showed a landscape buffer that goes around the perimeter of the site. This is a combination of the evergreen trees, shrubs, and deciduous trees. There are two entrances on the development. The loading dock is enclosed with a roof over it which is very similar to the Lunds Food loading dock. The sidewalk would be continuous all the way down to the smaller shop space. He reviewed the building elevations and showed the actual brick samples. Ismail asked about a time frame. David Carland replied they hope to start demolition of the existing church late Spring and have a building ready for occupancy in early Fall of 1997. Wissner referred to the landscaping plan and asked what the green is behind the Office Depot. Tushie noted it's proposed grass space. Ismail was concerned about the screening for mechanical equipment. Tushie replied there is screening for the mechanical equipment. Franzen noted that Staff recommends approval according to the recommendations on page 3 and 4 of the Staff Report. One change made is to relocate the pylon signs to meet the space distance between the signs and the setbacks from the public road. There is adequate room on the property to make that requirement. Habicht expressed concern about the pond on the west side of the property. Tushie indicated this pond does adequately handle runoff. He wasn't sure • 10 Planning Commission Monday, June 24, 1996 what the actual amount of storm water is that it's designed to handle. Franzen commented there are requirements in the City Code to require the treatment of the storm water before it leaves the property. Staff knew in advance that because of the ways of the natural divided property,they would end up with a couple of ponds on the property. This pond would be on private property and the owner would be responsible for maintaining that pond. Gray explained that the sidewalks that look like they are at the edge of the pond would be separated by about 15 feet. He explained the design of it and why it works. Ismail asked for the church's opinion. Becky Lennon responded they are very pleased with their progress and happy that they are able to occupy their present site. Wissner was concerned about the safety issues and asked if there is going to be turn signals at the intersection. Gray indicated they look at the accident • data on a regular basis and every intersection along HWY 169 has had an accident. No single intersection has popped up having a higher accident rate than another. He noted he would research this further. Foote asked if there will be a traffic light on the road coming out of Eden Prairie Center from Cub Foods. Gray noted it depends on traffic volume. The four-way stop'works well at this time. Foote opened the public hearing. Jim ONea President of ONeill Group representing building owners at 7901, commented they are all in favor of the project but they have concerns about the traffic. Gray discussed the traffic issues including the trips generated noting it will add some traffic to the area. The church only generates traffic typically evenings and weekends. MOTION 1: Habicht moved, seconded by Wissner, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION 2: Habicht moved, seconded by Wissner,to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of CSM Corporation for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public to Regional Commercial, Zoning District • 11 Planning Commission Monday, June 24, 1996 Change from Public to Commercial Regional Service on 4.19 acres and Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat on 4.38 acres based on plans dated May 28, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 21, 1996. Motion carried 5-0. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS None. VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None. VII. NEW BUSINESS Ismail referred to the Minutes of the May 28, 1996 City Council Meeting noting that they gave a decision based on the study of land development. Kardell commented this was done in a workshop. Franzen stated this reference was to the development scenarios for the rest of the communities at different densities to show tax/service • implications for budgeting purposes. VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen reviewed the different projects for July and August. Kardell noted she would be out of town on July 8th. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Wissner,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. 12