Planning Commission - 12/09/1991 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COAINHSSION
onday, December 9, 1991
30 P.M.
CONEVIISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Charles Ruebling,Tim Bauer,Robert Hallett,Karen Norman,
Doug Sandstad, James Hawkins and Katherine Kardell
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don
Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
H. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES .
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. TACO BELL (91-27-SPR) by Taco Bell Corporation. Request for Site Plan Review
within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 0.56 acres with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals for construction of a restaurant to be known as Taco Bell. Location:
Joiner Way, south of Goodyear Tire.
B. RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS (91-35-PUD-Z-P) by Hustad Homes and Robert and James
Brown. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 65 acres; Planned
Unit Development District Review with waivers on 65 acres; Zoning District Change
from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 5.7 acres; Zoning District Amendment within the R1-22
District on 5.0 acres; Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-44 on 15.7 acres;
Preliminary Plat of 65 acres into 34 single family lots, 3 outlots and road right-of-way
to be known as Riverview Heights. LOCATION: South of Riverview Road, east of
Riverview Drive East. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1991 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive'Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, James Hawkins, Katherine Kardell,
Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad.
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary
ROLL CALL: Ruebling, Hawkins, and Kardell absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Hallett moved, seconded by Bauer to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0-0.
H. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Hallett moved, seconded by Norman to approve the Minutes of the November 25, 1991 Planning
Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 3-0-1. Bauer abstained.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. TACO BELL (91-27-SPR) by Taco Bell Corporation. Request for Site Plan Review
within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 0.56 acres with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals for construction of a restaurant to be known as Taco Bell. Location:
Joiner Way, south of Goodyear Tire. (A continued public hearing)
Franzen reported that the proponent was looking at this site further and was also looking
at other possible sites. The proponent will return to the Planning Commission with a
plan for this site or another site after the first of the year.
MOTION•
Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to close the public hearing and return the item to the
Developer, without prejudice. Motion carried 4-0-0.
Planning Commission
December 9, 1991 Page 2
Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to close the public hearing and return the item to the
Developer, without prejudice. Motion carried 4-0-0.
B. RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS (91-35-PUD-Z-P) by Hustad Homes and Robert and James
Brown. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 65 acres; Planned
Unit Development District Review with waivers on 65 acres; Zoning District Change
from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 5.7 acres; Zoning District Amendment within the R1-22
District on 5.0 acres; Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-44 on 15.7 acres;
Preliminary Plat of 65 acres into 34 single family lots, 3 outlots and road right-of-way
to be known as Riverview Heights. Location: South of Riverview Road, east of
Riverview Drive East. (A public hearing)
Wallace Hustad introduced Bob Brown and Randy Hedlund who would also be available
for questions on the project. Hustad stated that the property along Riverview Road had
been platted R1-22 in 1954. The property did not have sewer or public utilities
available. The original plan was for 5 to 6 acre lots without city sewer or water. The
homes be high-end single family with a transition from Bluffs West and Bluffs 5th
Addition. The interior of the project is currently zoned R1-22 with the lots along the
river being zoned for acre lots. The overall density of the project with 33 lots is 1.5
units per acre. Hustad noted that the maximum grade was approximately 8% with a
gradual sloping to the river. The road location had been changed from the original plan
due to the steep grade. A private trail system would be created for the 33 homeowners
and a public trail would also be provided to connect with the Eden Prairie trail system.
Hustad stated that a park area would be dedicated to the City.
Sandstad asked if the 75 foot easement would contour along the river. Hustad replied
yes. Hustad added that the 17 acres of park land would be dedicated to the City above
and beyond the 75 foot easement along the river. Hustad noted that some excavation
around a small inlet could be necessary to prevent the inlet from just becoming a
mudhole. He added that the proponent would like to fill in the inlet.
Hallett asked if the City would be guaranteed a trail whether the inlet was filled in or
not. Franzen replied that he would need to consult with Bob Lambert but believed that
the trail was wide enough to allow for a trail if the area was filled in or not. Hustad
added that this issue also needed to be discussed with the DNR and Watershed District.
Hustad concluded by stating that the homes would have varying price ranges with the
majority of them being in the higher range.
