Loading...
Planning Commission - 06/12/1989 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 12, 1989 7:30 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 III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS *NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED BELOW ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER THAN LISTED. (7:35) A. DENWAL FORD, INC., by Eden Prairie Auto Properties, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.93 acres with waivers, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 10.28 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser District on 2.17 acres, Preliminary Plat of 16.93 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot for construction of an auto and truck dealership. Location: North of Plaza Drive, south of Valley View Road, east of the Prairie View Shopping Center. A continued public hearing. (7:40) B. BERGIN AUTO, by James J. Bergin. Request for Site Plan Review within the I-2 Zoning District on 2 acres for construction of a 7,500 square foot addition to an existing building. Location: Northwest corner of Martin Drive and Corporate Way. A continued public hearing. (7:55) C. EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER, for United Artist Theaters. Request for a second free-standing pylon to advertise the United Artist Movies. The sign is proposed at 249 square feet, 22 feet in height, 2'1" wide between faces, and to be located at the Eden Prairie Shopping Center's northeast entrance off Prairie Center Drive. Location: 1076 Eden Prairie Center. A public hearing. (8:15) D. EDENVALE CROSSINGS, by Marcor Properties, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial on 7.5 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept i Amendment on 21 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 21 acres, with waivers, and Zoning District Amendment within the C- Com Zoning District on 7.5 acres, Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat of 7.5 acres into 1 lot for construction of 38,056 square feet of commercial uses. Location: East of Mitchell Road, southeast of Martin Drive, Mitchell Road intersection. A public hearing. Agenda Monday, June 12, 1989 Page Two (9:00) E. SHORES OF MITCHELL LAKE, by MR-USHOT. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 94.8 acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Platting of 94.8 acres into 175 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 94.8 acres for construction of residential development. Location: South of State Highway-#5 and west of Mitchell Lake. A public hearing. (9:45) F. SCHROERS PUD, by BDD Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line to include an additional 32.2 acres of property, Planned Unit Development Concept on 129.8 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 129.8 acres, with waivers , and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 24 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 8.2 acres, Preliminary Platting of 129.8 acres into 77 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 129.8 acres for construction of a residential development. Location: North of Rice Marsh Lake, just east of the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie city limits. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY? JUNE 12, 1989 7 ; 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, Doug Sandstad COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS ; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Alan Gray, City Engineer; Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA • MOTION• Dodge moved, seconded by Sandstad to approve the Agenda as published . Motion carried 5-0-0 . II . MEMBERS REPORTS Bye asked that all Commission members convey their vacation schedules to Staff . III . MINUTES MOTION' Sandstad moved, seconded by Hallett to approve the Minutes of the May 22, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as published . Motion carried 4-0-1. Fell abstained. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. DENWAL FORD,—NC.-, by Eden Prairie Auto Properties, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Planned Unit Development District Review on 16 . 93 acres with waivers, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg- Ser on 10 .28 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser District on 2.17 acres, Preliminary Plat of • 16 .93 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot for construction of an auto and truck: dealership. Location: North of Plaza Drive, south of Valley View Road, east of the Prairie View Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 12, 1989 • hopping Center . A continued public, hearing. The proponent requested a 30-day continuance to complete plan revisions . Franzen noted that the site plan may need to be revised due to soil correction problems . MOTION• Dodge moved, seconded by Fell to continue the public hearing to the July 10, 1989, Planning Commission meeting, pending receipt and review by Staff of revised plans for the Denwal Ford proposal. Motion carried 6-0-0 . B. BFROIN AUTO, by James J . Bergin. Request for Site Plan Review within the I-2 Zoning District on 2 acres for construction of a 7, 500 square foot addition to an existing building. Location; Northwest corner of Martin Drive and Corporate Way. A continued public hearing. Richard Anderson and Charles Ruebling arrived at 7 : 35 PM. James Bergin stated that the request was to construct a 7500 square foot addition onto the existing facility. He noted that the plan had been revised to include the berming, hedging, and screening of the roof-top units as • requested by Staff . The proponent was not prepared for the metal panel; however, he believed this could be accomplished. Bergin stated that he had requested to be able to seed the property in lieu of sod, but if necessary would comply with the sod requirement to code. Fell asked if lighting had been addressed. Franzen replied that the lighting would be the same as the existing lighting which was within the City Code . Franzen noted that the sodding and metal panel requirements were required by ordinance . Anderson asked if a sprinkling system would be required . Franzen replied that an ordinance related to the requirement of sprinkling systems was not in place at this time. A