Planning Commission - 02/13/1995 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 13, 1995
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy
Foote, Katherine Kardell, Douglas
Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary
Jane Wissner
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Matthew Mahoney
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner
Elinda Bahley, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The meeting was called to order at TQ p.m. by C'b-'r Katherine Kardell. All
members were present.
H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
• MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Sandstad, to approve the Agenda as
published. Motion carried 7-0-0.
M. MINUTES
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to approve the Minutes of
January 23, 1995 as published. Motion carried 7-0-0.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BOULDER RIDGE by Dennis Lunski. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 27.1 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review on 27.1 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5
on 11.40 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 3.8 acres and Preliminary
Plat of 27.1 acres into 39 lots and 2 outlots. Location: N. of Mitchell Road,
West of Boulder Pointe.
Franzen introduced Perry Ryan, representing Dennis Lunski, who will make a
brief presentation, after which Staff will review the Staff Report.
1
Perry Ryan, Engineering Consultant, reviewed his project with the Planning
Commission using visual aids. He noted that this development consists of 25
single and 14 twinhomes, with a gross density of 1.4 units per acre. He
discussed the concerns of residents that were raised at the neighborhood
meeting which are outlined in the letter from Mr. Scott Ross, the spokesperson
for the Association. At this time they have not made any modifications and
are looking for recommendations from the Planning Commission. The main
concern from the neighbors was maintaining the integrity and similar look of
the neighborhood on Boulder Pointe. The other concern was density of the
project and specifically lot frontages. He discussed the developer's views
regarding the pros and cons of twinhomes versus single family. He said the
construction of the twinhomes was not an issue by the residents. He noted that
the Staff Report reflects a tree loss of 58%, but their submittal to the City
calculated the tree loss at 27%.
Sandstad asked if they had anything from the City in writing regarding
agreement with the 27% tree loss. Ryan replied they do not.
Ryan noted that on the wetland setback issue, the difficulty is the location of
the road at the end of Boulder Pointe starting with the road at that location.
He does not believe that reducing the density on the site is necessary to meet a
30% tree loss. He stated that he would like the Planning Commission to
follow Mr. Franzen's first recommendation in the Staff Report.
• Foote expressed concern about the price of the homes. Ryan replied that the
twinhomes will start in the high 250's and in the mid 300's. The minimum
value of the single family homes will be in the high 380's.
Foote expressed concern about the homes adjacent to this project being
considerably lower in price.
Sandstad asked if there was any problem with aligning the new Boulder Pointe
Road to Cumberland as they intersect at Mitchell Road. Franzen replied that
Staff recommends that these intersections line up opposite each other.
Wissner expressed concern regarding the houses that will back up to Pheasant
Oaks, whether they will be one or two story homes. Ryan replied that the
first couple of lots coming into the development will be single family homes.
As you get to Lots #8, #9, #10, those will be walk-out homes, but they are not
sure if they will be two story or single story.
Wissner expressed concern about the first lot being 16,350 square feet, and
then it goes down to 13,500 on two lots and back up to 14,000. Ryan replied
that realistically it may not end up looking like that. He said the intent was at
• 2
• s
first to have more of a landscape buffer in there, possibly a monument, and
. that's why those lots are larger.
Clinton asked if a sight alignment for the intersection of Boulder Pointe Road
and Mitchell Road was done. Franzen replied that he and Staff members went
out in a vehicle at those intersections and looked to see how far they could see
in each direction around the curves in the road. He noted that you can not see
too well looking north or south at either of those intersections based on
existing conditions. Berming and landscaping on the proposed plan also
restricts sight vision distance. The intersections do not meet current standards.
Kardell noted that the preliminary grading plan has changed and the developer
is going to submit a more detailed grading plan, and asked if Staff has seen it.
Franzen replied that he has not.
Kardell noted to the developer that the Planning Commission will not be
inclined to.take action without final plans.
Wissner asked if there were any other developments where the Planning
Commission has gone with a 10 foot setback between buildings. Franzen
replied no.
Franzen reviewed the Staff Report with the Planning Commission. He noted
. that this is a site where the trees are concentrated. The homes are close to the
trees in those locations and that's probably the primary reason for the high tree
loss. Staff will not support a 10 foot setback between buildings, in the twin
home area. The storm water treatment pond, between the single family homes
and the twin homes, is not large enough to handle drainage from the twinhome
area. The last performance standard that has an impact on the project would
be the location of the road and the intersections with the streets. He noted
that the Staff Report was set up as an optional report and the Staff had
suggested a second alternative for revisions in the plan to reduce trees and
wetland impacts.
