Loading...
Planning Commission - 04/12/1982 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, April 12, 1982 7:30 PM, City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Hakon Torjesen, Virginia Gartner, Dennis Marhula, Grant Sutliff, 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 MARCH 22, 1982 MINUTES III. MEMBERS REPORTS IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. DEER CREEK PUD & 1ST ADDITION REZONING, by Ruscon Homes, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development approval of residential on 26 acres, rezoning of 19 of the 26 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for first phase development, construction of 64 single family detached homes, and preliminary plat approval upon the entire 26 acres. Included in the public hearing will be the consideration of the granting of variances pursuant to Sec. 11, 10 Ord. 135 from the provisions of said ordinance applicable to the R1-13.5 District for: lot size, density, lot width, lot depth, and sideyard setbacks. Located south of Morgan Lane and Sorrel Way, and east of Mitchell Road. A continued public hearing. B. WOODLAKE SANITARY SERVICES (BFI) , by Woodlake Sanitary Services. Request to amend their Planned Unit Development (70-PUD-01) to: expand the area governed by PUD 70-1 by adding approximately 90 acres of land abutting its eastern boundary; propose the develop- ment of an 18-hole golf course and its donation to the City as the end use for the central part of the PUD; modify the location and amount of land delineated for industrial use; reduce the amount and change the location of land delineated for residential use; authorize the donation of 39 acres of land to complete Homeward Hills Park; authorize an expansion of the area to be used for sanitary landfill by 42.4 total additional acres, 26 acres of which are within the existing PUD 70-1 boundaries; and industrial development to be served by on-site utilities. Lo- cated east of US 169/212, north of Riverview Road, and west of Bluffs West 2nd Addition. A public hearing. C. LORENCE ADDITION, by K P Properties, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development approval of residential on 32 acres , rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for 47 single family homes on 16 acres and from Rural to RM 6.5 for 56 attached units on 8 acres , preliminary plat approval over the entire 32 acres, variances for: lot size, lot width, setbacks, and density and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located south of Valley View Road, northwest of Round Lake Park, and north of Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition. A public hearing. Agenda-4/12/82 page 2 V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT Y MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved Monday, April 12, 1982 7:30 PM, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Hakon Torjesen, Virginia Gartner, Dennis Marhula, Grant Sutliff, Robert Hallett MEMBERS ABSENT: Liz Retterath STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Sutliff moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. II. APPROVAL OF MARCH 22, 1982 MINUTES Gartner moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Torjesen abstained. APPROVAL OF MARCH 29, 1982 MINUTES Gartner moved to approve the minutes with the following corrections : P. 1, 2nd para. , 2nd sentance should read: He voiced his concern over the inconsistencies between the Tax Increment Financing Plan and the Guide Plan and the City embarking on such a grandeous improve- ment project and felt that it was an unwise gamble in such poor economic times. P. 2, Discussion, add: on the grounds that it is not consistent with the Comprehensi-te Guide Plan. Marhula seconded, motion carried 6-0. III. MEMBERS REPORTS None VI. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. DEER CREEK PUD & 1ST ADDITION REZONING, by Ruscon Homes, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development approval of residential on 26 acres, rezoning of 19 of the 26 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 for first phase development, construction of 64 single family detached homes, and preliminary plat approval upon the entire 26 acres. Included in the public hearing will be the consideration of the granting of variances pursuant to Sec. 11, Ord. 135 from the provisions of said ordinance applicable to the R1-13.5 District for: lot size, density, lot width, lot depth, and sideyard setbacks. Located south of Morgan Lane and Sorrel Way, and east of Mitchell Road. A continued public hearing. approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- April. 12, 1982 The Planner stated that this item has been continued from the March 22, 1982 Planning Commission Meeting because of changes which were needed. Bill Dolan was present to give the presentation. Dolan, Koehnleihn, Lightowler, Johnson, Ltd. , stated that the bubble on the interior road has been changed to meet the staff report requirements and stated they will conform to all the requirements in the report. He introduced Marshall Oakes of Ruscon Homes. Oakes gave a brief slide presentation on the home models and stated that no two alike homes will be directly next to each other. He also showed slides of the existing site and stated that they are trying to save as many trees as possible. Bearman asked the price range. Oakes replied from $54,900-$63,900. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 4/8/82. Torjesen asked if the change in the inner road makes more lots. Dolan replied yes there will be 68 lots rather than 64 as listed in the report. Bearman stated that the Fred Karp letter dated 3/22/82 should be made-part-of the minutes: --- _- Bearman asked what guarantee will the City have to keep the prices of the homes ,down. Oakes replied that he would be willing to sell 90-100% of the project before building on the property to keep the house costs the down. The Planner Stated that the finished floon-area ratio would be kept at 1100 sq. ft. initially. Mr.' Larberg, 114212 Kensington asked how these homes will be financed. Oakes replied they will finance them through their own plan. Fred Karp, 14192 Westridge Drive, stated he felt that not enough visual barrier was between his 1-ot and the proposed homes. The Planner felt screening was not as important between side family homes versus multiple and single family. 