Planning Commission
December 9, 1991 Page 3
Randy Hedlund, representing the proponent, stated that this project had been in the works
since 1988. The major problem on the project was the grade. An alternate access and
platting of the property was necessary to allow the road to be constructed within the City
grade requirements. Hedlund noted that the proponent was very aware that this was a
sensitive area for development and, therefore, had reduced the number of lots from 40
to 33. He added that the proponent had also tried to limit the amount of grading needed
in order to allow for the preservation of the natural areas. Hedlund stated that individual
site grading plans would be done on the R1-44 lots at building permit request time.
Approximately 40% of the property would be mass graded to provide for the
development and roadway construction. Hedlund stated that the City had been concerned
about access to the property to the east of the proposed development and had, therefore,
an access has been provided. The road was shifted approximately 25 feet to the east to
save the oak trees. Hedlund noted that it was not necessary to disturb the R1-44 lots as
much for grading as the R1-22 lots. The proponent proposed to locate the N.U.R.P.
ponds within the floodplain if State approval was received. If approval was not received
the N.U.R.P. ponds would be located on lot 19, reducing the number of developable lots
to 32. Hedlund noted that nothing could be built below the 722 floodplain area.
Sandstad asked if there would be periodic flooding in the dedicated park area. Hedlund
replied that the water did not go much above the 705 elevation. Sandstad asked Staff if
they had any history of flooding in this area. Franzen replied that the 1965 flood was
a 100 year storm event with an elevation of the river at 722.4. Franzen added that this
area was very flat. Bob Brown, who has lived in the area, stated that from 1917 to 1940
the property was not flooded at all. He added that it would take a major rain fall to
cause the river to rise significantly.
Sarldstad asked what type of use was planned for the park. Franzen replied the use
would be passive and the trails would be left as natural as possible. Hedlund added that
the trail would be wood chips and the park would mainly be a picnic area.
Hedlund reported that the overall tree loss on the project was approximately 15% with
the area above the floodplain at approximately 50%. Lift stations would be installed in
lieu of the individual septic systems originally proposed.
Hustad noted that property involving Mr. & Mrs. Condin and Tom Brown were part of
this plan. Mr. & Mrs. Condin had requested to purchase a portion of one of the lots
shown and if Mr. Brown did not sell a portion of one of the lots shown on the plan a lot
would need to be eliminated and the overall density of the project would be lower.
•
Planning Commission
December 9, 1991 Page 4
Laura Bluml, 3719 26th Avenue South, Minneapolis, stated that she and her husband
owned the lot adjacent to the proposed site. Bluml noted that this area was classified as
a water washout area. She added that the trees were removed due to a sewer line
breakage and spill. Bluml was concerned if the area was safe since it had never been
tested after the sewage overflow. Bluml stated that the City had committed to restoration
of the area in 1988; however, nothing has been done. She believed that the property just
below their lot would flood frequently and was concerned that they would be bothered
by trespassers on their lot if the trail was closed off because of high water. Bluml was
also concerned about a reoccurrence of the sewer breakage.
Bluml asked to be shown where the lift station and picnic area would be located.
Hedlund showed the location of these items on the plan. Bluml believed that the picnic
area would be visible from their property and wanted to know that it would be a pleasing
site.
Bluml presented pictures of the property before and after the sewage disaster. She added
that she did not blame the Browns for this problem it was the responsibility of the Waste
• Commission. Bluml wanted to see that the commitment made in 1988 was upheld and
would like to know a timetable as to when the restoration might be completed. Franzen
replied that a restoration plan had been filed with the City and trees had been planted in
the lower area; however, they did not survive. He added that eventually the area would
fill in naturally.
Hallett asked why the delay in the restoration. Franzen replied that the first planting had
not survived and no further attempts were made. Hallett asked if the land was safe for
development. Franzen replied that the property would have an environmental audit and
the property owner would be responsible for any clean up necessary. Franzen noted the
letter from Williams Pipeline stating that additional monitoring and water samplings
needed to be done.
