Loading...
Planning Commission - 04/10/1989 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 10, 1989 6:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Christine Dodge, Doug Fell , Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Douglas Sandstad STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS (6:30) A. Election of Officers. III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS *NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED BELOW ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER, THAN LISTED. (6:40) A. PRESERVE SOUTH, by BRW, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres, a Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 18 acres with waivers, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space to Regional Commercial on 9.07 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 9.07 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 13 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 25,248 square foot theatre complex. Location: East of Highway #169, south of Medcom Boulevard. A continued public hearing. (7:30) B. CABRIOLE CENTER, by Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 10.3 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 10.3 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 65,000 square foot office building. Location: South of I-494 and West 78th Street, and north of Anderson Lakes. A continued public hearing. (DON) (8:05) C. WESLEY E. LANGHOFF RLS, by David Brown. A request for a Registered Land Survey of 11.6 acres into one tract. Location: 9801 Spring Road. A public hearing. (8:15) D. STRAWBERRY HILL, by Dennis J. Wittenberg. A request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 3.2 acres, Preliminary Plat of 3.2 acres into 7 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: East of County Road #4, north of BLUE SKY FIRST ADDITION. A public hearing. Agenda April 10, 1989 Page Two (8:45) E. RED ROCK VIEW ADDITION, by Mark Olsen. A request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 5.7 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5.7 acres into 11 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: West of Meadowvale Drive, east of BLUE SKY FIRST ADDITION. A public hearing. (9:15) F. RED ROCK SHORES, by Scenic Heights Investment. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 19.77 acres, Preliminary Plat of 19.77 acres into 17 single family lots, 2 outlots , and road right-of-way. Location: East of County Road #4, north and east of Lake Shore Drive. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 10, 1989 6 : 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Christine Dodge, Doug Fell, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Douglas Sandstad STAFF MEMBERS : Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Alan Gray, City Engineer; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: I . APPROVAL OFAGENDA MOTION• Hallett moved, seconded by Dodge to approve the Agenda as amended. • MOVE• Election of Officers moved to Item V.A. Motion carried 7-0-0 . II . MEMBERS REPORTS A. Election of Officers . III . MINUTES MOTION• Ruebling moved, seconded by Fell to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held March 27, 1989 as published . Motion carried 6-0-1 . Hallett abstained . IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. PRESERVE SOUTH, by BRW, Inc . Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres, a Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 18 acres with waivers, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change • from Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space to Regional Commercial on 9 . 07 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 9 . 07 acres, and Preliminary Plat of Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 10, 1989 . 13 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 25, 248 square foot theater complex. Location: East of Highway # 169, south of Medcom Boulevard. A continued public hearing. Miles Lindberg presented the following changes made to the plan: 1. The extension of Medcom Boulevard. 2 . Internal circulation changed to allow passengers being dropped off to exit the car from the passenger side of the vehicle . 3. Retaining walls constructed along the road right- of-way to the north. 4. The configuration of the parking lot changed to provide a 25-foot setback along the east property line . 5. The lighting layout changed to reduce lighting to a 1/2 foot candle at the property lines . 6. Additional berming proposed along the southern boundary. 7. Due to the change in the configuration of the parking lot, the proof of parking for Lot 2 had been increased . Ron Reed, representing Cinemark, stated that Cinemark currently operated 80 facilities throughout the Country, totaling approximately 400 screens . Five locations were • in the planning stages for the Twin Cities, which would assure Cinemarks intention for a long term commitment in this area. Reed emphasized the importance of quality control to Cinemark and its desire to provide first class family oriented entertainment. In response to the residents concerns regarding late shows, Reed stated that it was Cinemark 's policy to start the last regular showing by 10 :15 PM and that any special showing would not start past midnight. Cinemark has chosen not to run Rocky-Horror films as late show. In response to the parking problem and traffic issues, Reed stated that surveys had been conducted throughout the country which indicated that multi-plex theaters had a decreased parking load. He added that the peak traffic hour for the theater would be approximately 9 PM, with the majority of business generated between 7 to 10 PM. Computerized ticketing also available at the theater would help relieve traffic congestion, because customers could purchase a ticket for any showing throughout the day. Reed concluded by stating that more theaters required larger staffs, which in turn produced a cleaner, safer theater . He added that Cinemark would provide security • for the parking lot if it became an issue . Anderson asked Reed if the theater would have a game room. Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 10, 1989 Reed replied that the theater would have a game room; however, there would not be an outside entrance to the game room and it would be adequately supervised. Dodge asked Reed what the reason was for having a game room. Reed replied that Cinemark wanted to create a non- threaten environment in which the whole family could have fun, it also provided entertainment while waiting for the movies to start. Dodge asked if it was a prerequisite to purchase a ticket to obtain entry to the game room. Reed replied that Cinemark was not selling the game room as a separate entity. He added that he could not guarantee that everyone would purchase a ticket. Reed stated that it would not be in Cinemark 's best interest to have children loitering in the lobby. He said the equipment was the state of the art and that Cinemark had an interest in maintaining its property. Hallett asked what type of signage would be provided to help customers find the theater . Flaherty replied that a sign was being proposed for Prairie Center Drive. He added the sign would advertise both Applebees and the theater . Fell asked if Cinemark had ever had a complex and sold it or changed the use of the building. Reed replied no. • Fell asked Reed if Cinemark had experienced any daytime usage . Reed replied that the theater could be rented for classes or slide presentations . Reed added that Cinemark would prefer to have daytime use; however it was difficult to develop because of the auditorium type seating. Fell asked if a traffic study had been done regarding potential daytime traffic . Flaherty replied that a study had not been conducted for daytime use; however, he believed the traffic would be nominal . Uram reported that the major question before the Planning Commission was if this development was an appropriate land use for this location. Staff had compared various land uses and the traffic generated, with the conclusion that an office building of 50,000 square feet would generate the least amount of traffic. Uram stated that any office building that would be developed on this property would probably contain more than 50,000 square feet. He added that the current PUD could allow the development of a 5- story office complex, which could generate approximately 2000 daily trips . The movie theater offered an inbetween use . Uram stated that Staff was not recommending approval or denial of the project at this time; however, if the Planning Commission believed that the proponent had demonstrated a compelling argument for a Comprehensive Guide Plan change, the Staff would recommend the conditions as outlined in the Staff Report dated April 7, Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 10, 1989 • 1989 . Tom Walters, 12490 Porcupine Court, stated that the neighborhoods position was to not develop the theater . The plan should be rejected for the following reasons : 1 . Concern for Lake Eden and the surrounding watershed area. 2 . Loss of open space and wooded area. 3. Loss of wildlife . 4 . Land use incompatible with residential development because the peak hours of operation would be at the time when residents would be home and trying to enjoy their yards and homes. Walters stated the above objections followed the intent of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He said that the neighbors had tried to work with the developer and the BRW. Sandstad asked Walters what type of land use he would propose. Walters replied that he could not give a specific use; however, he would like to see a less intense development. Walters added that he was not opposed to development of the property. Richard Jensen, 8680 Grier Lane, stated that he was concerned about the potential for a drainage problem. He • added that the water drained very slowly in the area currently and was concerned about the addition of 5 acres of asphalt and its affect on the drainage . Jensen believed that the land use proposed was incompatible with a residential neighborhood due to the noise, light and late night hours of operation. Jensen added a concern regarding potential traffic congestion on Medcom Boulevard, especially with traffic wishing to make a left hand turn. John Simacek, 8662 Grier Lane, stated that he had bought his property based on the understanding that the southern portion of the property in question was guided for Open ,Space on the City's Master Plan. Simacek was concerned about the location of the parking lot at the end of the development and about the kids using the theater game room as a hang out. Ray Hoveland, 11924 Joy Circle, stated that he was concerned about the drainage issue because the land between his property and the proposed development was low. Hoveland said that when he had considered buying his home in Eden Prairie he had been impressed by the high priority the City placed on land usage . He added that he would be disappointed if the Planning Commission voted to allow the theater development. Hoveland believed that the traffic would be at the worst possible time for residents . He believed the parking lot would be desolate and expressed a Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 10, 1989 • concern about the security of the parking lot since it was far away from any major street. Hallett asked Hoveland what he would suggest as the appropriate use of the land. Hoveland replied office use . Hoveland added that the developer had tried to be co- operative with the neighbors to make an incompatible project compatible . Flaherty stated that the key issue was the designation between Neighborhood Commercial or C-Regional Commercial . He believed there was a significant distance between the existing neighborhood and the proposed development and that a natural boundary was created . All of the technical ' issues raised by the residents and Staff had been addressed. Flaherty said that he had compared the proposed land use to other land uses and believed this use to be less intense and the best use of the property. He added that a 50, 000 square foot office building on this property would not be economically feasible . The theater would provide a needed service to the community. The police department pointed out that management was an important issue and he believed that Cinemark had the type of quality management necessary for a successful project. Flaherty said that a single user facility was much easier to control than a multiple tenant complex. He believed • that the other possible uses proposed would add to the traffic problems especially on Prairie Center Drive and Highway # 169, this use produced no morning traffic. Flaherty concluded by stating that development would come to this area and he believed this project to be the least intense use . He added that he too lived in the community and desired to produce a quality development. He believed this was an opportunity to produce a landmark development . Fell asked Flaherty if the building were converted to an office how many square feet would it be . Flaherty replied it could be converted to a 2-story office building of 50, 000 square feet without any expansion of the building. Fell stated that he liked the project, but believed this was not the appropriate location. He said the property would be developed ultimately and the neighbors should be aware of this . Fell was encouraged to see the neighbors