'Arthur Weeks, 8789_Sy_c_amore Ct.,_ asked the procedure for planting trees._ The Planner , replied that, a detailed landscaping plan should be required. Mr. Ryan, 8948 Neill Lake Road stated he felt the plan was good and needed. Marhula stated that there is a need for a transition between the 13,500 sq. ft. lot size and the 7,000 sq. ft. lot sizes on the back property line. Four lots are shown on the preliminary plat backing onto 1 single family lot in Ridgewood. And stated he was unsure if the proposed transition would be good and stated a better transition could be made. The Planner commented that the Deer Creek site has quite a different grade change from Ridgewood which would place Deer Creek much higher than Ridgewood. He stated that the small lots fall within the medium density residential requirements. Sutliff stated he was concerned with the lot sizes. Bearman stated he felt the plan was good and needed. Marhula agreed. bbJ-f;+p -=qniBF9 --dT qu aso!) oofiq c;-,uort seu 'tt riswai mv., faumNsm t= p2 0011 off' b9fJ e oiss, Ggiz oor,, 92uori czri,,c bri.6 2o!nJ -fo't 9 fj-flti�Z)O-fn col .:kD s-tamoov2 P!-,V l:SI-iA . jEl-fjzr,,_ fijlT L-� approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 12, 1982 MOTION 1 Marhula moved to close the public hearing on the Deer Creek PUD and 1st Addition Rezoning. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. -NOT I ON 2 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD request for Deer Creek dated 2/26/82 revised 4/7/82 as per the plans and the staff report dated 4/8/82 changing motion #8 into two separate motions (the last half to be #13 as listed below). 13. The lot lines for lots 8-12, Block 1 be redesigned to average out the lot frontages. 14. Block 3, Lot 2 be platted as a road connection to the south. 15. No doubles to be constructed on Lots 1-5, Block 3 single family only. 16. 5' wide concrete sidewalk be placed along the east/west road. 17. 5' and 10' sideyard setback variances be granted and less than a 90' mean width and lot size variances also be granted. Also that approval be clarified that PUD approval (with variances) for phases I and II be given excluding the exception; that an inventory of the existing trees be completed with plans as to the location for the trees that will be replaced. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 3 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for first phase development as per the plans dated 2/26/82 revised 4/7/82 with the same additions as in Motion 2. Gartner seconded, motion carried 5-1. Sutliff voted no because he felt the lot sizes are too small . MOTION 4 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated 4/7/82 as per the plans and the staff report dated 4/8/82 with the same additions as in Motion 2. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 5 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the variances re- quested for: lot size, density, lot width, lot depth, and sideyard setbacks as per the plans dated March, 1982 and thle staff report dated 4/8/82 with the same additions as in Motion 2. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. B. WOODLAKE SANITARY SERVICES (BFI) , by Woodlake Sanitary Services. Request to amend their Planned Unit Development (PUD 70-PUD-01) to: expand the area governed by PUD 70-1 be adding approximately 90 acres of land abutting its eastern boundary; propose the development of an 18-hole golf course and its donation to the City as the end use for the central part of the PUD; modify the location and amount of land delineated for industrial use; reduce the amount and chahge the location of land delineated for residential use; authorize the donation of 39 acres of land to complete Homeward Hills Park; authorize an expansion of the area to be used for 'approved Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 12, 1982 Sanitary landfill by 42.4 total additional acres, 26 acres of which are within the existing PUD 70-1 boundaries; and indus- trial development to be served by on-site utilities. Located east of US 169/212, north of Riverview Road, and west of Bluffs West 2nd Addition. A public hearing. Bearman read the State postponement letter dated 4/5/82 and the PCA letter dated 4/5/82. The Planner stated that the Minnesota Pollution Control (PCA) expects to go through the permit amendment process to allow the continued operation of the landfill. The Planner stated that it is difficult to evaluate the end land use without knowing the exact impacts the landfill might have on the land and the surrounding land uses. Not all the environmental issues have been answered or looked at yet. Torjesen asked to what extent with the public hearing process, is the appropriate process which the environmental issues are brought to the attention of public bodies. The Planner stated that public meetings have been held. He stated they expect more environmental work be done. He stated that State law requires an EAW whenever there is a fill of more than 100,000 cubic yards a year. He stated that there is a procedure for that in which public hearings are included. Bearman suggested continuation of the hearing to receive more information. Gartner asked if the Commission can close the public hearing without taking action. The Planner replied yes. Torjesen stated he felt that the Commission should hear from the proponent if it was alright not to give a presentation. Dick Nowlin, Larkin-Hoffman, representing Woodlake Sanitary Services, stated the proponent has known that there would be no decisions at this point. He stated that they understand the PCA letter and stated that;the proposal could be delayed j two or three months: They:hope it will be less. A meeting wi hl be a wi e PCA on-Tiiursda-y, A­pffT5;r9�2 a'nd