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.