sprinkling system was important when the property relied heavily on screening by landscaping; however, this project would be mainly screened with berming. Dodge asked if the proponent had planned for a chain link fence or a cedar fence. Bergin replied that there would be a chain link fence with additional shrubs . MOTION• • Anderson moved, seconded by Fell to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 12, 1989 • MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Fell to recommend to the city council approval of the request of James J. Bergin for Site Plan Review within the I-2 Zoning District on two acres for construction of a 7,500 square foot addition to an existing structure, based on revised plans dated May 31, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated May 19, and June 9 . Motion carried 7-0-0 . C. EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER, for United Artist Theaters . Request for a second free-standing pylon to advertise the United Artist Movies . The sign is proposed at 249 square feet, 22 feet in height, 211" wide between faces, and to be located at the Eden Prairie Shopping Center 's northeast entrance off Prairie Center Drive. Location: 1076 Eden Prairie Center . A public hearing. Gary Quick of United Artist stated that the plan was to take down the existing sign and replace with a new smaller sign and add an additional sign at Prairie Center Drive Entrance . Hallett asked how many additional theaters had been added. John Rider replied four new theaters were located at the • eastern theater location. Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator, reported that in 1979 the United Artists Theaters had requested a sign with Eden Prairie Center identified at the top of the sign. A permit had already been approved to take down the existing sign and replace it with the new design. Johnson stated that with the additional theaters being located at the opposite end of the center Staff believed the additional sign was important to give direction to the new theaters and believed that the duplication of signs was appropriate. The old sign would be taken down and replaced with the new design which would have less square footage than the existing sign. Anderson stated that he did not fired a compelling reason for two signs, he believed that one sign was sufficient. Anderson stated that the commercial traffic traveled mainly along Highway 169 and believed that most people going to the theater would use the Highway 169 entrance . Hallett questioned how this would be handled if it were an entirely different company which had located in the center. Anderson believed that it would be unlikely that another company would build theaters in the center because . of the knowledge that only one sign was allowed according to they PUD, Anderson on further Cs}Ttmented that t}iose Coming from other suburbs would use Highway 169 and the local residents knew the location of the theaters and: Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 12, 1989 • therefore, did not believe that the purl o5e of direction was valid. Bye stated that the east entrance was difficult to locate . Bye believed that the situation was further complicated by the center closing before the theaters . Anderson state that a remodeled sign would be adequate . Ruebling believed that the location of the sign would be at the major entrance from Wert 78th Street. Ruebling believed that because of the size of the center, the City should do what it could to make sure the businesses have the opportunity to be successful. Ruebling believed that the "Ring road" should also be considered for regional traffic. Given the proposed location of the sign close to larger buildings and at a major entrance, Ruebling believed the second sign would be appropriate . Hallett stated that the fewer signs and the smaller the signs the better . Hallett believed that because 50% of the business for the theaters came from outside Eden Prairie and because of the distance between the theaters he would support two signs . Hallett also believed that traffic along the "Ring Road" would increase. Hallett was • concerned that by allowing the two signs it would open up the opportunity for other requests from other businesses in the center . Franzen replied that this was correct because of the amendment to the PUD and therefore, the reason to approve the change needed to be unique . Jean Johnson replied that the unique circumstances were the different hours of operation and the two separate entrances . Johnson added that the same criteria would be used for wall signs . Hallett asked if the center had endorsed the second sign and if other centers had requested two signs . Johnson replied that the Eden Prairie Center endorsed the proposed plan for two signs . The request from the other theaters had not come before Staff at this time. Anderson believed that convenience would make the center successful. He also believed that a walkway should be opened between the two theaters by the center and that the theaters needed to identify their entrances. Sandstad asked if a wall sign would work for the theater . Quick replied pylon signs were both an advertising tool and a tool to provide direction. Quick believed that the major tenants were identified with the center and that other signs would not be requested. Anderson stated that • if the sign was to be for directional purposes, one sign depicting both the east and west theaters would be adequate. Sandstad asked Staff if they believed that a Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 12, 1989 • wall sign would work . Johnson replied that staff. believed that a wall sign would be too far from the road to be readable . Dodge stated that her Concerns were that of setting a precedent and also safety issues . She said that when people were not sure where they were going it increased the chance of accidents . Fell believed that the signs should be proportionate in relation to the center; however, they seemed to be drastically larger than City Code allowed and questioned if the City Code should be looked at to accommodate larger signs . Fell believed that the signs would help reduce the confusion. Hallett asked why staff was allowing the sign to be larger than allowed by City Cade . Johnson replied that the old sign