working together . The Guide Plan change may be inappropriate because of the nature of the traffic, not the magnitude . Ruebling asked Gray to address the drainage issues . Gray stated that this property was within the Eden Lake Watershed District. Gray said that development of the • property had been anticipated and believed that adequate ponding was provided. Gray noted that the problem was relying on a large storage space and a small hydraulic Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 10, 1989 system. Gray introduced Bob Obermeyer of Barr Engineering to explain further details . Bob Obermeyer stated that the Watershed District had not taken any formal action regarding this project as it was the Watershed District's policy not to take action until a project had gone through the full City process; however, he was here tonight at the request of the City Staff to answer any questions . A re-analysis of this area had been conducted and the finding was that the current system was adequate . He said that the system was designed to handle a 100 year storm. The flood elevations were based on ultimate development conditions consistent with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. Lake Eden was a man-made pond developed in 1973 to provide storm water storage. A 15" pipe drains to Neil Lake marsh and ultimately drained into Purgatory Creek . Obermeyer said that the homes adjacent to the pond were required to be 2 feet above the flood elevation. Ruebling asked how this project compared related to water run off with other possible land uses . Gray replied there would be no significant detectable difference . Ruebling asked if 350 parking spaces would be adequate for a capacity of 1500 seats and if there would be a problem • with overlapping traffic for show changes . Reed replied that several firms confirmed by independent studies that 1 space for every 3 to 4 seats was adequate . Reed said that the theater would never sell out 1500 seats for each seating and that multi-complex theaters actually decreased the parking demand. Ruebling question the residents statement regarding this area being designated for open space . Uram replied the City was trying to protect the water; however, the City would want to protect the ponds and trees with any development of the property. Ruebling stated that his major concern was with the parking lot; its location, the timing of the traffic, the light and the noise produced. Hallett asked Uram if the proposed lighting for the parking lot would be offensive to the neighbors and if he could use another similar project for comparison. Uram replied that while he could not speak for the residents, the lighting would be downcast and that a similar project would be the Crosstown Tennis Club's southern parking lot which was adjacent to residential . • Hallett questioned the 300 to 400 foot buffer . Uram replied that this was measured to the lot lines and believed the distance to be substantial . Hallett asked if Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 10, 1989 a different proposal would change the buffer zone . Uram replied that the rear lot line setback could be as close as 10 feet to the southern lot lines, the proposed project was proposing a 60-foot setback . Franzen stated that no matter what the proposed use of the land, a buffer zone would be necessary. Franzen added that there would still be lighting and traffic for any use and that the hard surface would probably remain the same for another use . Hallett stated that there seemed to be a lot of trees between the development and the neighbors . Uram noted that the area to the southeast had no vegetation; however, the area to the southwest did have significant vegetation. Hallett believed that this vegetation should reduce the effect of the noise and light. Hallett questioned how much noise would actually be heard by the residents considering the distance between the development and the residents. Ruebling asked if there could be additional development on Lot 2 . Uram replied that proof of parking for 130 spaces was required on Lot 2 and that development of Lot 2 could only occur if a cross-parking agreement was obtain. Uram believed that use would have to be for an office complex and added that Staff would be concerned about the buffer zone if Lot 2 were developed. • Hallett asked if it would be possible to install a fence to separate the proposed development from the residents . Uram stated that a 6 to 8 foot berm was being proposed at the southern boundary. Uram added that originally a trail was proposed to the elementary school; however, the Parks & Recreation Department had withdrawn its request because of the neighborhoods concerns about pedestrian traffic through their yards . Hallett believed it was important that a movie ticket be purchased in order to gain entry to the game room. Dodge stated that she believed this to be a well thought out project . She was not concerned with the intensity of the use, but the type and hours of use for this project. Dodge said that she was not comfortable supporting the project because it was not allowed under the Neighborhood Commercial designation. Sandstad believed that the parking lot design was not realistic because the walking distance from Lot 2 would be too great. He was concerned about the land use compatibility issues raised by the residents and had not been convinced of the need for a Guide Plan Change. • Anderson stated that a 1/2 candle foot lighting would not be excessive and that the noise generated by this project would not be any greater than other possible uses . Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 10, 1989 Anderson commented that the neighbors were probably already experiencing traffic noise from Highway #169 . Anderson believed the visual impact from this project would be less than other possible developments . Bye stated that office use would create limited travel after 7 PM. Ruebling stated that the noise would be later at night and asked why the building was placed in the proposed location. Flaherty replied that he had wanted to keep the building as far away from the lake as possible because of the inconsistency with the residential homes . Flaherty added that to minimize the visual impact he had decided to tuck the building into the hillside as much as possible and then to provide additional berming. Hallett stated that he was not ready to vote for or to deny the project at this time . Hallett asked if it would be possible to walk the area with the proponent and a few of the neighbors to get a better feel for how the project would layout in its relationship to the residents . Anderson asked how the effect of noise could be measured. Sandstad stated that a noise impact study would