Planning Commission - 12/14/1981 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, December 14, 1981
7:30 PM, City Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz
Retterath, Hakon Torjesen,
Virginia Gartner, Dennis Marhula,
Robert Hallett, Grant Sutliff
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 9, 1981 MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. WOODLAWN HEIGHTS, by Lyman Lumber. Request for PUD Dev-
elopment Plan approval , rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5
and R1-13.5, preliminary Plat approval for 54 single family
lots and 96 attached units, approval of an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet and possible variances. Located in
the southwest corner of Townline Road and Duck Lake Trail .
A continued public hearing.
B. CNR GOLDEN STRIP EAST, by Condon-Naegele Realty Co. Request
for PUD Concept approval , PUD Development Stage approval ,
preliminary platting for 8 office sites and 1 restaurant and
possible variances. Located west of Vikings Winter Park,
north of I-494, and south of Nine Mile Creek. A continued
public hearing.
C. BRYANT LAKE CONDOMINIUMS, by Metram Properties Co. Request
for PUD Concept approval on 65 acres for residential attached
and detached units with possible varinaces and approval of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located east of I-494
and Beach Road and south of proposed Crosstown 62. A continued
public hearing.
D. AID INSURANCE CO. , by AID Insurance Co. Request for site plan
review and to divide 7.7 acres zoned office into 2 lots via a
Registered Land Survey and to construct an office on the
southerly five acres. Located approx. 1500 ft. southeast of Hart-
ford Insurance Co. , 11000 Prairie Lakes Drive. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
approved
Monday, December 14, 1981 7:30 PM, City Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Acting Chairman Hakon Torjesen, Virginia
Gartner, Grant Sutliff, Dennis Marhula,
Robert Hallett
MEMBERS ABSENT: William Bearman, Liz Retterath
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Gartner moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Marhula seconded and
asked that item II A. Discussion of 12/28/81 meeting be added. Gartner
agreed. Motion carried 5-0.
I1. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 9, 1981 MINUTES - — -
Marhula moved to approve the minutes with• the correction on page 3,
paragraph 12, change 'yes' to 'no' . Sutliff seconded, motion
carried 4-0-1. Gartner abstained.
A. December 28, 1981 Meeting
Marhula asked what the upcoming agenda for 12/28/81 looks like.
The Planner replied that no items are scheduled and stated that
Bryant Lake Condominiums should be continued, but that it could
be continued to the first meeting in January (1/11/81). Marhula
then stated that with the holidays here, the• meeting could be
cancelled. The Planner replied yes.
MOTION
Marhula moved to cancel the 12/28/81 meeting. Gartner seconded,
motion carried 5-0.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. WOODLAWN HEIGHTS, by Lyman Lumber. Request for PUD Develop-
ment Plan approval , rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 and R1-13.5,
preliminary plat approval for 54 single family lots and 96
attached units, approval of an Environmental Assessment Work-
sheet and possible variances. Located in the southwest corner
of Townline Road and Duck Lake Trail . A continued public
hearing.
The Planner stated that this i.s a continued public hearing from the meeting of
11/23/81 which was cancelled. He stated that several months ago this project
was before the Commission as a PUD Concept with rezoning and platting. The
proponent withdrew the rezoning and platting because of the density transfer.
The City Council reviewed the PUD and approved it with the recommendations of
the Planning Commission and staff report. He stated that this is slightly
different from the original plan. He introduced-lGreg Frank of McCombs-Knutson
which is representing Lyman Lumber.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 14, 1981
Frank stated Jim Hurd of Lyman Lumber was also present. He reviewed the history
. of the project and stated that there is proposed 54 single family units, and 96
4-unit townhomes for a total of 150 units. There is a 20 acre passive park and
an 8 acre active park proposed also.
The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 11/19/81. He stated that when the
original proposal was before the City Council , it was decided that if the County
does not take the responsibility for Townline Road, the City will under the
Capital Improvement Program.
Sutliff stated'fhat no lot sizes are on the plat. The Planner replied that he
measured the lots to find out that there are some under 13,500 sq.ft.
Sutliff asked if a water level is established in the wetland area, if that can be
made an outlot -so the water will not affect the lot sizes. The Planner replied
that the drainage and utility easement provides good control.
Sutliff asked if any traffic will be travelling west. The Planner replied very
little and stated that the predominent direction is to the northeast.
Marhula asked if the proponent is agreeable with the change of the 2 lots becoming
another townhouse. Frank replied yes and stated that it will make the park slightly
smaller.
Marhula stated that he felt that the design of the temporary roadway is important.
The Planner stated that if the utilities were installed, it would require a lot
of expenditure. Frank stated that they agree with the 'throw-away' road.