Scott Ross, 14898 Boulder Pointe Road, noted that he is the third lot west of
the proposed Boulder Ridge Development. He urged the Planning Commission
to adopt the second proposal on the Staff Report. He expressed concern about
the density of the overall site. He is concerned that if twinhomes are close
together you will not be able to see between them. He strongly urges the
removal of at least one twinhome building which allows spreading of the other
twinhomes on the property, and to diminish the tree loss in that portion of the
property, and maintain better setbacks from the wetland. He expressed concern
about the integrity of the homes appearing different in the neighborhood, and
urges removing some of the single family lots.
3
Foote asked if Ross has a problem with the twin homes except for the density
issue. Ross replied that it's a good way of developing the land, but he does have
reservations about it.
Warren Paschke, 14441 Village Woods Drive, noted that his home is just north
of Lot #13, on the corner of Village Woods and Mitchell. He said his home is
a relatively small home as compared to many in the area. He expressed concerns
about the size and the height of the homes that were going on Lot #11, #12, and
#13, and the prices of the homes as compared to the neighborhood. He is
concerned about the amount of grading that's going into those particular lots, and
what kind of view he is going to have.
Franzen noted that Boulder Pointe Road is going to sit about six to eight feet
below the grade of the back of Mr. Paschke's property line. He said if he was
looking out his back, he would be looking probably into the first floor of the
building.
Paschke expressed concern about which end of the development would they start
building at. Ryan replied more that likely it will be the western end of the
project.
Paschke asked if they anticipate any model homes in this development. Ryan
replied that he is not sure at this point.
• Eric Steeney, 15331 Boulder Pointe Road, expressed concern about twin homes
not preserving the character of the neighborhood, and urges the other option
besides the one expressed by Mr. Ryan.
Scott Harbell, 8697 Hiawatha, stated that his lot backs up to Lot#3 and#4, and
possibly #5. He expressed concern about the density and the prices of the new
homes, and does not believe those lots are worth $80,000. He said he is
concerned about not being able to sell Lots #4 through #13, coming back and
wanting doubles to go in when he does not feel doubles fit that whole area.
Referring to the cul-de-sac on Lot #4, he asked if the road would be roughly at
the top of the ridge as it stands now. Ryan replied that it falls a couple of feet
below the top of that ridge.
Tim Henneby, 8781 Boulder Rise, indicated where he lives on the map, and
expressed concern about the 58% tree loss and the over abundance of homes on
this property which does not fit the character of the neighborhood. He is
concerned about encroaching on the wetland area, and if the City is going to
lower their taxes for the loss and value of their view.
Kardell suggested keeping the twinhomes at a single story level to maintain the
view.
• 4
• •
Mary Rose Henneby, 8781 Boulder Rise, expressed concern about the land
across from Mitchell Road being dedicated as park land because it is a dangerous
spot for a park there.
Kardell noted that when they dedicate, it's usually part of the development. It's
not meant to be developed into a playground, but to remain in a natural condition.
Mary Rose Henneby asked if it would be possible to lower the density of the
twinhome area to move a double unit across the street to that park area. Kardell
replied that it probably would not be possible.
Dick Perrin, 8784 Boulder Rise, noted that he lives across from the Henneby's,
and concurred with Mr. Henneby's concern about the density.
David Welsh, 8797 Boulder Rise, expressed concern that the plans do not
include buffers which would screen the twinhomes from Mitchell Road. He noted
that according to the report, they are violating the site access for the driveway
which is indicative of the philosophy of trying to create more dollars on fewer
square feet.
John Smith, 14864 Boulder Pointe Road, expressed concern about the proposed
minimal view of the homes, and the high price tag of the homes. Regarding
elevation, he noted that the front exterior of the homes are acceptable, but what
• they would look from behind is not.
Lisa Steeney, 15331 Boulder Pointe Road, expressed concern about the speed
limits of this development regarding the safety issue of her three children. She
is also concerned with the density issue. She does not like twinhomes and would
like to see an alternative plan.
Eric Steeney asked who has first right of this property. Ryan replied that his
understanding is that Mason Homes never did have first right on that property,
but they lead people to believe that they did.
Sandstad expressed concern about the tree loss. He wants to see plans that show
something in the 25% range. He is concerned about the 30% slope on Lots #l,
#2, and #3 on both blocks 1 and 2. He commented about the intersection issues
and feels there has to be a better way to provide access. He would like to see the
storm water issues revised, and reduced density of block 3 in the twinhome area.
He noted that twinhomes in the area would be reasonable if the access is a little
more appropriate, and they have something similar to the typical distance between
buildings, rather than one on top of each other. He would like to see the
developer go back and work on these issues.
5
Foote noted that he concurred with all of Sandstad's concerns. He is not
comfortable with twinhomes in a single family home area, but it may work if the
density was lowered.