probably not show anything that Staff had not already pointed out. • Bye commented that the noise issue was a judgement call, what was offensive to one individual would not be to another . Gray replied that this type of noise study would be difficult to conduct and analysis. Fell stated that his main concern was the transient nature of the traffic and its direct reflection on the proposed regional land use . Bye concurred with Hallett 's recommendation to visit the site . Flaherty stated that he did not object to a continuance and would be available to provide a site visit at the Planning Commission's convenience. Anderson asked Flaherty to comment on the possibility of a fence . Flaherty stated that he would consider fencing off the property if the Planning Commission could give compelling rationale, he added that at this time he could not justify the need for a fence . NOT I ON r Hallett moved, seconded by Anderson to continue this item to the April 24, 1989 Planning Commission meeting and that within one weeks time the Planning Commission, one Staff • member and 4 to 5 concerned neighbors meet to examine the proposed development site . Staff to co-ordinate the meeting. Motion carried 7-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 10, 1989 B. CABRIOLE CENTER, by Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 10 . 3 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 10 .3 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 65, 000 square foot office building. Location: South of I-494 and West 78th Street, and north of Anderson Lakes . A continued public hearing . Franzen reported that this item had been continued at the Planning Commission' s March 13, 1989 meeting and that no major changes had been made to the plans . The proponent had withdrawn the zoning request; however, would like to proceed with the request for approval of the Preliminary Plat subdivided into 2 lots . Joe Ryan, representing Lexington Company, stated that the request for the subdivision of the property between the lot lines for Phase I and Phase II . The proponent was not prepared to address the neighbors and Planning Commission's concerns related to the building design for Phase II . The rationale for the subdivision was to allow adequate time to study Phase II and to re-evaluate the design of the building proposed for Phase II . The subdivision of the property would allow financing alternatives . Ryan stated that the major concern raised against the subdivision of the property at the last . Planning Commission meeting was the parking lot requirements. Ryan proposed a cross-parking easement agreement . Ryan concluded by stating that he was not requesting a revision to the Developers Agreement, only to separate the property into two lots . Anderson asked Ryan if the proponent had met with the residents since the last Planning Commission meeting to discuss the concerns regarding the commitments not upheld with the development of Phase I related to landscaping. Ryan replied that the proponent had not met with the residents at this time . He added that Phase I had been developed approximately 10 years ago and that Lexington Company had only been involved for the past 4 years . Lexington Company had not addressed the issues created by the former developer . Franzen stated that the question was whether the Planning Commission was comfortable with approving the Preliminary Plat with the Site Plan to be worked out in the future. There were several open-ended questions which remained unresolved. . Franzen questioned if the Preliminary Plat were approved for subdivision would the City necessarily be working with Lexington Company in the future or would the property be sold to another developer . Franzen • questioned what controls the City might lose if the subdivision was approved. Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 10, 1989 Sandstad asked if it would be appropriate to include a time frame condition to bring Phase I into compliance with the Developers Agreement . Franzen recommended that Staff consult the City Attorney. Franzen commented that the proponent wished to keep all its options open. The proponent did not have definite plans for the property at this time, while Staff would be more comfortable having more control. Ruebling stated that he was hesitant to ask the proponent to correct problems created by the former developer in order to receive approval for the Preliminary Plat. Ruebling was more concerned with the loss of control over the implementation of the City's policies . He believed a decision was complicated because of the cross-parking, cross easements, and the fact that Phase I would have no parking. Anderson asked exactly what controls would the City lose . Franzen replied that with the current Site Plan Ordinance the City would have more control than in the past. Ruebling asked if the City could take steps to require compliance with the Developers Agreement. Franzen replied that the City could state specific conditions under which the second site could develop; the Developers Agreement • could be rewritten to require that the concerns of the neighbors and the Planning Commission be addressed to bring both sites into compliance with the Developers Agreement. Dale Hubred, 8056 Ensign Road, Bloomington, stated that he was concerned about the property being subdivided and Phase II being sold to another developer, which would not work with the Phase I developer . The building location could be changed. The neighbors were afraid because of the past history of this project. Hubred said that the site had been graded for the building to be constructed together . Hubred asked if there was any way for the City to keep the two lots tied together and require that the developer work with the neighbors. Sandstad stated that the two lots would be legally connected through easements . Franzen suggested asking the City Attorney if it would be appropriate to have the Developers Agreement run with the property, which would make the owner of the property responsible to uphold the City's conditions . Ruebling stated that the cross-parking easement would tie the properties together . He added that the Planning Commission and Staff historically requested all developers to work with the neighbors and that major issues were Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 10, 1989 resolved before the Planning Commission would approve a project . . Anderson stated that it would be difficult to enforce the consistency of the architectural design if the property was subdivided . Hubred stated that the Environmental Quality Control Board had worked on the original project and was concerned that the City not lose anything already established by that Board. Ryan reiterated that the