would be reduced in size from the present 336 square feet and the new sign would also be smaller than the present sign. Johnson stated that the existing sign's size had been approved as part of the original PUD. Hallett commented that the purpose of the sign was to help the customers locate the theaters, not for advertising purpose: and; therefore, recommended reducing the size of • the existing sign to within the limits of the City Code and did not believe that a second sign should be allowed . Ruebling stated that he concurred with Commission Hallett on the reduction in the size of the sign and asked if the height could be reduced by 2 feet to comply with City Code. Quick stated that legibility of the sign was important. He pointed out that the reading distance from 350 feet was an 8" letter and that 6" letters reduced the reading distance to 200 feet, which would be the case if the sign was reduced in size by 2 feet. Quick also rioted that lettered signs were easier to read than flashing signs . Quick believed that the new design was a more organized sign than the existing one . Fell stated that if the sign were too small it would be difficult to read and because of the directional purpose of the sign it could become a safety hazard if it were too small to read. Fell believed that two signs would be appropriate. Ruebling asked if it would be possible to reduce the sign by 2 feet . Quick replied that the cabinet was 9 foot tall to accommodate 9 foot lamps . Ruebling then asked if the stand could be 2 feet shorter on the east side . Quick replied that this would not be a problem for the sign on • the east side . Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 12, 1989 MOTION Ruebling moved, seconded by Hallett to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION: Ruebling moved., seconded by Hallett to recommend to the city Council approval of the request of united Artists Theaters for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to allow a second free-standing sign at Eden Prairie Center, based on plans and written materials dated May 26, 1989, subJect to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 9, 1909 and that the height of the second sign be at 20 feet to be consistent with the City Ordinance. Sandstad stated that he would like the sign area also reduced. Sandstad noted that the signs were for tenant identification. Ruebling believed that the signs size needed to be in relation to the facility and the buildings surrounding it. Ruebling added that because of the nature of the sign it needed to be this size to accomplish what it was designed for. Ruebling believed that it was sufficient that the existing sign was being reduced in size by approximately 1/3 and because of the increase in • traffic volumes and the increase from 4 to 9 theaters two signs would be appropriate . Dodge asked Johnson what size Staff }relieved the sigh needed to be to be effective. Johnson replied that if the size were reduced it would be less effective . Johnson added that by dropping 2 feet the eastern sign would meet City Code, which did have merit; however, this was a regional center and other tenants would have difficulty meeting the criteria for this type of sign. Johnson stated that Staff believed that the sign would be appropriate in relationship to the size of the site and that the change would not be significant. Dodge asked if a reduction in square footage would be beneficial . Johnson replied that if the sign was scaled down the readability would not be there . Franzen stated that because of the speed of the traffic on Highway 169 the sign needed to be readable at a greater distance; however, at the other entrance the need would not be the same. Franzen suggested that if 6 inch letters could be read at 200 feet the size of the second sign could be reduced. Anderson asked if the location of the bank building coming from the north would block the view of the sign. Johnson replied that because of the building setback requirements the sign would be visible . Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 12, 1989 • AMENDMENT TO THE PREVIOUS MOTION: Ruebling moved, ,seconded by Hallett to change the sign at the easterly location from 8" letters to 6" letters which would reduce the size by approximately 25%. Fell stated that he approved of the sign and the original size because of the directional purpose and; therefore, would vote no because of the newly proposed reduction in size. Ruebling stated that the rationale for the size reduction was the slower traffic to the east and believed that the sign could serve the same purpose as the sign on Highway 169 with a smaller size. Hallett believed that the sign would be blocked by the bank on the Borth and the curve in the other direction. Ruebling believed that because of the setback requirements the sign would be visible . Amendment to the Motion Carried 5-2-0, with Bye and Fell voting "NO" . vote on the original motion 6-1 with Anderson voting "NO" . Anderson believed that the criteria could easily fit the restaurants at the center. The sign should be within City Code . The purpose of direction could be accomplished in other ways rather than a sign. The center could leave open an access between the two theaters . Ruebling did not believe this to be setting a precedent because of the nature of the theater business . The center currently had a policy regarding wall signs and the two locations within the same facility warranted the use of two signs. Bye voted against the amendment because of the reduction in size . D. EDENVALE CROSSINGS, by Marcor Properties, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial on 7. 5 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 21 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 21 acres, with waivers, and Zoning District Amendment within the C-Com Zoning District on 7 . 5 acres, Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat on 7 . 