Loading...
Planning Commission - 08/10/1981 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, August 10, 1981 7:30 PM, City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Hakon Torjesen, Grant Sutliff, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF JULY 27, 1981 MINUTES III. MEMBERS REPORTS IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. BURNING TREE CONDOMINIUM PLAT, by Burning Tree Corporation. Request to preliminary plat 12 acres into 2 lots (5 & 7 acres). Located at 14000 Chestnut Drive. A public hearing. B. SUNDQUIST ADDITION, by Nils Sundquist. Request to rezone 20 acres from Rural to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat 37 acres into a 13 acre outlot and 4E Pots for duplexes (92 units) . Located in the southeast corner of Baker Road and Valley View Road. A - public hearing. C. 'OVERLOOK PLACE, by Hustad Development Corporation. Request to rezone approximately 10 acres from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat 32 duplex lots and 9 single family lots. Located north of Pioneer Trail and East of Yorkshire Point. A public hearing. D. AUTUMN WOOD, by Dennis J. Truempi. Request for rezoning of 13 acres from Rural to RM 6.5 for 46 duplexes and 29 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for 38 single family lots, and preliminary plat approval . Located east of TH 101 and south of Rymarland Camp. A public hearing. E. CITY WEST, by Ridhard W. Anderson. Request for PUD Concept for office and commercial upon 87 acres, rezoning of 26 acres from Rural to Office, preliminary plat approval -with possible variances, and approval of an- Environmental Assessment Work- sheet. CocatH east of Shady Oak Road and south of Crosstown 62. A public hearing. - F. SMETANA LAKE TRAFFIC STUDY.. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Set a date for a joint meeting with the City Council and Dev. Comm. VII. PLANNER' S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT y MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 10, 1981 iapproved 7:30 PM, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Beaman, Grant Sutliff, Liz Retterath, Hakon Torjesen, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Retterath moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. II. APPROVAL OF JULY 27, 1981 MINUTES Gartner moved to approve the July 27, 1981 minutes with the following additions and/or correctdons: P. 1, item III, 2nd para] , 2nd line, 'ti ' should be 'to' P. 2, item' B, IV, strike para. #5 P. 6, in the motion, 3rd line should read 'make this available to { the Park, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission should they wish to take this up before action is taken by the Planning Commission. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0. 6, 1st para. , last line, strike last word, `not' Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0-2. Retterath and Hallett abstained. III. MEMBERS REPORTS None IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. BURNING TREE CONDOMINIUMS, by Burning Tree Corporation. Request to preliminary plat 12 acres into 2 lots (5 & 7 acres) . Located at 14000 Chestnut Drive. A public hearing. The Planner stated that Mr.Jan Susee, of Susee & Lee, LTD, representing Burning Tree Corporation could give the presentation. Susee explained that the platting request was to allow phase II of Burning Tree to be built as condominiums rather than apartments. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 8/7/81. Torjesen asked if the setbacks .for Lot- 2 creates any need for variances. Mr. Susee replied no. The Planner replied that on the final plat lots 2 and 3 will be combined with lot 1. L approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 10, 1981 Carl A.C. Papenfusl, 8385 Mitchell Road, asked if the provisions made for -another road to tie into Schooner Road is still planned. The Planner--replied the proponent would build his section of Anderson Lakes Parkway and will tie into US 169/212. Torjesen asked if the project will have access from Chestnut Drive. The Planner replied yes. Papenfuss asked if the area west of 14000 Chestnut is still approved for apartments. The Planner replied yes. MOTION 1 Retterath moved to close the public hearing on Burning Tree Condominiums Plat. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 Retterath moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the plat dated 7/30/81 as per the staff report dated 8/7/81 adding that the term 'East-West Parkway' be changed to 'Anderson Lakes Parkway' for continuity purposes. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0. B. SUNDQUIST ADDITION, by Nils Sundquist. Request to rezone 20 acres from Rural to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat 37 acres into a 13 acre outlot and 46 duplex lots for duplexes (92 units). Located in the southeast corner of Baker Road and Valley View Road. A public hearing. The Planner stated that Mr. Lee Johnson was present representing Mr. Nils Sundquist. to give a presentation. Johnson reviewed the location, surrounding land uses, grading plans, road location, access, stated that the proposal meets Ord. 135 requirements, and that Outlot A will be dedicated to the City. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 8/7/81. Bearman stated that a letter from Mr. Dan Smithwich dated August 7, 1981 was received and should be made part of the minutes. Sutliff asked if Outlot B will have access to the future park. The Planner replied yes. Sutliff then stated that he would like to have Outlot B added to recommendation #7 of the staff report. Retterath asked if the outlot will be part of the road if the proposed road is lined up to Baker Road. Johnson replied'yes. Retterath asked what is classified as 'similar units' . Johnson replied the facade. Gartner asked about landscaping. The Planner gave a slide presentation of the site. Gartner asked if 2 enclosed garages will be required for a dwelling unit or duplex. The Planner replied dwelling unit. Retterath asked the type of units, the price range, and if there will be any smaller units. Johnson replied the -units will be similar to Stewart Highlands, they will range from $70,000 - $80,000, and stated there will not be smaller units. 1 1 approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 10, 1981 Torjesen stated that he had concerns regarding access and overall circulation. The Planner stated that if permanent access was provided onto Valley View Road where the temporary access is planned, -there would be no problem. He further stated that it is important to have the southern connection made. Torjesen asked if there is appropriate distance between the temporary access and the Valley View Road/Mitchell Road intersection. The Planner replied he. would check. Johnson stated that he felt that continuing the inner.road to intersect with future Mitchell Road would be a benefit. Sutliff asked if the roadway would be put in across another person's property. The Planner replied yes. Bearman asked if the Guide Plan shows this site as park, if the site is buildable, and asked The Planner to answer the questions in Mr. Smithwich's letter dated 8/7/81. The Planner replied the southern portion is designated as park, the site is build- able, and The Planner stated that he had talked with Mr. Smithwich, and that he expects his question to be addressed in a feasibility study (connection to Stewart Drive) , the cost will be determined at an- assessment hearing; or paid by the benefitting property owners. Bearman asked the time frame for future Mitchell Road. The Planner replied that that is up to the County. Bearman stated that he would like to see a permanent connection to Valley View Road. Bearman asked if a lot is subdivided, what guarantees the builder to build according to requirements and asked how the City can protect against builders 'over building' . The Planner stated there are no guarantees, however, the building inspectors check for requirements. - Torjesen asked if the inner road could end up in a cul-de-sac. The Planner stated that he felt that it was important to have it connected. Bearman stated that he received a letter from Mr. Bruce Johnson dated Aug. 10, 1981 which should be made part of the minutes. Betty Colston, 7215 Topview Road, stated she was concerned with the amount of traffic to be generated by this development. The Planner stated that approx- imately 800 trips are expected when development is completed; 80% of which is expected to go NE; 70% of that is expected to go E on Valley View Road; the balance would be expected to go S on Valley View Road. Once new Valley View Road is completed, old Valley View Road will be terminated at the connection of Topview Road and Valley View Road which is expected to be completed within the next two (2) years. • Mr. Miller, 7120 Gerard Drive, stated he felt that _the setbacks should be increased in case a turn lane was required to get into Sundquist Addition. approved Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 10, 1981 Ed Pilch, 7320 Stewart Drive, stated that he felt that there are too many uncertain- ities to this project, and stated that he felt all roads should be completed with the completion of the project. Gartner asked how easily it is to change the lot lines for the units if the builder decides to place the building at a different angle. Bearman replied that would go to the Board of Appeals. MOTION 1 Gartner moved to close the public hearing on the Sundquist Addition Plat. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 as per the plan dated 7/27/81 and the 8/7/81 staff report with the following additions and/or changes in the staff report: 2. No similar units (more than the facade has to be changed) must be constructed adjacent to each other. 3. A minimum of 2 enclosed garage spaces be constructed per dwelling unit. 4. The common lot line division be depicted upon all lots on the final plat. 6. No construction shall occur until sanitary sewer service is available. 7. That outlots B and C be depicted as a permanent easement for traffic and trail purposes. r 10. Excess soil from grading be available for City use as per Community Service Director' s recommendations. 11. That there be a permanent access as opposed to a temporary one. 12. That a road must connect to Stewart Drive. Retterath seconded. DISCUSSION Torjesen stated that he felt that a permenent access to Valley View Road rather than a tem- porary one. He also stated that the continuation of the inner road_ be 'stubbed in' for future access to Mitchell Road. Gartner and Retterath agreed. Retterath asked that staff and Mr. Johnson get together to discuss screening. Gartner stated that she felt that Smithwich should not have to pay for 2 of the road. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION 3 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated 7/27/81 as per the 8/7/81 report with the same additions and/or changes as listed in motion 2. Retterath seconded, motion carried 6-0. t approved Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 10, 1981 C. OVERLOOK PLACE, by Hustad Development Corporation. Request to rezone approximately 10 acres from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat 32 duplex lots and 9 single family lots. Located north of Pioneer Trail and East of Yorkshire Point. A public hearing. The Planner stated that Mr. Dick Putnam was present to give the presentation. Putnam reviewed the past proposals, new proposal , and stated that the existing building was previously the officE.,fQr Hustad Development Corporation but now is vacant. (Hustad's moved to the Bryant Lake Center/Lakeridge Office Park) He introduced Mr. Wally Hustad and the builder, Mr. Bob Erickson. Putnam went on to explain that the units would be priced in the mid 60's per unit with $800 a month payments going FHA. Stated that the lots which do not conform to Ord. requirements can be made to conform by the elimination of one of the lots or by making an adjustment to the totlot size. Hustad's would prefer eliminating a lot. He went over the types of units, i.e. , step-up, walk-out, and look-out. Bob Erickson, the builder, reviewed the types of duplexes and stated that the floor plans will be identical while the facade will change. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 8/5/81. Retterath stated that she felt that 2/3 of the lots are not U conformance with Ord. requirements. Bearman asked if the original duplex proposal which the Planning Commission ap- proved previously was substantially less dense than the current proposal . The Planner replied that that is true. Hallett asked if there was g6ing to be three (3) structures with different exteriors. Putnam replied yes. Mr. Prom, 12661 Pioneer Trail , stated he was opposed to putting duplexes in between single family. He further stated that he feels this is too dense. Stewart Loper, 9506 Woodridge Cir. , feels it is inappropriate to place duplexes between single family neighborhoods. John Kelley, 9576 Yorkshire Lane, stated he is opposed to the proposal , and further stated that he was concerned about the use of rental units. Tom Myers, 9539 Creekwood Drive, stated that he was also concerned for the use of rental units and opposed placing duplexes in' between single family neighborhoods. Putnam stated that•.thelproponent would prefer the Commission take action rather than continue the public Hearing. Hallett stated that he approves of the use of duplexes, but stated that he would . like to see revisions. k approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 10, 1981 MOTION 1 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 as per the plan dated 6/29/81 and the staff report dated 8/5/81. Hallett seconded, motion carried 4-2. Retterath and Sutliff voted no. MOTION 2 Gartner ►roved to continue the public hearing on the preliminary plat request. Hallett seconded. DISCUSSION Torjesen stated that his 'aye' vote on motion 1 was based on the assumption that the revision to be made will be in accordance with all ordinance requirements. Motion carried 5-1. Retterath voted no. D. AUTUMN WOOD, by Dennis J. Truempi . Request for rezoning of 13 acres from Rural to RM 6.5 for 46 duplexes and 29 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for 38 single family lots, and prelim- inary plat approval. Located east of TH 101 and south of Rymarland Camp. A public hearing. The Planner stated that Mr. Truempi and James Hill , architect, are present to give a presentation. Hill reviewed surrounding land uses and the location. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 8/6/81 and gave a slide presentation. Sutliff asked if Dell Road encroaches into Chanhassen. The Planner replied yes. Sutliff then asked if all roads will be rough graded until sewer and water are available. Hill replied that the road will be constructed in phases but that the road will not continue into phase III until sewer and water are available. Sutliff stated that he was concerned with the driveway width for the double bungalows. on cul-de-sacs. Hallett asked if the City has delt with Chanhassen regarding Dell Road. The Plan- ner replied yes. Torjesen asked if the lots next to the railroad are being combined into 2 lots at the suggestion of the City. The Planner replied yes to save woods. Torjesen then stated that if the only reason for 2 lots was because of the width, he would like 4. The Planner went on to explain that if the proponent makes 4 lots , they will have to go before the Board of Appeals and further stated that it should not go above 2 units/acre. Mr. Segner, 20 Hill St. , Chanhassen, stated that he was concerned with water run-off going onto his property. Susan Staufer, 7500 Chanhassen Road, Chanhassen, stated that she was also concerned with water run-off and the traffic