main reason for the request was for the flexibility of financing. Fell stated that he was concerned about the control being lost by the City, that the Planning Commission was possibly overlooking some aspect. He encouraged review by the City Attorney before proceeding. Ruebling asked if the PUD would change. Franzen replied no. Ruebling concurred with Fell that the Planning Commission needed to review this carefully before proceeding and supported the recommendation for clarification by the City Attorney. Dodge stated that the Planning Commission should not proceed if there was concern about losing control of the project. Fell asked Franzen if Item 1 of the proposed Motion 2 in the Staff report was specific enough in reference to the wording "to the degree possible" . Franzen noted that the building for Phase I was not in compliance with City Code and would require a variance . He added that the City needed to look at its legal controls without creating other problems . Anderson stated that this was a financial issue on the part of the proponent and added that this was not an uncommon request. Dodge requested clarification; if the Preliminary Plat was approved Phase I would require off-site parking and the building height for Phase II would require a variance, which would not be required if the property remained as one parcel . Franzen replied that the Board of Appeals would have to approve the height variance in order for Phase II of the project to proceed . NOTION Ig . Anderson moved, seconded by Ruebling to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 10, 1989 MOTION 2g ' Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to accept, without prejudice, the withdrawal of the zoning district amendment of Cabriole Center at this time . Further, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Lexington Properties for preliminary plat of Cabriole Center, based on plans and written materials dated March 6, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 10, 1989, and subject to the following conditions : 1. Developer shall move immediately to bring the existing plan into conformance with requirements of the existing Developer 's Agreement on the property to the degree possible . 2. Develo,per shall begin discussions immediately with the residents in Bloomington to mitigate their conce"rns regarding this proposed development. 3 . Developer shall agree to site plan review according to City Code requirements prior to any building permit issuance for Phase II of the Cabriole Center . 4. Developer shall draft all necessary cross parking and cross access easements prior to final plat review by the City Council . 5. Developer shall agree to a restriction on the vacant lot created to provide for all necessary • permanent parking for the existing Phase I building and to provide all necessary parking for Phase II in a parking structure. G. Developer shall proceed immediately to the Board of Appeals for review of variances for setback to lot line, parking off-site, and height variance for the building on Phase I . 7. Developer shall agree to return to the Planning Commission with a Development Proposal in compliance with the current PUD or an amendment to the PUD. 8. Prior to City Council action Staff request the City Attorney to review this proposal and to identify any other restrictions necessary to maintain the normal amount of control for the City. Anderson asked if any Eden Prairie residents would be affected by this project . Uram replied no. Motion carried 7-0-0 . C. WESLEY E. LANGHOFF RLS, by David Brown . A request for a Registered Land Survey of 11 . 6 acres into one tract. Location: 9801 Spring Road . A public hearing. • Franzen reported that this item was a housekeeping item related to a technical title clarification. There was no Planning Commission Minutes 13 April 10, 1989 zoning change request . Staff recommended approval of the request for an RLS, based on plans dated February 24, 1989 . MOTION 1 Dodge moved, seconded by Anderson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION Dodge moved, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of David Brown for approval of a Registered Land Survey for the Wesley E. Langhoff RLS, based on plans dated March 7, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 7, 1989 . Motion carried 7-0-0. NOTE: THE FOLLOWING THREE PROJECTS WERE PRESENTED TOGETHER. Uram reported that the Strawberry Hill, Red Rock View, and Red Rock Shores project were connected due to the • extension of utilities . The water service will come from the west side of County Road 4 . The holding pond will require an outlet to Red Rock Lake. All of the projects are requesting a zoning district change from R1-22 to Rl- 13 . 5. Uram noted that each project would require separate public hearing and motions. Frank Cardarelle, representing the Strawberry Hill project, stated that the sewer had to go through the Strawberry Hill subdivision to service the other projects and that 1/2 of a holding pond was on the Strawberry Hill property. The request for a zoning change was due to the problems to meet lot requirements due to the topography of the land. Cardarelle stated that the proponent concurred with the recommendations presented in the Staff Report of April 7, 1989 . He added that this property was a transition parcel with the average lot size being approximately 17, 000 square feet. Some of lots were smaller and some were larger due to the topography of the land. The street layout had been approved by the City Engineering Department to maintain an adequate traffic flow. Cardarelle stated that the request for the zoning change was important due to the changing times and economy, roads, utilities, and storm sewer . . Bob Smith, representing the Red Rock Shores project, stated that Bill Gilk had acquired the Strawberry Hills project . Smith did not believe it to be the best plan to Planning Commission Minutes 14 April 10, 1989 have the driveways on County Road #4 and; therefore, had changed the lot configuration to remove two lots and enlarge one lot . This was a transitional piece between the Blue Sky First Addition and the development to the north. Utilities would come from the Strawberry Hills project. Cardarelle, representing the Red Rock View project, stated that the proponent concurred with the Staff Report dated April 7, 1989 . Cardarelle stated that if one lot was dropped as per Staff recommendations the average lot size would be approximately 24, 800 square feet, which was similar to the average size in the Red Rock Lake area. Cardarelle stated that 12 to 25 % of the lots in the Blue Sky First Addition and the Red Rock Lake subdivision had front footages of 100 feet. Smith, Red Rock Shores, stated that this property was divided into