5 acres into 1 lot for construction of 38,056 square feet of commercial uses . Location: East of Mitchell Road, southeast of Martin Drive, Mitchell Road intersection. A public hearing. Franzen reported that the property was to be developed a5 a strip retail center with a free-standing two-story Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 12, 1989 office building and a gia5 Station; Otaff had tieb-n working with the proponent since January. The project was complicated by road system problems because of the Mitchell Road and Highway 212 upgrade . Jim Winkels, representing the proponent, stated that the project was proposed as a small retail center, small office complex, and a convenience gas station. The feasibility of the project from a marketability study was good and believed to be compatible iblt_ with surrounding land uses . The proponent proposed to dedicate 2. 5 acres to the City to accommodate the Purgatory Creek area and the easement for the high pressure watermain. The proponent had contacted the property owner to the north and was requesting a PUD change on the entire parcel. The Mexican Village area would be revised to provide a better access . Winkels stated that approximately . 6 of an acre could be lost from the front portion of the property due to the proposed road improvements proposed by MnDot. The long terra plan was that Pheasant Run and McDonalds would be removed entirely. The short term solution was to provide better access . Revised plans had been submitted in response to staff 's concerns. Winkels believed that the project was appropriate for this area and a very workable project. • Darrell Anderson, architect, stated that the southern proportion of the original PUD was already developed . An off-ramp was proposed for this area as part of the Mitchell Road project. The proponent had received preliminary approval of the road systems . The road alignment had been addressed with only minor details to be worked out with the adjacent property owner . The proponent 's proposed road system would match the grade of the road system proposed by MnDot. Hallett asked what was proposed on the property to the north. Winkels replied that the property would probably be a fast food restaurant and a convenience gas station. Winkels stated that MnDot wanted to provide an access from the north to the south throughout the PUD. The proponent currently proposed a private road; however, would give public easements back to the City. Darrell Anderson stated that all three building would have the same architectural characteristics . The parking area at Mexican Village would be moved due to the road alignment being moved over approximately 100 feet . The property to the north would have a direct connection to Mitchell Road as it exists today and then curves back to • the proposed future connection. The sidewalk system would be provided as recommended by staff. The proposed building area would only cover approximately 20% of the 4 acres left to develop. 181 parking stalls would be Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 12, 1989 is provided. There was a conflict with the proposed road alignment at Greenstreets; however, he believed a compromise could be made . The lighting would be provided through a combination of pylon and soffit lighting. The trash areas would be enclosed. The landscaping would be terraced and the berm built up to match that of the highway. Anderson stated that the berm would not exceed 3 to 1 slopes. Anderson added that the landscape plans would be revised. Hallett asked if pedestrian trails would be provided from the creek area to the building. Anderson replied that a trail system had not been provided to the building by the proponent . Darrell Anderson stated that a canopy would be extended around the ends of the building. The exterior of the building would be brick with wood inserts. The gables would be of cedar shingles . The residential character of the building would be extended to the creek side view. Whitney Peyton, representing the proponent, stated that the original PUD spoke to theaters, bowling alleys, and racquet ball clubs which all now currently existed within other areas of Eden Prairie. A prospective tenant for the • office building would occupy approximately 75% of the space. Approximately 30% of the retail strip was being considered for leasing. Three gas stations were presently looking at the location for a convenience gas station. The demographics of the property were good for development and he predicted a positive retail growth. Peyton believed that the majority of the complicated issues had been resolved and that the development would have a positive impact on the community. Franzen reported that 5 issues heeded to be addressed with the project: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. 2 . PUD Amendment . 3 . Site Plan Change . 4 . Traffic and access to and from the property. 5. What don't we know about the project. Franzen stated that the Site Plan Change still had details to be worked out as well as code requirements . He added that the revised plan had been given to Staff today. The traffic numbers work but internal circulation does not work well . Franzen said that what was not known at this time was the architecture of the fast food restaurant and the gas station and recommended that a specific approval for architecture not be approved and that the projects be required to come back through the gito Vlan 5eviaw pros'_e5s for the two sites: north of this project. Planning Commission Minutes 10 June 12, 1989 fir . 9honiaher,t landowner to the rierth and 5€uth, 5 tated that he supported that project and believed that with the entire PUD concept the potential traffic problems would be solved . The three acres to the north were reserved for the existing McDonalds to relocate with the remainder of the site to the north to be a PDT? type of facility. The south portion of the property was proposed as office use; however, a specific tenant was not proposed at this time . Fell stated that a lot of issues had been raised in the staff report and questioned if all the issues could be addressed prior to the City Council review. Franzen replied that the Staff Report had been written based on the original plate and the revised plan had Just been presented to Staff today. Bye recommended a continuance . Hallett stated that he would not be prepared to vote on this item tonight . Franzen believed that the first issue was whether or not the Planning Commission was comfortable with the PUD Amendment and comprehensive Guide Plate Change. Franzen added that a lot of progress had been made within the last week and it appeared that change: could be