to be on 101. The Planner stated that the State Highway Department will have to issue a permit stating if the entrance onto 101 is possible and if a turn lane is necessary. He went on to explain that for phases I and II, 400 trips are expected to be generated onto 101 which is expected to travel N and E. approved. Planning Commission Minutes •-7- August 10, 1981 • Bev Cronk, 18895 Pheasant Circle, stated she was concerned that traffic will go into Hidden Ponds 2, and further stated that she believed that when Rymarland Camp was approved, it was dependant upon sanitary sewer and water. She went on to explain that the water pressure in Hidden Ponds 2 is very bad and asked if sewer and water is in Dell Road now. The Planner replied no. Cronk then asked the price range. Truempi replied the duplexes would range from $65,000 - $85,000/dwelling unit; the single family would range from $150,000 - $300,000. He went on to say that they are constructing a road for the new water tower. Linda Schmitz, 19055 Deerfield Trail , asked if the trees between Rymarland Camp and the site will remain. Hill replied yes. Torjesen asked if the proponent will start construction without adequate water. Truempi replied no. F Torjesen asked what will be -constructed up to Dell Road (before Dell Road is completed). Truempi replied the twin homes will be built. MOTION 1 Sutliff moved to close the public hearing on Autumn Woods Plat. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 Sutliff moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and RM 6.5 as per the 7/20/81 plans and the 8/5/81 report with the following changes and/or additions to the staff report: 8. Prior to final plat submission, the developer meet with the City Engineering Department and submit revised storm water, drainage ,and street name plans as requested herein paying particular attention to the surrounding land uses in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. 9. No building permits be requested for lots within phase 3 until such time as sanitary sewer is available for all roads. 11. That double car garages for each duplex unit be required. Gartner seconded. DISCUSSION Gartner asked that 'No building permits be issued until adequate water is provided to service phase 3' be added as #12. Sutliff and Bearman agreed. Retterath then added that she would line "No similar structure be next to or across from each other' be added as #13. Sutliff agreed. Motion carried 6-0. • MOTION 3 Sutliff moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the plat dated 7/20/81 as per the 8/5/81 staff report with the same additions and/or changes as listed in motion 2. Retterath seconded, motion carried 6-0. _ ~approved Planning Commission Minutes __g^ - August 10, 1981 E. CITY WEST, by Richard W. Anderson. Request for PUD Concept for office and commercial upon 87-lacres�. rezoning of 26 acres from Rural to Office, preliminary plat approval with possible variances, and approval of an Environmental Assess- ment Worksheet. Located east of Shady Oak Road and south of Crosstown 62. A public hearing. The Planner stated that Mr. Peter Jarvis, BRW, was present to give the presentation. Jarvis stated that Mr. Richard Anderson, Scott Anderson, Craig Anderson, and David Bennett, BRW architect, was present also. Jarvis reviewed the location, the land use plan, physiolography, slopes, vegetation, soils, utilities, access, the develop- ment concept plan, site plan, parking, traffic, and grading. He further stated that the road located in the middle of the site on the plans was the guideline for the road that has been graded on the site now. Bennett reviewed the buildings, and stated that they will be done in earth tones. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 8/6/81 and left because of illness. Bearman stated that he felt that the request to change the Guide Plan is most important, The Planning Commission agreed to limit the discussion to the land use topic initially. Torjesen asked if the proponent has thought to use the site as designated in the Guide Plan. Jarvis replied that they have lookdd at alternative sites which are not residential designated, but they felt that from a planning standpoint, they felt residential is inconsistent where office and regional-commercial is best. Sutliff asked what will happen to the residential to the north of the site if this Guide Plan change is granted. Jarvis stated that the residential property to the north is hilly and expects it to be developed differently. Bearman stated that he would like office and commercial located in the Major Center Area where land is provided. He also stated that he felt the site should be looked at more closely. Sutliff stated that he was concerned that there is more unused office and commercial designated land located in the City where there is not as much residential . Hallett stated that he was open to amending the Guide Plan but asked if that will harm the City. Bearman replied -t-depends upon the individual situation. Warren Gerecke, 6622 Golden Ridge Drive, stated that he felt that this land should not be developed as shown and stated that this is a good area for residential and felt that the Guide Plan should not be changed. Jerry Steelman, 6601 Golden Ridge Drive, also felt that the Guide Plan should not be changed and that this type of development should be located in the Major Center Area. Alfred Harrison, 6941 Beach Road, stated he was representing the residents to the east and west of the site and stated that they are opposed to the Guide Plan change. Harold Handel , 6604 Golden Ridge Road, stated that if this project was approved, he would like a buffer placed between them and the project. Mr. Tuttle, Willow Creek Road, stated he does not want the Guide Plan to change. i-,,, n..