Torjesen asked if all landscaping is to be done in phase 1. The Planner replied
the landscaping adjacent to phase 1, berming to Minnetonka, and south to the single
family lots should all be done in phase 1.
Torjesen asked if there will be any problems with giving up part of the 8 acre park
to accommodate the elimination of the 2 single family lots for an additional town-
house. The Planner stated that if the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
Commission is uncomfortable with that change, the 2 single family lots should be
retained.
Hallett asked how many acres .will be drained and' how deep the water would be. The
Planner replied that the whole site would drain to the southwest and that it is
up to the DNR and WD to decide the depth of the outlet.
George Kissinger, 6601 Barberry Lane, stated he was representing the residents
that have signed a letter which he submitted. He expressed concern about the
active park, the cut and fill required, the housing units being predominently
walk-out units, felt the area is valuable, the preservation of the wetland area,
and stated that these concerns are basically the same as when the PUD Concept
was being requested.
Torjesen asked what group he is representing. Kissinger replied on the west
side of the site in Sunset Trails Estates.
Ann Luek, 6381 Duck Lake Road, asked what school district this development would
be in. Torjesen replied he thought Eden Prairie.
.approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 14, 1981
Don Jacobsen, 6345 Duck Lake Road, stated he would like the swamp area left as
a nature park and have the building placed on the hill . He also stated he was
concerned with the low area and asked if it has been determined who is the owner
for the 20 acres which is proposed as the passive park. The Planner replied the
owner is the State but stated the developer has agreed to pay all back taxes and
encumbrances and then turn it over to the City. He stated that the City is asking
that the property remain in State ownership which would then ultimately be picked
up by the City with the developer paying all back taxes and encumbrances.
Torjesen stated that he felt that the points that the residents brought up are
important concerns. ' ' '
Torjesen asked what more the Planning Commission can do and if all the recommend-
ations of the PUD Concept have been upheld. The Planner replied that the Commission
can make suggestions in terms of the park preservation. He stated that the active
park will have tennis courts, baseball fields, etc. while the passive park will be
a nature park 6f' woods. He stated that whether the parks are switched around, is
up to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission.
Jim Bast, U440 W. 66th Street, stated he agreed with the concerns raised by
George Kissinger and stated he would like more trees preserved and felt that the
20 acres should not be given to the proponent for' park dedication without a title.
Gartner stated that she would like the words 'prior to any construction' added to #8
of the staff report between the words 'dedicate' and 'free' .
Hallett stated he would like the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
to look closely at the active park, any chance of preserving more trees, and stated
that the developer should not be able to return in the future to ' request rezoning
for the single family lots. He would like them to remain single family lots.
Sutliff asked if all the quadraminiums will have double car garages. The Planner
replied that the ordinance requires single garages, but the proponent is requesting
doubles.
MOTION 1
Marhula moved to close the public hearing on the Woodlawn Heights preliminary plat.
Gartner seconded, motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 2
Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural
to R1-13. 5 and RM 6. 5 as per the material dated Oct. , 1981 and the staff report
dated Nov. 19, 1981 with these modifications and/or additions: #5, add after the
word ' improvements' , including sanitary sewer lift station force main as outlined
add #11 to read: Eliminate the 2 single family lots (Lots 26 and 27, Block
3) and substitute or add 1 additional townhome on Block 4. Sutliff seconded.
DISCUSSION
Hallett asked if the single fmaily will remain single family. Marhula replied yes.
• AMENDMENT TO ADD TO MOTION
Gartner moved to add to #8 of the staff report between the words 'dedicate' and
'free' , prior to any construction. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 4-1. Sutliff
voted no.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 14, 1981
s VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED
Motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 3
Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat
dated 10/2/81 as per the staff report dated 11/19/81 with the same additions
and/or changes as listed in Motion 2. Hallett seconded.
DISCUSSION
Sutliff stated he felt that additions or changes should be made at this point
in the motions and stated he felt uncomfortable with the Swale which has to be
filled.
AMENDMENT
Sutliff moved that development in the swale be eliminated and plat be redesigned.
He also would like an outlot to be created for the water ponding. Gartner
seconded.
DISCUSSION
Hallett asked what this would do to the project. The Planner replied that there
always was concern about the swale and stated that the natural resources will be
preserved as much as possible. He stated the swale is completely wooded but is
mostly boxelder trees.
• Sutliff asked if all the frontages on the cul-de-sacs meet ordinance standards.
The Planner stated that they are all in excess of 55' which is reasonable.
Marhula stated that he did not agree with the elimination of lots and redd�ign
of the project away from the swale.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT
Motion failed, 2-3. Marhula, Torjesen, and Hallett voted no.