Schlampp expressed concern that the twinhomes are too high, and suggested
taking out at least two units.
Wissner stated that her first impression of this project was a 1950's layout. She
said that she would like to see a little more creativity on the property because it's
a unique piece and there is a need to lower the density because of trees loss and
wetland impacts.
Clinton expressed concern about the development being in close proximity to
Mitchell Road, and would like some creative thought put into redesigning it. He
said the redesign could be better. He supports reduction in the density for
twinhomes, as well as the single family homes, on Lots #1 and #2 on block 1 and
2. He also expressed a strong concern about the speeding limit not being strictly
enforced in that area and the dangers of it.
Bauer stated that he is not comfortable moving on at this point because there is
no plan confirming lower tree loss as stated by the developer. He noted that Lot
#3, block 3, is a total puzzle to him why units are so close together and yet tree
loss is 58%. He thought the density was too high.
• Kardell recommended this project be continued, and listed the issues that Sandstad
and the Planning Commission would like reviewed. They want confirmation of
tree loss, 30% or less. They want the builder to review the slopes and the trees
on Lot #1 and #2 on both block 1 and 2, also known as the "cliff lots." They
want the road intersection issues involving visibility of site lines worked out.
They want an appropriate storm water drainage solution, and a reduction in the
density of the twinhomes.
She noted that she personally has no problem with the twinhomes that are being
built because they are very lovely and well maintained. She would agree if the
developer indicates that they are willing to confirm that they will be single story.
She said that she concurs with the City policy of the 65 foot setback to the
wetlands. She also shares the concerns about the homes that back up to Pheasant
Run. She would like it if they do not have three stories towering over the homes.
Sandstad stated that he can not agree to that condition on the motion because they
have single family adjacent to single family. He noted that Lots #12 and #13 are
substantially below the grade of the existing homes. He does not see any need
to change anything there. He doesn't like adding restrictions as to building color
or building height, and things of that nature.
6
4
Wissner stated that aesthetically it would just be overwhelming if the twinhomes
were not single story, because of the high density. Reduced density to meet
setbacks and reduced tree loss make it a better place.
Sandstad said that they don't have any policy ordinances to get involved.
Foote noted that these houses will be a lot larger than the ones in Pheasant Oaks
and would like to see them made smaller, but they don't have an ordinance to do
that.
Franzen noted that the City can't require single family zoning district to have
restrictions on the height less than allowed by code. He referred to the Hartford
project last summer where the developer agreed to single story, but it was all
voluntary on his part. The only way this can be done is if the developer agrees
to this as part of the public hearing. Otherwise it's standard two story walkout.
Foote asked if the developer is willing to do that. Ryan replied that Mr. Lunski
was unable to attend so he can not answer that.
Bauer suggested continuing this for 30 days.
Ryan noted that he strongly urges the Planning Commission to have it continued
for two weeks.
• Bauer suggested continuing for 30 days, but if an item drops off at the next
meeting they can accommodate him. Franzen replied that they must know now
which date because they have to give the residents notice tonight of when this
project will be scheduled again.
MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Foote, to continue to the March 13,
1995 meeting in 30 days. Motion carried 7-0-0.
B. BEARPATH CLUBHOUSE by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 435 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 10.2 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the
Rural Zoning District on 10.2 acres and Site Plan Review on 10.2 acres.
Location: 18100 Bearpath Trail.
Franzen stated that in 1992, the City Council approved the Bearpath Planned Unit
Development. Approximately 10 acres of the total 435 acres was designated as
a clubhouse area. The City Council granted Council approval for a 35,000
square foot building, approximately 200 parking spaces, three tennis courts and
a pool. Specific plans for the building architecture, storm drainage utilities,
landscaping, etc., were not available at that time so site plan approval was not
7
• •
granted. The City did review a detailed tree inventory and concept grading plan
to calculate tree loss as part of the overall tree loss calculation for the
development.
Franzen introduced John Vogelbacher, representing Bearpath, who will make a
brief presentation, after which Staff will review the Staff Report.
John Vogelbacher reviewed his project with the Planning Commission. He noted
that the primary issue that they came up against for this particular site was trying
to preserve the trees on this site. Tim Johnson and Greg Kellenberger, landscape
architects, are hear to answer any questions regarding landscaping issues and tree
preservation. Based on the trees they have planted on the site for tree
preservation, they are exceeding their requirements.
Tim Johnson, landscape architect, reviewed what will be in the clubhouse
including a pro-shop facility and formal dining rooms.
Wissner asked what the buildings are out by the tennis courts and the swimming
pool. Johnson replied that they are out buildings and there will be locker rooms
for both men and women.