made without completely changing the site Plan. Franzen believed that a two week continuance would be appropriate to address the issues . Fell stated that he did not have a problem with the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change or the PUD Amendment; however, he was concerned about the number of issues and would like further clarification before City Council review. Sandstad stated that the concept was good. He questioned if the semi loading area was big enough. A Benshoof representative stated that there would not be significant semi truck traffic and with the proposed limited use it could be accommodated. Dodge asked if after MnDot had taken some of the parking area and part of the corner of the building if there would be any greenspace left after completion. Winkels replied that greenspace would be provided. Hallett questioned if a pedestrian access should be provided. Franzen replied that a short section of trail would be needed to accommodate a connection to the existing trail . Hallett asked if the proponent should be responsible for the installation of the trail . Franzen replied that Edenvale had been reminded of its commitment for the trail and that a more definitive recommendation would be forthcoming from the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department. • Hallett then asked if proof of parking is being provided to meet code. Franzen replied that the actual and proof Planning Commission Minutes 11 June 12, 1989 • of parking met code . Hallett commented that he supported the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change and the PUD Amendment. Ruebling asked if the Kindercare concerns had been addressed. Franzen replied that the letter had been received Friday after the Staff Report had already been prepared. Ruebling recommended that the proponent address this issue at the next meeting. commissioner Anderson asked if the traffic consultant had reviewed the new access and questioned if 3 convenience gas stations were necessary in this area . Peyton replied that the market would dictate the need; however, it appeared that there was a preceived shortage of convenience gas stations in Eden Prairie. Bye requested that more definite information be provided regarding signs . MOTION' Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to continue this item to the June 26, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 7-0-0. E. SHORES OF MITCHELL LAKE, by MR-USHOT. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13 . 5 on 94 .8 acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Platting of 94 . 8 acres into 175 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 94 .8 acres for construction of residential development. Location; South of State Highway 45 and west of Mitchell Lake . A public hearing. Lee Johnson, representing the proponent, stated that the project would develop in three stages, with the 1st phase proposed for approximately 45 units to correspond to the construction of the service road for Highway 5. The 2nd phase of approximately 90 units would close the loop back to Dell Road. Johnson proposed that construction and grading be in conjunction with the Highway 5 improvement project. Jack Buxel, architect, explained the topography of the proposed site, noting that there were no soil problem areas defined. Buxel then presented the tree inventory plan. The project was designed to have three distinct marketing levels of homes based on the topography of the • land. 8uxel presented that pl_an5 noting 5pecifically the lakeshore portion of the project which depicted 18 lakeshore lots, 9 lakeview lots, and 5. 5 acres to be Planning Commission Minutes 12 June 12, 1989 • dedicated aB a City Valk; A trail Was propo5ed to cot neet the park to the south and the park to the north. Five foot sidewalks were also proposed for some sections of the internal loop system. Buxel noted that an issue raised by Staff was the number of cul-de-sacs throughout the subdivision. He explained that the three cul-de-sacs in the northern portion of the project were dale to the location of Highway 5, several of the cul-de-sacs could become through streets; however, several lots would be lost. Some private roads could be used in lieu of the cul-de-sacs . Buxel noted that a second issue of concern by Staff was the amount of grading necessary. A chart was presented to depict the buildable areas of the lots . There would be extensive grading on 4 lots; however, Buxel did not believed that the grading would come close to the 50% tree loss estimated by Staff . He added that Staff 's concern had been that the builders and homeowners would want additional grading. Buxel believed that the phasing of the project should not have to wait for the full extension of Dell( Road.{ 1 y y } 7 qT 7 Buxel stated slut a �1�1�.se impact study gas being completed • regarding the northern lots along Highway 5 . The proponent was prepared to lower the knolls, berm and landscape to help mitigate the noise levels; however, the noise could not be completely mitigated by these measures . Johnson stated that neighborhood meetings had been conducted. He added that Mr . Kinney was not in favor of the northern cul-de-sac in its present location and noted that there was a possibility to use a private road in this location. Johnson believed that it was important for this road system to blend in with the southern road system. He believed that the proposal did fit in with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan and the southwest Area Study. Johnson further believed that the proposal addressed the desires of the City, would be a great addition, and that a sincere effort had been made to develop an excellent project. Franzen reported that 6 issues affected this project. 1. Shoreland ordinance . The proponent needed to reduce the impact to the lakeshore by having fewer lots, consideration of private roads for the points, and adherence to the Shoreland ordinance . 2 . Tree loss . The City was concerned about the preservation of trees and with the larger building • pads, the tree loss would increase . The use of private roads could be used to decrease the tree loss . 3. Cul-de-sacs, The direction from the City Council Planning Commission Minutes 18 June 12, 1989 • was to discourage unnecessary cul-de-sacs . 