-„ FFin rnidan Ridna Drive. does not want the Guide Plan to change. •approved Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 10, 1981 Mr. Wilkie, Willow Creek Road, felt that this should be in the Major Center Area. MOTION 1 Gartner moved to close the public hearing on the City West PUD, plat, and rezoning request. Retterath seconded, motion carried 4-2. Bearman and Hallett voted 'no. MOTION 2 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council to uphold the Comprehensive Guide Plan Plan and denial!.of the request. Retterath seconded, motion carried 4-2. Bearman and Hallett voted no. ' Hallett stated that he voted no'because-he felt the public hearing should have been continued. Bearman agreed. F. SMETANA LAKE TRAFFIC STUDY. Bearman reviewed the staff report dated 8/7/81 and stated that Mr. Helle's letter dated August 5, 1981 be made part of the minutes. Mr. Helle, 6138 Arctic Way, Edina, stated that when he wrote the letter, he did not see the additional traffic as noted on page 8 of the study. Torjesen stated that he thought the traffic as noted on page 8 of the study was 'trip=ins' . Helle reviewed his letter and stated that he is opposed and asked if the roads will be built for increased traffic. Bearman replied that they will be built to handle more than the existing amount of traffic. Bearman then stated that he felt that it is important to let Hennepin County know that they cannot take away the access at Washington Avenue and Co. Rd. 18. Helle then stated that he does not want the road to go over 9-Mile Creek. Bearman asked Mr. Bill Pearson if Smetana Lane goes over it. Pearson replied yes it crosses aver the creek. Torjesen stated that he felt that the Commission cannot take action regarding the study because 'of needed staff and proponent input. Bearman stated that he felt that when a motion is made, that final plan be stressed rather than preliminary because he felt that a preliminary plan may take years to become completed. Merilyn Heath, 7665 Smetana Lane, stated she realized the problems at Co. Rd. 18 and I-494. She stated that she felt that going through Smetana_Lane would not be good. She suggested that there be a flexible work day so there will 'be flexible traffic flow. MOTION 1 Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council that no final approval should be given to the County and State Highway Departments for the upgrading of County Road 18 and the I-494 intersection until the access problems from Washington Avenue are solved and access should not be changed until that problem is solved. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 Torjesen moved to continue the Smetana Lake Traffic Study for input from Staff and BRW to August 24, 1981. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0. approved Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 10, 1981 V. OLD BUSINESS None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission suggest two or three dates for a joint meeting and a presen- tation on housing costs from the development Commission. Bearman stated that the following dates are some possible meeting dates: Aug. 24-6:30; _Sept. 1(City Council meeting) ; and Sept. 14- 6:30. The Commission agreed that -the meeting should be held on September 1, 1981 before the City Council meeting. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None VIII. ADJOURNMENT Torjesen moved to adjourn the meeting at 1:40 AM. Retterath seconded, motion carried 6-0. From...Bruce Johnson 7189 Gerard Drive Eden Prairie, TIn. 55344 To.... Eden Prairie Planning Commission 8950 Eden Prairie Road. Eden Prairie, mn. 55344 10' 1981 Gentlemen... In response to the notice we received recently concerning the proposed double units to be built on the southeast corner of Baker Road and. "Utchell 'Road$ in Eden Prairie, may we publicly state our concern. Since Stewart Highlands is our nearest double bungalow development, and we see the poor placement and plotting of the property that exists, we are very concerned that the city of Eden Prairie will have learned from this areats mistakes and use better judgement in the layout of the neat neighboring development. it is apparent from other communities near to Eden Prairie that double bungalows can be built in an attractive and useful manner. We are sorely unhappy with Steuart Highlands as it is in every aspect, and will be very watchful and interested in each turn of events for the proposed new development. Sincerely yours, Bruce E. Johnson Sa}Rdra Johns,�e BJls j I, Phone: 933-1144 HfERLEIV H[ELLE 6138 Arctic Way Edina,Minnesota 55436 August 5, 1981 The City of Eden Prairie Staff Planning Commission Council Members 8950 Eden Prairie Rd. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 re: Smetana Lake Traffic Study by B.R.W. -of MaN7 1981 Undersigned has the following reactions, opinion and recommend- ations. Valley View Road Alternate 1. It has for many years been my understanding that some land owners and the City has been interested in relocating this road through Norseman Industrial Park (west of Hillger) and Bill Pearson's property and then tie it into present Valley View Road alignment at the Semtana •intersection. I have not opposed this but as I understand this idea has been dropped and this road will be located on its present alignment. I am willing to go along with this. Improvement suggestion for this road leaves me confused and I will show you why. In February 1977 I requested plating and rezoning of Norseman Industrial Park 2nd Addition. I had the impression that the City Planner, Dick Putnam, would save no effort to persuade City officials to deny my request. One of his moves was (with- out request from the Council.) to request from B.R.W. by Richard Walsfield, a review of road plans for Lake Semtana Sector dated February 10, 1977. See Exhibit 1. Quote from page 3 , center of page: Designing Valley View and Shady Oak as four-lane, divided roadways certainly is a conservative posture and will require lower land use intensities, changes in vehicle occupancy, or staggering of work hours. The real restrict- ing factor is the capacity of the interchanges; there is no value in bringing a six lane arterial with a capacity of 3 ,500 vehicles/hour up to an interchange that can only handle 1,800 vehicles per hour. . The City of Eden Prairie August 5, 1981 Page 2 Quote from page 4 . Conclusion. The conclusions of this analysis from a traffic engineer- ing viewpoint is to build a relocated Valley View Road as a four lane arterial with turn lanes at major inter- sectins. This road should intersect at right angles with both the extended Shady Oak and the Ring Road. The specific location of Valley View is beyond the scope of this effort. If you then turn to page 16 in the May 181 report and read "Alternative 1 Valley View Road" you will discover a shocking different recommendation. A number of questions go through my mind. I will just mention a few. 1. What was the purpose of the 2-10-77 B.R.W. report? 2. Why such a shocking different suggestion by the same consulting firm? 3. I think B.R.W. owes me as well as the City, an explanation. 4. . Is there reason for me to believe that B.R.W. 2-10-77 report was one of the major causes for Planning Commisions voting 100o against and the Council 40o against my proposal which asked for no variances whatsoever. Under the assumption that 74th Street will be extended north to Valley View Road through Norseman Industrial Park and that 76th Street will be tied into Smetana Road I suggest that Valley View should be equally upgraded from Washington Avenue to Shooner Blvd. By doing this, cars coming from Pearson property and Norseman Industrial Park have a choice of going east or west. It should not be overlooked that cars heading west, north or east can get into freeway system by turning right at Highway 212 and Shooner Blvd. but on Valley View and County Road 18 they have to turn left. North-South Connector - Alternate 4 . I am 100% opposed to have these connectors go any farther than 76th Street. Reason No. 1. The traffic generated by suggested development on the strip aalong 494 is tremendous. The City of Eden Prairie August 5, 1981 Page 3 Total trip generation in Golden Triangle - 61,550 D.T. - 9,900 D.T. = 51,650 D.T. Total trips generated on 494 strip - 19 ,530 D.T. + 5,360 D.T. = 24 ,890 D.T. Total trips generated without 494 strip 26,670 D.T. The 494 strip generates 48 .19% of the traffic volume and if you add the Viking facilities it will exceed 50% . Reason No. 2 Although every alternative 1-7, shows that traffic volume on Valley View Rd. - County Road 18 interchange exceeds capacity, still B.R.W. has the courage or guts to recommend to build a super road from 494 strip to this intersection. It will serve to nobody' s welfare but owner of 494 strip. Reason No. 3 Block traffic from 74th and 76th Street. At peak hours the outflow of cars from 494 strip will fill the whole road so cars coming from 74th and 76th Street has no chance at all (especially since they also will face a stop sign) , to get .into this north- south connector before the rush hour is over. Reason No. 4 Cost. Although this North-South connector does nothing but harm the land owner on 74th and 76th Street if extended to 494 strip, still I am sure somebody is going to bestow the honor upon us of dedicating land and paying for it' s construction. Due to the contour it will be a very expensive affair. Reason No. 5 Creek Crossing. It does require an additional creek crossing and unless mood has changed since some years ago, they should be avoided. Overload on Washington Avenue. I believe that a North-South connector from Valley View Road to 76th Street will give traffic from these streets a choice of Washington Avenue or Valley View Road whereby no overload will occur on Washington Avenue. Drivers • will always go where they get through with the least problem. • The City of Eden Prairie August 5, 1981 Page 4 Furthermore, I am no believer in cul-de-sacs, especially on industrial