Greg Kellenberger, landscape architect, stated that he does not see many changes
on the site plan but quantities will stay the same. He commented on the issue of
• overall site tree replacement inventory, noting that over 9000 trees have been
moved and planted. They have planned the clubhouse plans to show a total of
about 218 caliber inches for tree replacement in the near future.
Franzen stated that Staff recommends approval according to the recommendations
on page 4 of the Staff Report. He noted that there is a waiver for an additional
monument sign and additional total square footage above the code, a total of
36.17 square feet, but it is a relatively small amount of sign for a 435 acre
project.
Bauer said that this is a first class project all the way and he supports the plan.
Foote stated that this is going to be a beautiful building and supports the plan.
Clinton noted that he supports the project.
Wissner said that she supports the plan and has no problem with the signage
change. She asked if they are going to eventually put fencing in where the plant
material fencing is. Vogelbacher replied that once it fills in there will be rubber
coated wire spread throughout. It will be hidden within the hedge itself and all
you will see is a very full hedge.
8
• •
. Sandstad said that the clubhouse looks good and he supports it.
MOTION 1: Foote moved, seconded by Schlampp, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 7-0-0.
MOTION 2: Foote moved, seconded by Schlampp, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Bearpath Limited Partnership for Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 435 acres, Planned Unit Development District
Review on 10.2 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Rural Zoning District
on 10.2 acres and Site Plan Review on 10.2 acres based on plans dated February
10, 1995, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February
10, 1995. Motion carried 7-0-0.
C. BRYANT POINTE TWO by Dean Holasek. Request for Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5, and Preliminary Plat of 1.15 acres into 2 lots and
road right-of-way. Location: Rowland Road and Orchard Hill.
Dean Holasek, owner, reviewed his project with the Planning Commission. He
noted that his parents lived there and recently have passed away.
Wissner stated that she is surprised that there are no objections from the
neighborhood.
• Foote referred to a house on the property and asked what was going to happen
to it. Holasek replied that it will be moved.
Kardell noted that it must be graded down, and a retaining wall must be put in
next to the lot.
Franzen reviewed the Staff Report with the Planning Commission. Staff
recommends approval based on the recommendations on the last page of the Staff
Report.
Sandstad noted that it looks good and he supports the plan.
Clinton also was surprised that there were no objections from the neighborhood.
MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 7-0-0.
MOTION 2: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Dean Holasek for Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-13.5 based on plans dated January 13, 1995, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 10, 1995. Motion carried
. 9
7-0-0.
MOTION 3: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Dean Holasek for Preliminary Plat on 1.15
acres based on plans dated January 13, 1995, and subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated February 10, 1995. Motion carried 7-0-0.
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
Sandstad stated that he has enjoyed being on the Planning Commission for the
past six years. He would like to see the Planning Commission meetings broadcast
on cable TV. The community would probably learn more by watching these
meetings than the City Council meetings. He would also like to see the youth
member given the right to vote.
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
None.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
Kardell noted that the City Council has decided that the Planning Commission
needs to appoint two members to the Committee to Evaluate Tree Replacement
Ordinance. The recommendation is for two regulars and two alternates. She
noted that at this time there are four members pending the outcome of the
selection process of the Commission members; Sandstad, Foote, Schlampp and
Kardell.
Schlampp suggested selecting a developer to be on the committee so that they
have both ends of the spectrum.
Sandstad suggested someone from the Builder's Association to be asked, and the
youth member to be on the committee because he would make it an odd number.
Kardell recommended Sandstad as a citizen member if he is not reappointed.
VIH. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Franzen reviewed the upcoming projects for the February 27, 1995 meeting.
He noted that in April there will be a couple of potential affordable housing
projects coming up. One is over between the miniature golf course and the post
office. The other one is a project that didn't make it to the Planning Commission
10
• •
last year. It's on the north side of Valley View Road across from where Eden
Prairie Ford parked their cars.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton, to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 7-0-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
11
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, February 13, 1995
.7:00 P.M.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Katherine Kardell,
Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Matthew Mahoney
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL
H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. MINUTES
W. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BOULDER RIDGE by Dennis Lunski. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review
on 27.1 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 27.1 acres, Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 11.40 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 3.8 acres
and Preliminary Plat of 27.1 acres into 39 lots and 2 outlots. Location: N. of Mitchell Road,
• West of Boulder Pointe.
B. BEARPATH CLUBHOUSE by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 435 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.2
acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Rural Zoning District on 10.2 acres and Site Plan
Review on 10.2 acres. Location: 18100 Bearpath Trail.
C. BRYANT POINTE TWO by Dean Holasek. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural
to R1-13.5, and Preliminary Plat of 1.15 acres into 2 lots and road right-of-way. Location:
Rowland Road and Orchard Hill.
V. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
•