The Planner will be present to discuss the framework on how this will proceed. It is likely that the environmental impacts in connection with the expansion will continue to be worked on during the time that PCA will be considering a new permit and also by the proponent. The PCA has suspended formulation of a final EAW document in connection with the expansion. An application has -been submitted, an Environmental Assessment Report was submitted, there was a meeting by the PCA on April 5. It was scheduled that there would be time for a variety of agencies to comment on it and then it would be rev sed, updated, etc. , and the PCA would work from that document to develop an EAW. The PCA does not want to develop a final EAW until the permit issue has been resolved. It is possible that they could notice the proposed permit at the end of this month and that it would be up for a hearing at the PGA in the end of May and then they would be right back in the formulation of an EAW document. If work is continued on the environmental analysis, during that period, they hope to have a document finished and ready to develop an 'EAW in a relatively short period of time. That may not occur but it could occur. They want some opportunity to begin talking about the proposal. They are prepared to go through the land use side of the request but stated that they know no action will be taken at this time. approved Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 12, 1982 Bearman stated that this extensive environmental review by the PCA could lead up to a different end use plan. Nowlin stated he felt it unlikely that the end use would change. Whether or not the current permitting process results in something to cause Woodlake to withdraw the application, is totally debatible. What'the agency will do, is :Update the permit which has not been formally revised since 1970. The proponent expects the PCA to collate from their files and from Woodlake's files exactly the current status of the landfill proposal . He stated that there will be an investigation of the files to determine what was permitted, what has subsequently been submitted by revision indirectly and directly. There will be nothing new - it is not likely to change. Total capacity will be considered but stated that undoubtedly at the end of that process, felt that the proponent would be back with the same application as now. Bearman stated he was concerned with evaluating a project without the complete information. Wally James, 10340 Colony Ct. , asked about the end use plan. Bearman stated that that cannot be answered tonight because no formal presentation has been made or will be made at this time. MOTION Gartner moved to close the public hearing without prejudice. Torjesen seconded. DISCUSSION Torjesen asked about the time frame and if it has a bearing on whether or not the Planning Commission should begin consideration. The Planner stated that there will be no statutory fine and stat_ed_that_ the_PUD relates-through Ordinance 135. Which calls for a report from the Planning Commission within 60 days of referral of-the item to the Planning Commission. If the City Council was in a hurry to make a ,decision -on-this within-6Cl—days, they could go ahead without a recommendation from the-Planning Commission.--He-stated he felt that that was highly unlikely. He stated that this proposal is different from a regular proposal . The City cannot make a final decision until the environmental work is completed. Torjesen asked staffs 'position on postponing the proposal . The Planner stated that staff felt that the information which is necessary to evaluate the appropriateness of end land use is very technical and very specific in nature. It has to do with what impact the landfill will have during construction and after it is finished on any adjacent proposed land use which is unknown at this point in time. Those impacts are being studied and completed within the environmental review process. The staff would suggest the most appropriate action in this case would be to deal with the PCA, Metropolitan Council and Hennpein County as the regulatory agencies with strict regard to the landfill itself and to determine through that process what the environmental impact would be and then staff would be in a position to evaluate how end land uses corresponded or were effected by these: Staff felt at this point in time, with the undefined nature of the existing permit and the seemingly large proportionate expansion, that it is premature to talk about end land uses prior to the environmental work completion. Motion carried 6-0. .'approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 12, 1982 C. LORENCE ADDITION, by K P Properties Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development approval of residential on 32 acres, rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for 47 single family homes on 8 acres, preliminary plat approval over the entire 32 acres , variances for: lot size, lot width, setbacks, and density and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Lo- cated south of Valley View Road, northwest of Round Lake Park, and north of Round Lake Estates 2nd Addition. A public hearing. The Planner stated that Mr. Don Peterson was present to give the presentation. Peterson reviewed the location. He introduced David Williams, builder for the condominium portion of the site. He reviewed the surrounding land uses and stated that they have placed the higher density toward the north of the site. He introduced Gary Nelson, the builder for the single family portion of the site. Mr. Lorence will remain living in his house, phase 1 will be condominiums. Felt that moderate priced housing is needed in Eden Prairie. David Williams, David Williams Construction Co. , gave a: slide presentation and stated that he felt the buildings would look better without sidewalks. There will be two 4-unit buildings on the site. Peterson stated that they would like to keep the lot size below 8500 sq. ft. The price range for the condos would be from the low 60's to 70's. Greg Nelson, stated that they have pre-sold three homes with construction to begin May 1. All the homes are constructed with 2 x 6 versus 2 x Vs. There are six different floor plans. Prices will start at $64,900 which will include the real estate commission and a suitable allowance so people can afford to make the payments. The smallest square footage would be 768 sq. ft. which would be priced ' at $64,000 with a double car garage. The houses will be tuck unders, split entry§ and ramblers. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 4/8/82. Sutliff stated that he would withdraw from discussion because of possible business conflicts. Marhula was concerned with placing multiple directly across from single family units. The Planner stated that if the project is developed all at once, there would be no problems. Peterson stated that it will be all ownership units. The Planner stated that the condominium on Lot 1 faces Valley View Road and has two sets of four car garages.facing the existing single family homes. The lots abutting onto Valley View Road are Bearman was concernEd _with__the amount of traffic to be generated. The Planner stated that Valley View Road will handle approximately 12,000 trips as it exists today. The single family would generate approximately 410 trips/day with the ` condominiums generating approximately 380 trips/day. ----:approved Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 12, 1982 Bearman asked if this project conforms to the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The Planner replied yes. Bearman asked the price range. Nelson replied from $64,000 to $100,000 which includes points and real estate commission. Peterson stated that they would like to save as many trees as possible. Bearman expressed his concern of placing multiple next to single family and asked if the single family homes have garages. Nelson replied yes. Torjesen stated he felt that changing the Guide Plan for this project was not in the best interest for the City. The Planner explained that because of economic conditions, the trend in housing is leading to multiple. He stated that he felt this site is a good site for this proposal because of the services and amenities that are provided surrounding it. Eugene Peterson, 7460 Hames Way, expressed concerns that the residents are not ready for development of this type and felt that traffic could become a problem. Peterson stated that they could lower the price by eliminating the single family and having only multiple but felt that having both would be best. Torjesen expressed concern in regards to the lot sizes, if they should be used for medium priced homes. • Gartner stated that she felt that the single family homes should conform to the ordinance requirements. Marhula felt that an overall transition was provided. Peterson stated that he felt that__all single fa_m_ily lots would not sell . He also felt that this is a good site for medium density housing. Bearman stated that he did not see any other guarantee to have the smaller homes other than the fact of limiting the floor area ratio to 1100 sq. ft. Eugene Peterson stated he felt that more multiple on the site would be good. Marhula stated that the Commission is to look at the site design and if it provides the transition between the existing large single family homes and the surrounding uses. ' He felt it did but` had concerns about the multiple. Bearman turned the chair over to Torjesen. MOTION 1 Bearman moved to close the public hearing on Lorence Addition. Gartner seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Sutliff abstained because of possible business conflicts. MOTION 2 Bearman moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD request with variances for Lorence Addition as per the plans dated March, 1982 and the staff report dated 4/8/82 with the following additions: 13. Any approvals of PUD designation for Outlots A, B, and C, be witheld pending a specific land designation. 14. Landscaping plans including berming and screening for the entire site be annrnvPd by the Citv Planner prior to Citv Council review. approved Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 12, 1982 15. That the existing site problems on Lot 1, Block 2 be worked out prior to City Council review. Hallett seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Sutliff abstained. MOTION 3 Beaman moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for 47 tingle family homes on 16 acres, and from Rural to RM 6.5 for 56 attached units on 8 acres as per the plans dated March, 1982 and the staff report dated 4/8/82 with the same additions as in Mbtion 2. Hallett seconded, motion carried 3-2-1. Bearman, Hallett, Marnula voted 'aye' , Torjesen and Gartner voted ' no' and Sutliff abstained. Torjesen and Gartner voted no because they did not believe the developer had submitted information that illustrated that the smaller lots would be utilized for homes within a middle income category as set forth in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. DISCUSSION Nelson explained that included in his price was about $4,000 of interest rate buy-down and a real estate commission. MOTION 4 Beaman moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat for Lorence Addition as per the plans dated March, 1982 and the staff report dated 4/8/82 with the same additions as in Motion 2. Hallett seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Sutliff abstained. MOTION 5 Beaman moved to recommend to the City Council finding of no significant impact on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Lorence Addition. Gartner seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Sutliff abstained. V. OLD BUSINESS None VI. NEW BUSINESS None VII. PLANNER'S REPORT The Planner reviewed upcoming items and requested a special meeting be hold May 19, 1982 to review projects. The Commission replied they would check their schedules. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Marhula moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:55 PM. Hallett seconded, motion carried 6-0.