four parcels, with existing homes . Smith presented two alternate proposals with the .recommended proposal consisting of 15 lots and 4 outlots . Variances would be required for the lot with the existing home and one additional lot due to the front footage requirement. The proponent would initially grade in the streets to save trees and in addition some wetland grading would be required. Smith said that two temporary lift stations . would be installed . He believed that the proposed road alignment would afford the best public safety protection. A tree replacement plan would be submitted prior to review by the City Council . Uram reported that the Strawberry Hills subdivision was a transition piece with the revised plan for 5 lots, which would meet the Staff recommendations . Staff was concerned about the placement of the road onto the Harry Rogers property. Uram added that Staff wanted to assure that the Rogers property would remain developable . Staff recommended approval of the project based on the revised plan submitted tonight. Sandstad requested that the Planning Commission be allowed to review the revised plans before taking action. Smith stated that Gilk had just acquired the property this week and that the only change was to drop 2 lots . Ruebling asked if the Rogers property was platted and zoned . Uram replied that the Rogers property was unplatted, but was zoned R1-22 . Ruebling asked what the lot width requirement was for R1- 22 zoning. Uram replied 90 feet . • Bye read a petition submitted by the residents of Red Rock West, which requested that the zoning remain at R1-22, the Planning Commission Minutes 15 April 10, 1989 lots be visually consistent with adjacent properties at a 125 foot minimum lot width, not the 100 feet proposed, setbacks be consistent at 50 feet not the 35 feet proposed, and that the proposed development be required to adhere to covenants similar to adjacent neighborhoods . Bye noted that 40 of the 44 neighbors signed the petition. A second petition submitted by the residents of Red Rock West requested that the road planned in the development north of their subdivision end in a cul-de-sac as originally planned by the developers, instead of connecting to Red Oak Drive . The neighbors believed the extension of Red Oak Drive would drastically change the character of the neighborhood from one with no outside traffic to one with heavy traffic flow. Allen Nicklay, 16011 Lake Shore Drive, stated that the zoning should remain at R1-22 . He believed that the Southwest Area Study recommendations should also pertain to these three developments . Development in this area should be limited until County Road #4 was upgraded. Nicklay believed that the 100 lot limit was already exceeded with the approval of the Cedar Ridge Estates project and the Phase I Fairfield project and that these three developments would add 35 more lots . He added that all of these developments would utilize County Road #4, which already was heavily used. Nicklay requested that • the proposal be denied and current zoning remain in order to uphold the recommendations of the Southwest Area Study. Jack Van Remortel, 16051 Summit Drive, stated that he had not been able to attend the neighborhood meeting, but would like to add his name to the petition to support the requests . Van Remortel recommended that the pace of approval for these projects take into consideration the need for the total area requirements for utilities and to install all the utilities at one time . He was concerned that his property had the potential to be under construction for 3 to 4 years before all utility connections were complete . Van Remortel said that one week after he had put in sod after the trunk watermain was installed the City came out and put in stakes to tear up the property for sanitary and storm sewer . Gary Ernst, 15851 Summit Drive, stated that by extending Red Oak Drive the character of the neighborhood would change . The neighborhood would be used as a short cut to Scenic Heights Road to avoid the congestion on County Road #4 . Ernst was concerned about the affect of the increased traffic . He did not believe that a third entrance to the neighborhood was necessary. • Don Harasyn, 15811 Summit Drive, stated that this area had been zoned R1-22 for several years, the existing homes are zoned R1-22 and could not see the justification for a Planning Commission Minutes 16 April 10, 1989 • zoning change now. Fred Purcell, 8610 Red Oak Drive, believed that the temporary road proposed with the Strawberry Hill project to the north would create traffic problems . The lots proposed for Red Rock View had small lots abutting to large lots, with the potential for small houses to be constructed on the back portion of the lots . Purcell believed the zoning should stay R1-22 for both Red Rock View and Red Rock Shores . Red Oak Drive currently had a poor design and did not want to see the road extended . The streets should be kept at a 60 foot width. Purcell wanted to see the intersection upgraded. Purcell said that the area had had water problems for 17 years and was concerned about affect of the new development. Larry Lewis, 8681 Meadowvale Drive, stated that the lots along Meadowvale Drive had front footages of 125 feet and believed the new subdivision should maintain that front footage. He said that the reason he bought his home in this location was because of the closed road system. Lewis believed that two accesses to the neighborhood would destroy the character . Lewis supported the use of a cul- de-sac rather than a through street. He wanted the setbacks to be maintained at 50 feet . • John Hoffer, 8711 Meadowvale Road, believed that the houses would be too close together . He added that 100 foot frontages with $200, 000 homes would be too close . Hoffer believed that the proposed developments would not be compatible with the existing neighborhoods . Sandra Russer, 8731 Summit Drive, stated that she would like to see the zoning remain R1-22 to maintain the aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood . She believed that these three developments would destroy the integrity of the neighborhoods . Russer supported only one additional entrance to the neighborhood, because of the concern regarding increased traffic and the amount of young children in the area. Russer believed that the majority of the land in the Red Rock Shores addition was swamp land and believed that the natural swamp lands in Eden Prairie were becoming endangered. Steve Wagner, 8430 Eden Prairie Road, stated that his property would be affected by the Scenic Heights Road alignment and believed that traffic on County Road #4 was substantial now. Wagner requested that Staff and the Planning Commission give careful consideration to the traffic patterns in this area. Hoffer commented that he did not see where a transition • was being made . He could only see smaller lots being mixed in with larger lots . Planning Commission Minutes 17 April 10, 1989 Larry Moos, 8651 Red Oak Drive, asked what the City was transitioning to . He believed that the Gilk project would be a nice development. Moos was concerned about the potential increased traffic generation with the proposed extension. Moos asked how the City could control the traffic. Uram summarized the neighbors concerns as the following: 1 . Southwest Area Study. 