4 . The Southwest Area Study. Franzen stated that the Southwest Area Study had addressed the need for road improvements in this area before significant development occurred. The purpose of the study had been to make reviewing plans for this area easier. He added that at some point there would have to be a loop system back to Dell Road and questioned how the second access would be developed. It could be possible for the loop to come through the Tandem development. 5. Noise Mitigation. Franzen reported that the noise levels merited a noise assessment study. 6 . Sidewalks and Trails . The new area needed to have sidewalks and trail connections made . He noted that a trail connection had been proposed. Bob Eckers., 1.8230 West 82nd Street, stated that he had already paid to have the Dell Road upgraded several years ago and was concerned about the proposed construction traffic. Eckers believed that the project should wait until Highway 5 was completed. He noted that Dell Road was only 33 feet wide . Eckers also noted that this project would take S to 4 years to develop and was concerned about the construction noise never ending. Glenn Fristed, 17247 West 78th Street, stated that the Shoreland Ordinance was based on DNR classifications and believed that the requirements should be upheld. He would like to see a screening requirement added and the high water mark setback requirement met. Dodge stated that her main concern was the phasing of the project. Johnson replied that the access to Highway 5 needed to be vacated and the new road was proposed to be constructed next spring. The grading for the road system would begin this fall . Johnson added that occupancy of the domes would be timed with the completion of the infrastructure and the connection to the trunk water . 90 lots would be proposed for the second year and the third year would consist of the infill of the lots . Johnson believed the connection to Dell Road needed to go to 82nd Street. Dodge then expressed a concern regarding the Shoreland Ordinance . Hallett was concerned about the size of the lakehsore lots . The original plan by the City was to have a trail along the lake . Hallett believed that there were too many homes planned along the lake and the building pads were too small. Hallett further expressed a concern regarding 44% of the lakehhore land being dedicated for public t use and yet there was not public access tothe lake a1. this time . Hallett believed that the City should receive something in exchange for the variances . Planning Commission Minutes 14 June 12, 1989 w lili riF Rtated that h@ did riot 5@e a reason to foula6oify from an environmental to a recreational status . He believed that the intensity along the lakeshore needed to be spread out. Ruebling was concerned about the relationship of this project to the phasing of the Southwest Area Study. He added that this area was developing faster than projected by the study. Ruebling recommended a chart to outline milestones of the project. The Highway 5 noise issue needed to be addressed and sidewalks and trails deeded to be further defined. Ruebling believed that a significant trail system was needed along the lake - possibly not the entire lakeshore . Anderson believed that too many cul-de-sacs were proposed and was generally not in favor of the plan. Fell stated that the phasing of the project was important and would like to see something in writing. He believed that the Shoreland ordinance should be maintained. Fell added that the plan needed a lot of work . Sandstad concurred with the concerns of the other commissioners . Sandstad asked how many of the developments in the City have met the Shoreland ordinance . He asked for some background information. Bye stated a concern about access to the area from only one location. She concerned that access to the lake was needed. Bye stated that a lot of time had been spent on the Southwest Area Study and believed that the City should work within guidelines . Dodge stated that the project did not deserve a denial. Fell believed that the proposal should be sent back to the proponent. Alan Gray, City Engineer, stated that it was important for MnDot to have a graded roadway to these lots and to keep the Highway 5 project on track . Gray believed that the projects were worth working on at this time and that the plans would fit in with future road alignments . Gray noted that there was a possibility that the developers could construct the roadway and be reimbursed by MnDot with right-of-ways . Gray added that this could be possible at least for the northern portion. Johnson said that the lots were originally proposed at 40, 000 square feet. The southend of the lakeshore was being proposed for the city park with a public access . Johnson noted that the proponent had tried to give some • lakeshore trail and some off-lakeshore trails . We traded parkland. Johnson believed there should be plenty of opportunity for this type of development. Planning Commission Minutes 15 June 12, 1989 Hallett replied that the Planning commission was not comfortable with the plan as proposed. Hallett believed that expensive homes would be placed on small lake lots . Bye stated that major revisions would be necessary before the Planning commission could approve the proposal. Johnson replied that he had not anticipated approval or denial tonight. Ruebling asked if the eastern development met the Shoreland ordinance . Franzen replied that that portion of the lake had been developed prior to the Shoreland Ordinance . Uram added that Weston Bay was the latest development and the lot sizes had been restrictive because of the shape of the property; however, the west side of the lake should meet the Shoreland Ordinance . The commissioners referenced comments and concerns to the following issues: 1. Shoreland Ordinance. Ruebling believed that the shoreland ordinance should be adhered to as it currently exists. • Bye asked if there would be any trade offs for the shoreland variance. Hallett commented that he would only favor variances if there would be trade-offs for possibly additional park land. Hallett preferred a trail all along the lakeshore and believed that too many lots were located on the points. Ruebling asked if Diller Park would have any affect on the classification of the lake . Franzen replied