roads and I feel the service roads should go contin- uously from Washington Avenue along 494 to Shooner Blvd. However to prevent overload on Washington Avenue and Valley View Road - County Road 18 intersection we probably should not extend the service road farther than it is today (the Viking property) . That would keep the traffic from the development on the 494 strip where it belongs in their own territory. Then they have to negotiate with the Highway Department to give them highway access tailored to their development or they have to tailor their development to fit the highway access. I-494 and County Road 18 Intersection. Due to all eastbound traffic having .to make a left turn this intersection is over- loaded already.. It is my opinion that the situation here is or will be the same as on 494 and Normandale Road (Bloomington) . Therefore I believe a similar arrangement here should work as well as there,'a full .cloverleaf. Conclusion. . Improve Valley View Road to standards similar_ to Washington Avenue . North-South connector Valley View Road - 76th Street only . Arrange road on 494 strip so they get access to 494 instead of overloading Washington Avenue, Valley View - County Road 18 intersection. . Having State upgrade County Road 18 and 494 intersection similar to I-494 and Normandale Ro d: erleiv He e HH:ca l PLANNINGITRANSPORTAT IONiENGINEERING/.ARCHITECTURE February 10, 1977 MEMORANDUM To: Richard Putnam From: -` Richard Wolsfeld 1I .Subject.: Review of Road Plans for Lake *Smetana Sector ' As per your request BRW has completed . an analysis of the follow- traffic ing traffic issues in the Lake Smetana Sector : _,; Need for a road to connect the Valley View/Co . Rd . 18 interchange with the proposed ring road . o Relationship of the road to the extension of Shady Oak to Valley View/Co ._Rd . 18 interchange . ` a Type of road that will be requi red .to serve the expected traffic to , ' from, and through the area . Location of the road between the two points . The Kna?ysis and the results are discussed below. Background Material The following resource material was reviewed and utilized in the. analysis : e • Eden Prairie Staff Report - "Lake Smetana Sector • Study" , dated June 20 , 1974 . o Hennepin County Transportation System Study , BRl•!, , October , 1976 . • Richard Putnam February 10 , 1977 :. Page 2 Need For Road Connection •, ' . . :, . This sector of land is extremely unique in the way it +is surrounded by controlled access freeways . If the interchange ' of Co . Rd , 18/ I-494 is upgraded , there will be only 3 ways into or out of the area . , 1 //_A/ Connecting the access points in the most direct manner possible has the following advantages : Provides maximum accessibility for properties within the sector in all directions . • Helps to balance the' traffic loadings on- the various roads. . Tends to minimize the amount of' travel and turns in the area . f • t Provides the most direct route across ' the sector for any trips from outside the area desiring to cross the area . Thus , the concept of connectinq the access points to the area with a road system, as presented. in the .Composite 1974 Plan for Lake Smetana is logical and valid . Relationship Connecti Roads — ns h -nn-- •-ng oa t . Figure 1 illustrates two possible relationships for the major connecting roads in the sector. The traffic planning principles that apply to this situation include : s Minimize the .number of turns for the heaviest flow of vehicles , • Intersect the major roads at right angles . Since both schemes intersect at right anal es , the primary concern is to minimize the number of turns . Ana ': vsis. of the composite plan indicates that more traffic would have access to the exten- sion of Shady Oak than to Valley View when-' the area is fully developed. Therefore , Method 2 is preferred over Method •1 . a• In addition , Shady Oak has route continuity to the northwest, ''�� \ whereas Valley View ends at the proposed ring road . } .r Richard Putnam February 10, 1977 Pa ge 3 it �• f Type of Road Required ' To Serve Traffic The third major issue to be addressed is the required road type Ji .e . two-lane , four-lane, etc. ) to serve the traffic along the Valley View corridor. The key .indicator of the size of road ` required is the forecasted volume . The forecasted volumes in the Composite Plan have been reviewed and found_ to be re"asonable . _ The key-variable is the ' intensity of industrial use that- actually results ; the concept of using the average value for trip genera- tion is reasonable . Using a capacity of _840-1 ,000 vehicles/ hour/lane for an urban arterial in BRW ' s• opinion is a little high ; 600-800 vehicles/hour/lane is more reasonable . However , if a lower capacity is .used , the degree of failure by the road syste creases . K-Designing._Va11ey View anJ Shady Oak as four-lane , divided road- _ ways certainl�' conservative posture and will_ require 1 ,er _ land use i"ntsities,changes in ve 7c e occupancy , or s aggering : -- of__wor_, _h-ou_r_s . —Tfie- real restricting _factor is the capacity__of the interchanges ;there is no value in bringing a six lane - _ -- -ar-Leria_l with a capacity _of , 500 vehiclos/hour up 'to 'an'--•inter---'- -' change that _can only handle 1;800 veiiic es per-hour .