2. Drainage. 3 . Right-of-way widths. 4. Zoning issues . 5 . Traffic . 6 . Utilities . Gray stated the upgrade of County Road #4 and Highway #5 was a MnDot project . He added that the contract had been awarded for the upgrade and should be under construction this summer . Gray noted that by this Fall the developments along the west side of County Road #4 would only have possibly one to two dozen occupancies and that the upgrading of County Road #4 and Highway #5 would correlate well with the new home construction. Gray stated that Staff had not had an opportunity to meet with the neighborhood regarding utilities; however, the . City was in the planning process for a storm sewer project in this area, with proposed construction to begin by the end of this year . Gray added that Staff would be looking at the Summit Drive neighborhood for sanitary sewer . Gray stated that the City Council could authorize a feasibility study if the neighborhood generated interest and added that Staff was prepared to proceed with a feasibility study if the interest was expressed. Gray stated that the existing street right-of-way in this neighborhood was 60 feet and that the proposed developments were planning 50 foot right-of-ways . He said that 50 foot right-of-ways were adequate for residential streets. These streets would not be major collectors . Gray said that there would be no need for sidewalks in this area. He added that if 28 foot streets were constructed there would not be a detectable difference between a 50 foot or a 60 foot right-of-way, the street width would remain the same. Gray stated that it was the City's policy to eliminate unnecessary cul-de-sacs whenever possible . He believed that when Highway 212 was built and Scenic Heights Road was realigned, additional traffic would not use Red Oak Drive . Scenic Heights would be signalized and County Road • 04 would become a 4-lane road, allowing for a greater capacity for County Road #4 . Planning Commission Minutes 18 April 10, 1989 Bill Sauro, 8750 Meadowvale Drive, asked if County Road #4 would be 4 lane south of Scenic Heights Road . Gray replied that the construction would be done in stages and that eventually County Road #4 would be 4 lane all the way to County Road #1. Gray believed the through connections were justified; however, the neighbors concerns regarding the speed of traffic were valid. Gray added that Summit Drive traffic could decrease with an alternate access to the north. He believed that the traffic would be dispersed evenly. Uram reported that the properties could be developed now as R1-22; however, the change in the zoning to R1-13 . 5 would force the developers to install utilities . The change in zoning would also give the developers flexibility in the developments . Uram believed that the Harry Rogers property which was zoned R1-22 would not be developed as R1-22 . Currently the standard zoning district was R1-13 . 5. Bye asked Uram what the setback requirements were. Uram replied 30 foot setbacks within the R1-22 zoning. Uram added that the property to the west could meet the 50 foot setbacks. • Hallett stated that he was pleased to see the Strawberry Hills project drop the two lots and change the road alignment so that the driveways did not come out onto County Road #4 . Hallett was concerned that the Harry Rogers property be protected to avoid land locking his property. Hallett pointed out that when utilities were installed as part of a total development package the costs could be reduced and encouraged the neighbors to consider this fact. He was pleased to see the through street going to Scenic Heights Road, and believed it would improve circulation and provide an internal route for the neighbors . Hallett asked why sidewalks were not being considered in this area and suggested that some type of trail system be established. Hallett asked Uram if there was a trail system along the lake. Uram replied no. Hallett stated that Red Rock View should be more compatible with the existing neighborhood. Ruebling stated that he favored leaving the zoning at R1- 22 . He would like to see the utilities installed in this neighborhood and encouraged the developers to install them now. Ruebling said that the lot lines and setbacks should match that of the existing neighborhoods . He considered the through street a plus . Ruebling concurred with Hallett that sidewalks and/or a trail system should be • considered. Fell stated that he concurred with Ruebling and Hallett on Planning Commission Minutes 19 April 10, 1989 their recommendations . Fell wanted to have the opportunity to see a set of revised plans showing the layout of the 5 lots for the Strawberry Hills project . Sandstad asked Gray if the street would be curbed and paved . Gray replied that the temporary road would be bituminous and would have a curb. Gray added that Red Rock Drive would a permanent. Sandstad recommended the zoning remain at R1-22 . Dodge stated that the Red Rock View addition could not meet the R1-22 zoning on all the lots . Dodge asked if the setbacks could be mixed with some being 30 feet and some being 50 feet . Uram replied that Staff would recommend being consistent and maintain the 50 foot setbacks . Uram added that 3 lots would have to be removed in the Red Rock View project to meet the 125 foot lot widths. Uram reported that on the Gilk property all of the lots on the east would meet the R1-22 zoning requirements; however, 2 lots on the west side would not and required variances . D. STRAWBERRY HILL, by Dennis J. Wittenberg. A request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13. 5 on 3 .2 acres, Preliminary Plat of 3 . 2 acres into 7 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: East of County Road #4, north of BLUE SKY FIRST ADDITION. A public hearing. MOTION: Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to continue this item to the April 24, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. Uram asked the Planning Commission if it favored the 5 lot plan. Fell stated that he needed to see a plan before approving a proposal . Anderson added that it was important that the Planning Commission send a message to the developers to have their plans ready before coming before the Planning Commission. • Planning Commission Minutes 20 April 10, 1989 Bye stated that the plans should maintain the 50 ' setback . Motion carried 7-0-0 . E. RED -ROCK VIEW ADD_ITION., by Mark Olsen. A request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13 . 