Sandstad asked if the Staff recommendations specifically dealt with requirement for an
environmental inspection. Franzen replied that Recommendation#7 on Page 9 addressed
these issues. Sandstad asked if the property could be dedicated before platting. Franzen
replied that the property could be dedicated now or 5 years from now, it was up to the
proponent. Hustad replied that lawyers were involved with the contamination issues and
the Williams Pipeline issue, neither of which were settled at this time. Hustad added that
the Browns did not want to delay the dedication of the property any longer than possible.
Bauer added that any time there was a potential pollution problem a battery of lawyers
. would be looking at the issues from every angle and it would take time to resolve.
Sandstad was concerned that the property might not be safe for a park and then a
Planning Commission
*December 9, 1991 Page 5
dedication of property would not occur as proposed. Hustad stated that the City had
committed to provide property within the floodplain area. Hustad noted that the Browns
had also had to deal with a loss of trees because of the spillage.
Hallett asked if the archeological survey for Indian burial mound had been completed and
if not how this would affect the proposal. Franzen replied that if a mound was found it
would have to be built around and protected. Hallett questioned how quickly this agency
worked and if anything could be found with all the snow on the ground now. Franzen
replied that the State only had 1 or 2 people to handle this area. Franzen noted that
much of this property had been previously disturbed by farming. Hustad replied that an
archeological survey had been done in 1976; however, this was still a concern for the
proponent. Hustad noted that the proponent was required to have a letter of approval
before construction.
Norman asked if there was any need to delay approval of the project as requested by the
letter from Ed Schlampp. Hustad replied that he was not aware of any objections by Mr.
Schlampp. He added that access had been provided to the Schlampp property. Franzen
. replied that Mr. Schlampp basically wanted additional time to review the proposal and
was not necessarily objecting to the project.
Franzen reported that many requirements for projects today dealt with environmental
issues. He added that the Slope Ground Ordinance was enacted to prevent erosion on
sites. Franzen stated that a special retaining walls would be required on some lots to
keep the banks in place. He added that the proponent had been requested to position the
homes on the lots to eliminate the need for extensive use of retaining walls. Franzen
stated that the grading done initially would be for road construction and added that
individual lot grading permits would be required at building permit issuance to allow for
preservation of additional trees. Franzen stated that the worst case scenario for tree loss
would be 25% for road construction. Franzen noted that new regulations required the
construction of N.U.R.P. ponds to be placed outside the floodplain area. Franzen stated
that Staff recommended approval of the project based on the Staff recommendations
outlined in the Staff Report. Franzen added that the archeological survey would need to
be completed prior to 2nd Reading, the environmental audit completed, and protective
fencing installed prior to grading.
Hallett asked if the proposal was to be reviewed by the Parks &Recreation Commission.
Franzen replied yes.
Planning Commission
*December 9, 1991 Page 6
Loretta Swanson, 11340 Riverview Road, asked if Valley Oak Road would be public or
private. Hustad replied that the private road would be vacated and a new public road
constructed.
Bauer complimented Staff on a very detailed, well thought out report. Franzen replied
that this project had been in the works for approximately 2 years. Bauer believed that
Mr. Schlampp would have time to review the project before the project proceeded to the
City Council and did not believe that a delay was necessary.
MOTION 1•
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the
request of Robert and James Brown for Planned Unit Development Concept on 65 acres
for residential development to be known as Riverview Heights, based on plans dated
November 11, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December
6, 1991. Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the
request of Robert and James Brown for Planned Unit Development District Review, with
waivers, and Zoning District change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 5.7 acre, Zoning District
Amendment within the R1-22 District on 5.0 acres, and Zoning District Change from
R1-22 to R1-44 on 15.7 acres, for residential development to be known as Riverview
Heights, based on plans dated November 11, 1991, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated December 6, 1991. Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 4:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the
request of Robert and James Brown for Preliminary Plat of 65 acres into 34 single family
lots, three outlots, and road right-of-way, to be known as Riverview Heights, based on
plans dated November 11, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated December 6, 1991. Motion carried 4-0-0.
Planning Commission
• December 9, 1991 Page 7
MOTION 5:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to forward the Minutes of this meeting to Parks &
Recreation Commission, City Council, and the Waste Commission regarding the tree
restoration before further review of this project. Motion carried 4-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS
VU. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 PM. Motion carried 4-0-0.
•