— - A good balance between the interchange capacities and the connecting road system geometries is to design Valley View and Shady Oak as four-lane arterials with turn lanes at major intersections . Location of Roadway Within Valley_ View Corridor The next key issue is where the required four-lane arterial roadway in the Valley View corridor should be located . Two options exist ( Figure 2) . s upgrade the existing Valley View • build a new road ; In evaluating these two options many factors should be taken in account. This report only evaluates the options from a traffic engineering viewpoint. - :( Existing Vallev View Road is a road with curves of less_than iph�design_speed , grades in the range of 6a , and the road is~ cut into . hills in many cases . All of these characteristics result-in lowering the capacity of the road . According to the 1 "Highway Capacity h,anual " published by the National Academy of Sciences the capacity of a roadway is reduced by the following percentages for rolling terrain and lateral obstructions . • i Richard Putnam }` February 10 , 1977 �4 Page 4 it Factor Reduction Rolling Terrain 1 Lateral Obstructions.,. 14 'Thus if Valley View were upgraded to four lanes and had rolling terrain and lateral obstructions , the capability to carry 4 vehicles would be 32% less than a roadway on level terrain and : no lateral obstructions . � Another factor is the problem associated with mixing traffic types . A general traffic planning principle is to separate industrial /employment related traffic from residential traffic. From traffic engineering standpoint , these two factors, would suggest a relocation of Valley View. . onclusions - The conclusions of this analysis from a •traffic engineering ` viewpoint is to build a relocated Valley View Road as a four lane arterial with turn lanes at major intersections . This road should intersect at right angles with both the extended Shady Oak and the Ring Road . The specific location of Valley %liew is beyond the scope of this effort . RW:j u. , t 1 t t © N CO ' I11 . f bL" S. .. ` C.3 n © Si oY 02 •- W � , LLI col • s N LLJ cc LU cc Z p z • M U w N Q w w cc 00 Li CC w ?" W r•- It ik oo . � • • • Q s. - • .j t l 4 S rA#'#• IUAI)lt I' #'lanniitg #rtsififh�sSitSii . # ROM: Dick Pdthain, Pldhfiltig bitector UA"I-L: t"eb. 23, fbiI ? PR0JECT: Norseman film{ AkIdi # dkk 2nd Addition All P1.T CANT: Mr. Hello REQU1.ST: Rezoning kFofff Rdidl id 2-2 Park LOCATln N south of Co.. fed, A3 dtfd hest Of" Not•s6hatt Ind. f k. 1st Add. l 0CI 1,\1EN'f'S a. Smetana Lake Sector #Taff , Ailie 20, 1974 b. Eden Prairie Council Rcsbjtitibri #a 00 C. I-eb. 10, 1977 Memo front Rlehdi•tf Wolsteid, M111 d. Feb. 14 , 1977 lettef to Rdg6k Wstads City. Whager fom Mr. Helle Thy r t ence documents listed i lli.t_qtratb lhii cotfrprehettsive research and analysis L3 •na; i;::= t c etr ut i l i zed in d�diting t6 tbtichAll bris and fecom aendati ons which fol I oi, i r� this i eport . The staff will not re9tate the facts atid conclusions but - rathcr confine our di scussl on to contravetsial Issues: , La\r USA fhe 1 a.: 3-v(1,oust for 1-2 Park zoning is consistent wi th the city Cut dc• PI an 11:i'il`. end ill l XIS and amen 74 amended in 19 wit the_Smetana Lake Plan. TR:.`:sl'Oi:7 A';l t1.� c..�.I•r_rah }. . _ . . ;. . - Thc lanciowiier rezoning request does- not allow for tie construction of a north/south relocated \'alley View Road connecting the Co. Rd. 18 interchange with the MCA Schooncr Boul cvai-d / 212/ 169 interchange. The F:Pc•' :ann Lale flan recognized the need for an arterial street as critical to dQVel0jI:=•-nt of the industrial land south of vallL-y View Poad; the sep- :it•at: on of i lidust ri a l and residential traffi C bnd the treed for a high volume arterial cunnectinr two of the three interchanges serving the 1,000 acre sector. Mr. hol(I F(-Id Is l et t er, 2/10/77, concludes : r- 'Iiac c•unclusicros of this artalysi.s froin a traf iC engitaccring , . i•i c•t.poi nt is to build a relocated Valley_Vihw Roadqs_a_- four Erne art c"ri ra I with tur_ rt �anes at ma-or intei-sbct tin :_ This rr�:!7�,l,iiu ld i nt e rscct at ri rht an9l es with both the extended `;hr,dy ():rl. :inn Pinl; Road. The specific ldbation bf Valley View ijc>:t r, ! the• scope of this effort ." trefei- tb Fig. A 6 R) Staff Repol•t-Norseman Ijid Ilk 2tid Add -4- 1:(1'. 2S, J ,.177 t C \. if ��� ��• / ^% ,\ I \..,1� ,i 1 � 1-'1� �'li F%• `Ij r i i i y ``' �'1 ' ` i r 1 _ r . .......... .......... 4� Construction of relocated Valley View noa4 Quid be to a normal industrial street standard as requested by the propertytowner. Future street expansion to county arterial standards would be accomplished the County or City when the need t4arrants. Right-of-way for relocated Valley View Road should be provided by property owners as the property is coned and platted for development consistent with the provisions of Ordinance 95. 1 . The staff recommends that the rezoning and preliminary plat request ')v Mr. Helle, dated Jan. 7, 1977, be denied based upon its inconsis- •. teSlcl �G kith t}le transportation needs O t�e eke Smetana Flan 2. The staff recommends that the proponent redesign his plan to provide right-of-way for a relocated Valley View Road through the 16- acre site.