5 on 5 .7 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5. 7 acres into 11 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: West of Meadowvale Drive, east of BLUE SKY FIRST ADDITION. A public hearing. MOTION w Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to continue this item to the April 24, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. Ruebling stated that the 125 foot lot width was important to maintain. Sandstad believed that the density of the project was more important than the lot width. Ruebling believed that the width was important to provide consistency with the existing neighborhood. Bye asked Uram how many lots would be eliminated to maintain the 125 foot lot width. Uram replied 3 lots • would be eliminated, which would be a substantial amount for a proposed 11 lot development. Ruebling stated that because of the existing neighborhood the developer needed to try to maintain the character of the existing neighborhood. Hallett believed that the lots did not necessarily all need to be 125 feet in width, but he would like to see a different layout. Bye stated that the Planning Commission was asking the developer to provide a higher standard than the 90 feet which was required. Motion carried 7-0-0 . F. RED ROCK SHORES, by Scenic Heights Investment. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13. 5 on 19 . 77 acres, Preliminary Plat of 19 . 77 acres into 17 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: East of County Road #4, north and east of Lake Shore Drive . A public hearing. • Planning Commission Minutes 21 April 10, 1989 is MOTION Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to continue this item to the April 24, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. Hallett was concerned that two weeks would not be enough time for this item. Smith stated that the developer would be requesting variances on some of the lots. Van Remortel asked where the neighbors stood regarding utilities . Gray recommended the neighbors file a petition with the City to show the City Council that there was an interest on the part of the neighborhood . Gray added that a petition did not obligate the neighbors to anything, it would simply start the process . Van Remortel asked if a certain percentage of the neighbors would have to sign the petition in order for any action to be taken. Gray replied 35 percent. Gray added that a 4/5 vote by the City Council would be required to proceed with the process . He described the formal process to the residents . Sauro, asked how the City would determine if a 5 foot concrete sidewalk or an 8 foot bituminous trail would be • installed. Gray replied that it would most likely be a 5 foot concrete sidewalk . Gray added that the costs were basically the same for either system. Smith stated that the developer had had conversations with the Parks & Recreation Department and that it was not recommended to install sidewalks . Hallett stated that the Planning Commission was recommending sidewalks be installed. Motion carried 7-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS ELECTION OF OFFICERS Fell stated that this could be his last term and did not wish to be considered for any office . Fell said that Chairperson Bye had done well this year; however, he would like to see a different person chair the Commission to provide depth to the Planning Commission, Fell suggested Bye for Vice Chairperson. Fell recommended Richard Anderson for Chairperson. He believed this would indicate to the City Council the Planning Commission support of Anderson for reappointment next year . Hallett believed that Anderson would do an excellent job as Chairperson; however, he believed that an individual should • serve at least two years in the position as chair . He added that the first year was a learning experience . Hallett recommended that Anderson .serve as Chairperson after serving Planning Commission Minutes 22 April 10, 1989 . one more year as Vice Chairperson. Fell commented that the St. Louis Park Planning Commission rotated its members to the different offices, which he believed built strength into the Commission. Fell also noted that the Commission had lost Bye ' s expertise in making motions . Dodge believed that during the last year the Commission members were all participating more in making motions . Ruebling agreed that the leadership need to be changed; however, he did not believe that it needed to change every year . Dodge stated that if the officers were just going to rotate, then what was the purpose of elections. Ruebling stated that he would not like to go to a rotating order. Bye stated that she had learned a lot in the past year and would like to continue for one more year . She believed that she could grow and learn even more with one more years experience. MOTION: Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to open the nominations for Chairperson. Motion carried 7-0-0. Hallett moved, seconded by Dodge to nominate Julianne Bye for Chairperson. There were no other nominations for Chairperson. A unanimous ballot was cast for Commissioner Bye as Chairperson of the Planning Commission for 1989 . MOTION: Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to open the nominations for Vice Chairperson. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION• Fell moved, seconded by Hallett to nominate Richard Anderson for Vice Chairperson. There were no other nominations for Vice Chairperson. A unanimous ballot was cast for Commissioner Anderson as Vice • Chairperson of the Planning Commission for 1989 . MOTION: Planning Commission Minutes 23 April 10, 1989 • Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to open the nominations for Secretary. Motion carried 7-0-0 . MOTION: Hallett moved, seconded by Fell to nominate Christine Dodge as Secretary. There were no other nominations for Secretary. A unanimous ballot was cast for Commissioner Dodge as Secretary of the Planning Commission for 1989 . VI . NEW BUSINESS VII . PLANNER' S REPORT Hallett asked Staff for updated on the issues of Cemeteries, height of the buildings versus the required setbacks, and the traffic study on Pioneer Lane . Franzen noted the date scheduled for the joint meeting with the City Council and asked that Commission members check their schedules and get back to Staff if there were conflicts . VIII . ADJOURNMENT Ruebling moved, seconded by Hallett to adjourn the meeting at . 11: 25 PM. Motion carried 7-0-0.