Torjesen then stated that he felt that the information submitted by the neighbors
should be forwarded to the Council.
VOTE ON MOTION 3 WITHOUT AMENDMENT
Motion carried 3-2. Hallett and Gartner voted no.
MOTION 4
Marhula moved to refer to the City Council the Woodlawn Heights EAW Finding of
No Significant Inpact. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0.
B. CNR GOLDEN STRIP EAST, by Condon-Naegele Realty Co. Request
for PUD Concept approval , PUD Development Stage approval ,
preliminary platting for 8 office sites and 1 restaurant and
possible variances. Located west of Vikings Winter Park,
north of I-494, and south of Nine Mile Creek. A continued
public hearing.
• The Planner stated that this item has been continued from the 11/23/81 meeting
which was cancelled. He stated that this proposal was before the City in 1980
but had a problem of traffic. He stated that the traffic study has been completed
and the City Council had approved it. Don Brauer, The Brauer Group was present
to give the presentation.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 14, 1981
• Brauer breifly reviewed the pleat and stated that this site is at the centerline
of Nine Mile Creek. He stated that the dev6loper's are selling the project and
have a closing date of 1/18/82. He stated that in 1980, the traffic concerns
were about the access and street connection. He stated that the proponent needs
3 decisions; 1) a zoning land use; 2) establish road patterns for platting; and
3) td plat 1 lot buildable.
The Planner reviewed thb staff report dated 11/20/81. He stated that he agreed
with the 2 lots next to the Vikings, t.having Lot 3, Block 1 remain as is, and
have the rest of the site to remain as an outlot. He stated that he recommends
approval of the office land use, the approval of the road right-of-way and Lots
1 and 2, Block 3 (adjacent to the Vikings site) being platted.
Sutliff asked if the road will continue all the way through to the east and west.
The Planner replied yes.
Marhula asked if it is appropriate to plat Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 prior to rezoning.
The Planner stated that the proponent made a committment at the time of Vikings
approval for rezoning. Brauer then stated that the proponent realizes that they
will have to return for rezoning.
Torjesen asked if approving the office land use designation constitutes a Guide
Plan Amendment. The Planner stated that he had talked to a Local Assistance
Planner at the Metropolitan Council who checked it out and said the Met. Co.
felt that the office category was interchangable with industrial which would be
• permissive.
Sigmond Helle, 2124 Stanford Ave. , St. Paul , stated he was representing Mr. Herleiv
Helle, 6138 Artic Way. He asked if the preliminary plat approval is a committment
from the proponent to continue the road to Valley View. The Planner replied no,
that the road will be identical to Shady Oak Road. Helle then had questions per-
taining to the road study which was completed and approved. The Planner explained
the approved study.
Marhula asked if the connection of the road to the north is required. The Planner
replied no, that it is to the west.
Gartner asked about the right-angle turn. Brauer replied that that was misdrawn on
the plat and that the angle was approximately 130' rather than 90' . He stated that
the turn will meet all safety requirements, etc.
Sutliff asked if Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 could be outlot B. The Planner replied yes.
MOTION 1
Gartner moved to close the public hearing on the PUD Concept Plan and preliminary
plat. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 2
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the office land use
designation but denial of the specific development plan according to the 11/20/81
staff report. Marhula seconded, motion carried 5-0. —
�MOTION 3
Gartner moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat dated 10/81, with
the revision that only the road ROW be platted at this time according to the
staff report dated 11/20/81. Block 3 would be platted as one lot as would
Blocks 1 & 2. ROW width and curve radi.i .would be subject to Engineering review
and approval. Marhula seconded, motion carried 5-0.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 14, 1981
C. BRYANT LAKE CONDOMINIUMS, by Metram Properties Co. Request
for PUD Concept approval on 65 acres for residential attached
and detached units with possible variances and approval of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located east of 494 and
Beach Road and south of proposed Crosstown 62. A continued
public hearing.
The Planner stated that John Uban, of Howard Dahlgren & Associates, was present
to give a slide presentation. He also stated that Leonard Parker, of Leonard
Parker & Associates, Metram's architect.
Uban gave a breif slide presentation showing the views of the site and the veg-
etation.
Parker stated that they would like to preserve as many trees as possible, make
the project adapt to the site, maintain a residential quality, and control the
traffic so the densities do not impede traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods.
He stated that they are concentrating the "developmqnt on the north end of the
property with an access point off of Beach Road. He stated that there would be
a north/south cut in the land 1800' from the 1st building to the lake. He stated
that they are intending to turn the buildings to run along the contours of the
land. There will be 3 buildings, for a total of 240 units at 3.6-3.7 units/acre.