that there would be restrictions on the motor size allowed on the lake . Hallett was concerned about the potential for problems later with the homes facing the park. Bye believed that the proponent should adhere as much as possible to the Shoreland Ordinance . She did not want to see excessive tree loss and also believed that the building pads were too small. Ruebling stated that 25 of 00 lets had building depths less than 70 feet. 2, Cul-de-sacs and roadways . Bye believed that some private reads Lt}is_uld be looked at to save more trees . Planning Commission Minutes 16 June 12, 1989 Nuebling concurred with the Staff report regarding the cul-de-sacs. Fell believed that the short cul-de-sacs were acceptable; however, the longer ones should be looked at further . Dodge stated that the caul-de-sacs along Highway 5 made sense to allow greater setback for noise mitigation. Bye commented that more detail waB- necessary regarding the phasing of the project and the road connections . Sandstad believed that the noise assessment for the property along Highway 5 was important . 3. Trails and sidewalks. Bye believed that this was a safety and a transportation issue and that sidewalks should be provided along at least one side of all streets . The Commission concurred with this recommendation. MOTION: Ruebling moved, seconded by Standstad to continue this . item to the July 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 7-0-0 . F. SCHROERS PUD, by BDD Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line to include an additional 32 .2 acres of property, Planned Unit Development Concept on 129 . 8 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 129 . 8 acres, with waivers, and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9 . 5 on 24 acres and from Rural to R1-13 . 5 on 8 .2 acres, Preliminary Platting of 129 . 8 acres into 77 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 129 . 8 acres for construction of a residential development. Location: North of Rice Marsh Lake, just east of the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie city limits, A public hearing. Fell and Anderson left at 11:15 PM. Mike Black, representing the proponent, stated that the proposed project would consist of 223 lots on 129 acres . 130 lots along the 3 perimeters of the property were proposed for R1-9 . 5 zoning with 93 lots to be zoned R1- 13 . 5. Seven cul-de-sacs would be positioned throughout the subdivision. Black stated that berming and • landscaping would provide a buffer to the north. Two trail connections would Ne provided with a sidewalk and bikepath along Dell Road. Variances would be requested Planning Commission Minutes 17 ,Tune 12, 1989 • due to the Shoreland Ordinance . Black stated that the proponent had met with the DNR and in principal had agreed that protection of the natural environment would be provided. A buffer of open space would be provided along the lakeshore. 50 foot building pads would be used with the exception of 10 lots which required larger building pads . Sanitary sewer would be provided by gravity flow to two connections to the main interceptor . Black presented the grading and landscaping plans. Black also reviewed the proposed phasing of the project. Dick Feerick presented the Planning Commission with a handout regarding the MUSA Line change request . Feerick believed that there was tremendous potential for development in this area. Feerick stated that the proponent planned to support the infrastructure . He believed that there was sufficient justification for the MUSA Line change . Timing of the proposed development was important and Feerick said that the proponent would like to begin grading on the property yet this year with proposed occupancy of domes in 1990 . Feerick stated that the proponent supported the trail system and was proposing to contribute a significant amount of land for the system. Uram reported that the MUSA Line change would only expand the area by 16 acres : however, the total change would be 32 acres . Uram stated that approximately 100 acres would remain outside the MUSA Line and therefore, it could be possible to have requests yearly for MUSA Line changes . Another issue for the Planning Commission to consider was the recently completed Southwest Area Study. Uram noted that this project would be outside the study area, but was adjacent to Sub Area I . This project as proposed would be one of the largest R1-9 . 5 zoning area in the city. The average size for building pads were recommended at 70 feet deep; however, 0 lots as proposed currently would only have 50 foot building pads. . Uram believed that a cul-de- sac in the southeastern portion of the project would have a severe impact on the heavily wooded area. The proposed project would require 32 Shoreland Ordinance variances, with the proponent justifying these requests by a 30 acre dedication of property to the City. Uram believed this would be an opportunity to provide a trail along the lake. The two main issues to be considered by the Planning Commission was the MUSA Line expansion and if this project should be subject to and included as part of the Southwest Area Study. Sandstad complimented the };proponent on the inclusion of the trail along the lake. Sandsstad did not believe that the Southwest Area Study could be ignored regarding this Ruebling believed that based on the Staff recommendation co X! � -'-I r� �", �I � "� is a) 41 -P 4m I rY�y, .4.) ,-i 0j-4-) ri Z --I -P .4 O O 17.1 ,-I a)ri ,X;i .4-) 11) 3 -I-) U)r--I +-i 4 a) a) x •r-i -4-5 4 -N 0 3 ,-► >4 414 rts L) O as rz m 4-:4 40 o (1) a-' z to �4 3 M ra W o r^' r-t -P -I-:' IT, 4 a) r-i .Q 0 4--) 4-) .4 It O O rO O ::� (L) (1) to rEl r-i N N O a) 4.- r-I 4 r-1 >4 3 = 1~ m 4 .,1 far () 3 x 44 to 4 rts a) rl ri r-I a-)44-t P4 a- !=4 rO 4-5 4-5 0 4-5 O 4-,•4 M rO 4--N V) Ul 114 ?4 (d ?4 O 3 ?4 r-i O -4 4-S O O .-1 rO a) Z x �4 r- r4, 144 r,, 3 M Rf U) 'z' 11 rO O .14 Q+ O fu 0 44 Q) z O 1= a) 0 tT'O 0 0 0] r--1 O a) 4 rO 3; •ri 04 to >Ii H 3 )4 •• O 4-) rO C4 ILI •r-i 4.4 r,M; rO y4 4 tU in !