There will be 168 2-bedroom units, 24 3-bedroom units, and 48 1-bedroom units.
The parking ratio is 1.75 (2 cars/unit). There would be site amenities such as
• tennis court, swimming pool , etc. and an underground parking facility.
The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 11/20/81 and stated that he felt that
the proponent has taken the action requested by the Commission at the last meeting
but stated that the Commission should suggest any changes they would like to also
see.
Hallett asked if the density of- the project at the last meeting was around 2.6-
3 units/acre. The Planner replied yes.
Gartner asked if the Park District has had comments on this proposal . The Planner
replied that they had seen a similar plan and felt that the ridge along the park
was important. He stated that dedicating open space along with the park would work
well.
Torjesen asked if the balance of the site will be conveyed to the City. The Planner
replied yes.
Gartner asked if there :vs water on the east side of 494, and if not, who will pay
for it. The Planner replied no, and stated that it would be an assessment project.
Hallett expressed his concern for the density of the site and stated that he felt
that the higher the building is built, the more it would be visible. Uban stated
that the tree line would be viewed mostly and stated that the units would be built
into the slope rather than on top. Parker stated that the elevation is 930 and
the tree line is 970 and stated that the visible parts would be minimal .
Marhula stated that he liked the concept but felt that the density is too high. He
stated that he -felt that the density should be looked at more closely and stated he
liked the idea of clustering and fitting in.
.approved
Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 14, 1981
The Planner stated he felt that a Guide Plan Amendment sould be processed. The
Commission should give direction, and then the amendment would be published to
Medium-Density-Residential.
Torjesen asked if anything in this proposal has changed fr6m the original one.
The Planner stated that there is more acreage and there is an addition of lakeshore
property.
Marhula asked'if the proponent will ultimately request a Guide Plan Amendment. The
Planner replied yes.
Mark Ohmlee, Beach Road, stated that if the park becomes a County park, the use would
change and had concerns whether or not the park could handle that.
Dr. James Brode, 6641 Beach Road So. , was concerned about the traffic. He also
stated that he felt the plan has improved and was concerned about the possible
increased usage of the lake.
Torjesen stated he likes the clustering effect but that the density is too high.
Gartner stated she felt that the plan is good but the density is too high and stated
she would like a path down to the lake.
Sutliff stated he likes the concept but the density is too high, and that when a
• person on the lake moves farther away from the shoreline, the buildings will become
more visible.
Parker stated he felt that the density is a valid concern but felt the Planning
Commission was not looking at the proposal in context. He stated he felt the
density needs to be in the range of 3 units/acre.
MOTION 1
Gartner moved to continue the public hearing on Bryant Lake Condominiums to
1/11/82. Marhula seconded, motion carried 5-0.
D. AID INSURANCE CO. , by AID Insurance Co. Request for site plan
review and to divide 7.7 acres zoned office into 2 lots via a
Registered Land Survey and to construct an office on the
southerly five acres. Located approximately 1500 feet south-
east of Hartford Insurance Company, 11000 Prairie Lakes Business
Park. A public hearing.
The Planner stated that this was a public hearing because of the Registered Land
Survey request and stated that it should be looked at the same as a preliminary
plat request. He stated Jim McKay was present representing AID Insurance Co.
Scott Stouffer, AID Ins. Co. , in Des Moines Iowa, and Fred Hildabrad, the President
of AID Insurance Co were also present.
Stouffer stated that the 5 acre site overlooks the north part of Anderson Lakes,
• the spine road is the only entrance to the site, and that expansion of the parking
is possible if needed. He stated that the building would be a tiered 1�story. He
also reviewed screening.
.approved
Planning Commission Minutes -8- December 14, 1981
• The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 12/9/81. He noted that the scenic
easement has been created for the nesting area for the natural environment.
Hallett asked the width of the scenic easement. The Planner replied approximately
100 feet.
Hallett stated that he felt that people should be able to walk up to the animals
to see them. The Planner then explained the reason for the scenic easement.
Hallett then stated that he would like to see a sidewalk along the easement for
people to walk on but that it should be far enough away so the animals will not
be scared off.
MOTION 1
Gartner moved to close the public hearing on AID Insurance Company's land division.
Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 2
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the AID Insurance site
plan amendment and land division as per the material dated 12/7/81 and the 12/9/81
staff report. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
• None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
Hallett moved that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
discuss the possibility of having a walkway on the west side of the building
far enough away from the scenic easement but close enough to see the wildlife.
Marhula seconded, motion carried 5-0.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
The Planner reviewed the upcoming items for the next meeting which will be
1/11/82.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Marhula moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:30AM. Gartner seconded, motion
carried 5-0.