=4 : 4-:- �." r�rY 0 1~ ►n H :� O tT !4 4 r-I O Wr 44--I JZ.4 0 rO ILI - rd Z it, • O rK 0 a) 0 O rO m > m ra m 4 O rO 3 04 >4 rd (a '+I -I-S h f::� a) U 3 M 3 0 4-r-i ;14 >I ?14 3 tT ILI t:p O a? (U a) o o U r-i , rr_l rO rO rO O 0 4--' U nr-I :=44.) C4 a) z.. Y^, -I-) }4 -14 M U 't; rG5 �:s O a) 9z: O a) F-: ,-4 ILI 0:[ O r-I }4 4-) r1 rm. 0 rO to M H ru RS M ti) -I- O 4-5 O .4 (1) 04-) Z m ,:.:I rO 0 4 r-i x Z H a) 104 Wa N w M -1 4 m m N .4 .4 Z M 4 U r-i 4-) 4 rO •'-I U) 0 O H O m 3 I7;, 0 M V. a-' 1040 a) U U ::4.4 a) to 4 -I- -V U) 3 () N r-+ -P 4 .4.) O ..-i .4-) cl 11 4r' a) O --t ,:v O ,L) ""I O 5.4 x 4 ..'i (a •ri (1) r-i r-I 4 m a) O rO )-I a) --1 rO 4=' U z O O U 4 ILI 4-�' .e' 3 ?4 as U r, a) 0j.4 4.5 4 0 N 3 4 q -•4 >i O O 44 44 4 O -P U) 4 V �3 ri 3 i-I 4 4 U 04-) 4 z 04 t3l 0 U 4-5 >1 a U) •ri U rO Q. a) ro 4 4 •ri ILI m 4+O rO at •r-t W-i (1) O -i z rO z w•r-i-P M 4 rO U) -P r. r..S" O H a-I O rt ro Iri 4•) r-i U (1)•ri 4-' 44 �4 Z 4 a-5 44 M r-i ro 4-S � M -P 4-) a) ••-1 to �$ -P ?-i .-1 04 .« (n a) m tU -N U) 101 ro a) �_, )-t 0 44 4-:4 O, .ri .4-5 IV 4 .�." O O 3.5... to O 4-I O to 04 U (1) .r... rO d) 4 4 rO ITJ m U) m w O•14 ml i)i is m t". U O .4.s t n 4-) 4 O P4 tT t n U IC' rO U -1-5 0 -P (1) ILI )•I =, a :N ro•r'I m M ILI 4-' ❑.I '-"I (V x 3 4-5 ::% z x -P r>4 U) O 4 z ra a) O r-i O 4 .Sl. a) 1~ Iri 44 :r 044-5 3 4J �4 r;v, 4-) M :Z Pi tr a) W-+ O w-i M 4-5 ra U •ri •-1 �, a) .-" O r:' .0 ra O +5 O 04 0 r... 00 to a4 r-i 44 EO r� 4-5 r-i .1 5-i O U rO 00 4 4 4 -P ?-I .0 U O ?i•'1 -P ri) Rf 4-t O C4.H ILI m 0 iT a) 044 �:) • 4 ru (L)-r-I 04.) a) 3 M a) -I-S .4 O O o -ri 4 3 O rO m -P :� r-1 0 = 04 m f.. O £.' L 4 -1 0] x rO t-'Is-_ 4 C4•ri rO 44 .4.) W -I-) U N N [} 4-) 4 -I-S O rt5 S.. O v 4 a) m (1) 4-j 4)•r-i tar W 4-' a) a) :D U 4-5 rO 0 3 •.-I 44 O -P M RS (1) -P r~ O r-i a) o .7 C 14 () 0]r-i rO M r>I 0 (1) tT: >C a) 'N m O a) o ow 0 LO t1) -4) to .4 -4.5 4 4) to •r-i ro ­4 (L) •-) 6L4 .4 M 4 rO W 44 r-I 01 .4 z a) 11) > 4-' a) s: 4 4 5.t >1 • • .� a) 4.) •ri 0 a) 4-) Ln rd .4-+ "Cl ILI 0 4-5 M () 4 u;. O z=1 -1-5 a) 0 a) (L) ILI rp O 4.5-I+ M -P O W rn at -P 3 r-i 4.) O m U •.-i . •.-i ,:._. .4 L-H 44 Z M Z 0 r-1 s, r0 m•ri "E'. 11 U £.' a) 44 1 1 4 rO O co 01 a) 4 to rn 4 U) rO -I-=' -P 4-5 r.04 -r-1 Cr, a) 14-4 44 r-t 4 5 N r-I (Y 0 rO r- 0 a) e-1 r-i 4-3 -P a) 044 to m ru S., I ro r- a) 1 •-� ILI ro-r-i tT I r,I') i)j O •ri M M 4--Na) ICY .^. 4-S O Z -4-5 04 • a W M O 4-) O -P •-t R4 4 ro r-i rti to T.' 3 tb e r=1 S..TG rH Z 4-' .!::" m O O.4 :z 0 ro m m rO .z O O m •r-i m CY (1) S4 O r r-i I7'l .4.3 a) •rI a) W rt 0 'Li -4-5 U 0 Q4 Z k' O ro : 44 to a) a) 4-) -4-5 CO 4 -P rO a) 4-) CO -P rO 4- 04 9. rO it! r. 4 rO U ,-i ;ON M 44 O a) a) .4 .>4 44 )44-) 4 ro N a) 4 th m 4,y •ri O 4-:1 0 4q rG 4s rO O a) 4-' () nCl .4 a) m rO 4 4.5 Z Z a)rO, rO M U .4.s . rO a) 4 Z rO 4--� N O a) m ? a) m 4s 0 4) 0 N (1) It, 4 I.r- 4-- -4.s .4 4:I 04-r-i it, -•-4 -4 0 4) a) a) :� .4.5 tU .4 U rO 3 U) -P .4 O .4 44 'i^I U ITS rO Z 4-) 0 • O r•-i rO . Z a rLi .47 4-5 >4-P >4 M tT 4-5 4J .ri a) M rO .4 rO 44 ra a- M .4.5 I]; : rO O M if? 4-) M Cr', O rO >4 It () 5-t 4-� ID to m -P 4-) r- rO O i•t 4 04.) 0 44 •ri 04 in 4 ' M '-4.4 rm. • 0] O 1 144 (1) r-i Z Jc� a) 0 d.' Z 44 •ri W U) •ri a) SZ -P a) -4-5 () 44 ✓ O M O M rO 4.) •'-i Ir., 4.5 '.:.a 43 M Ol (0 rr,, 4-) .-i > .4.5 0 4-5 > r0l w m O its f. rO 5 M (L) x LH a) O H 04 N O 0 X.'.. 4,_. 07 a) U a) 1 3 a., U W a.) (L) 4 + 1 11) ILI W a) N • 00 O )-i N a) .4 N4 4 z •ri m a) N O 4-) -I-S 04--) In 4 ILI x ra M r1 4-:1 a) M --4 i>^4-:1 rO -V 3 > .`F... U a) M rO 4.3 U M •ri x -N 43 4- r-i !4 rO ?4 ru A O t„, r 044 W t P fri to M fM r-i .4.5 IT $".. M O '1' z 0) 4 ri >1 t n r-i •r-I [!] (7 a) O rU Qi -4-5 4 R4 44 '.."".. U U) ri r- 4�' 0 �rl a) U5 ki M rt: O 'rf' O ri if5 >1 a) (L) U) - 3 44 4 .4 -4 M 04 U) 0 O 0 O Il'.i •-.-i 4.)44•r-i i)A .4-5 > V .0 . U ro-P U) H 54 .4 M .X 44 >4 H M 4-) 4 4 rO irl O -4-) �. U) U) O U) to IM 0] 0 ri ILI i4 >4 U 07 m � tU 4) ?i a) t-4 >i tt.5 a-5 t:n CT O a) O CL, a) 4 a) ::5 a--'' a) 4-i -4-5 0 fr., o rO 0 41 a) -1-' 0] (L) a) .i~ O .4 -4-t -4N -'4 .4.) G]I O r-i 4) --i 4 4 4 4 4-5 .;; 4 ` 11 5-I z 3.1, O -P, 3 anti -4s Z- -i a) a)4--) "- m rr 4 3 -4-5 v-I 0) -u U -ri O 3 -P to U -r-i +-I N m -ri a) M )-I rO -+ kv U IS.. 4.S... 0 4 rO .... a) 'Ti-r-1 4-) -.-1 r-1 U ILI -r-i O 3 4 .r•.. U rO ri 47 •rq U r-i a) i.) r-i ri a) o t-., at £ M 04-) 0 ri .4_) ,-I .4-. r-i r-1 131 rrs r-i 4 (L) O'I 7e 47a a)-4_5 4 U) r-i C4 r-i 5-i a) 1~ a) >I.r- .4 A a U 4 rO ILI "J rj O LO r-4 O ! ri ::5-.-1 U 44 O 44 r,-; O iU 00 0 z O 1~ r-i a) N > M M .4.) -I--) a) 4) (1) 4 ID 0 4 w tV m O 5 - 17.1. O 0 �Z, rt O ''-i O a) M 44 00 m .7y•ri O 00 O ro a) r- a) M .r-i •r-i -r-t r,; �( a) O a) Ij;I a) O 4-:J M.S. M M ON x to .3 O x 3 G r-i m 04 rU G U 0' W P co oll U 3 U x N4 -4-5 rO 44 rO U 3 Ili C4 rO U 4 14 5:. -4 O U ss f~ rt r-i a, Planning Commission Minutes 19 June 12, 1989 He believed that everything would tie together in an acceptable fashion. Johnson found it to be illogical that the interceptor sewer went through this property, which was outside the MUSA Line, and could not be developed . Rueblirig stated that the Dell goad assessment would use part of a feasibility study. Gray stated that a feasibility study for Dell Road was being prepared which would provide more accurate information regarding the alignment of Dell Read. He added that the City needed to consider the assessment method and the financial implications to the City. Patton ;Mated that the proponent was trying to work with Staff to help improve this area. Bye stated that she would prefer to re-evaluate this project after the Dell Road feasibility study had been completed. Dodge believed that there was merit in the MUSA Line change . Dodge added that she would like the project incorporated into the Southwest Area Study. Hallett believed that further review of the project should • not occur until the feasibility study was completed. Franzen noted that Staff would know more about the Dell Road alignment in approximately 80 days . Rueblirig moved, seconded by Dodge to continue this item to the July 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting with the direction of the discussion to address the appropriateness of the MUSA Line change and the phasing of the project in relation to the Southwest Area Study. Motion carried 5-0- 0. V. OLD BUSINESS VI . NEW BUSINESS VII . PLANNER' S REPORT VIII . ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Ruebling moved, seconded by Dodge to adjourn the meeting at 12 : 40 AM. Motion carried 5-0-0 .