Loading...
Planning Commission - 04/26/1982 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, April 26, 1982 _ 7:30 PM, City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Hakon Torjesen, Dennis Marhula, Virginia Gartner, 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 APRIL 12, 1982 MINUTES III. MEMBERS REPORTS IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. RED ROCK LAKE 3RD, by James L. Simons. Request to preliminary plat the property zoned RI-22 into 4 lots. Located north of the northerly terminous of Summit Drive and adjacent to Red ' Rock Lake, 15607, 17603, 15601, and 8701 Summit Drive. A public hearing. B. BRYANT LAKE CONDOMINIUMS, by Metram Properties Co. Request for PUD Concept approval on 65 acres for residential attached units with variances and approval of an Environmental Assess- ment Worksheet. Located east of I-494 and Beach Road and south of proposed Crosstown 62. A continued public hearing. C. EDENVALE 15TH ADDITION, by Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. Request to rezone 17 acres from Rural to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat the property for 42 townhouses and 67 manor townhouses (4, 6, 8, and 12 unit buildings) . Located north of Edenvale Boulevard, east of Edenvale 11th and 14th Additions. A public hearing. D. CARDINAL CREEK 3RD ADDITION, by Gustafson & Associates. Request for approval of a preliminary plat and rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 of the property which is part of Cardinal Creek PUD 72-01. Included in the public hearing on the proposed rezoning will be the consideration of granting of variances pursuant to Sec. 11, Ord. 135 from the provision of said Ordinance applicable to the RM 6.5 District. 16 acres located east of Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition and Nine Mile Creek and west of I-494. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved Monday, April 26, 1982 7:30 PM, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Hakon Torjesen, Virginia Gartner, Grant Sutliff, Dennis Marhula, Robert Hallett(9:30pm) MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Torjesen moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0. II. APPROVAL OF APRIL 12, 1982 MINUTES Retterath moved to approve the April 12, 1982 minutes as corrected: P. 1, I. agends should be agenda II, last correction, Comprehensvie should be Comprehensive P. 2, 8th para. , amounts should be prices 13th para. , . . . that there is need for a transition. . 13th para. 4th line, he was unsure if the proposed transition. . . 15th para. , Marhual should be Marhula Delete Motion 1 from page 2 P. 3, B. 7th line, deineated should be delineated P. 6, 4th para. , 2nd line, lot should be low 8th para. , 1st line, add between across and single 9th para. , 3rd line, delete ' the existing single f_ami_ly__homes'and__ insert Hames Way. Delete entire loth para. llth para. , concerndd should be concerned P. 7, 8th para. , add 'if they should be used for medium priced homes. ' Torjesen seconded, motion carried 6-0. III. MEMBERS REPORTS None IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. RED ROCK LAKE 3RD, by James L. Simons. Request to preliminary plat the property zoned R1-22 into 4 lots. Located north of the northerly terminus'. of Summit Drive and adjacent to Red Rock Lake, 15607, 17603, 15601, and 8701 Summit Drive. A public hearing. iapproved Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 26, 1982 The Planner stated that Mr. Ron Kruger, representing Jim Simons was present to give a presentation. Kruger stated that they want to move the lot line over to meet with the required sideyard setbacks so that another lot can be built upon. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 4/22/82 and stated that the City will have right-of-way in front of four lots. All lots will have public road access and stated that he would recommend approval of the replat of four properly con- figured lots. Sutliff asked if the road is a standard cul-de-sac and stated that Lot 2 will end up with 30' setback. The Planner stated that sewer and water will be placed in the road right-of-way and the road will be finished to City standards. Marhula stated that Lot I will have approximately 70' from the property line to the front of the house. The Planner stated that they have the entire right-of- way on Lot 1. MOTION 1 Gartner moved to close the public hearing on Red Rock Lake 3rd. Retterath seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Red Rock Lake 3rd preliminary plat dated 2/19/82 as per the staff report dated 4/22/82. Retterath seconded, motion carried 6-0. B. BRYANT LAKE CONDOMINIUMS, by Metram Properties Co. Request for PUD Concept approval on 65 acres for residential attached units with variances and approval of an Environmental Assess- ment Worksheet. Located east of I-494 and Beach Road and south of proposed Crosstown 62. A continued public hearing. The Planner stated that the project has changed since the last meeting. He stated that Korunsky Krank Erickson Architects have been hired and they have completed 1st phase of the site plan for study. The concept would be reviewed for_input but no action is requested at this time. : The public hearing could be closed and _ then republished with notices to be sent out to the surrounding property owners again. John Uban, Howard Dahlgren & Associates was present to give a slide presentation. He also stated that Merilyn Egerdahl and Gary McCumbrie were present from the Hennepin County Park Preserve District. He has met with them and reviewed the current proposal. He stated that the woods are very important and as many as could be should be retained. The proponent has agreed not to disrupt the first 1000 feet of land next to Bryant Lake. He introduced Ron Erickson also. Uban gave a slide presentation of the site. Erickson stated that the site consists of 64.7 acres and stated that there are • two basic criteria: 1) preservation; and 2) relationship between the surrounding area and the lake, proposing three condominium buildings, containin g 66 units each. The buildings are located along the contours of the site. The soils have been checked and they are suitable. There is a minimal amount of roadway proposed for the site. The buildings will be residential in character. They will save as many trees as possible. Had a neighborhood meeting and stated that the residents were approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 26, 1982 concerned with the possible abuse of the lake area.:, The buildings *will be set back approximately 1200-1300 feet -from Bryant Lake. The buildings meet all City Ordinance requirements. Over 42 acres is planned to be dedicated to the City or for a park and also a 5. 1 acre area on the northwest portion of the site. Felt that there is a strong demand for condominiums in this part of Eden Prairie. He also showed a preliminary design plan. Sutliff asked if there is a roadway connecting this site to Thelma Haynes' property. Uban replied yes. Bearman asked to look at the slope ordinance and asked the status of it. The Planner stated that the City Council intends to adopt the ordinance with the adoption of the entire code. The City Attorney is working on it presently. Bearman asked the tree types. Uban replied mostly oak. Bearman asked who the subdivision on the site is owned by. Erickson replied it is owned by Metram and they plan to put three single family homes on it. Bearman asked what the ordinary high water mark is. The Planner replied approx- imately 852' . Uban stated that they had had it surveyed and stated the the survey can be made available for the Commission. Bearman asked the closeness of the buildings to the proposed Crosstown. Erickson replied they are 400' to the'.property line. Bearman asked the status of proposed Crosstown. The Planner stated that the City Council is presently involved in the environmental review process and stated that construction could begin in 1983 but stated that the environmental review must be finished before construction can begin. Torjesen asked the plans for the 1.75 acres located next to the Haynes property. Uban replied it will be retained as is but would become an outlot (that is the site where the home and barn are located). The Planner stated that he had expected that property to be conveyed. Torjesen stated he could see merit but felt the Commission was in a bind because of all of the continuances. He expressed h!s concern that the Commission should make sure this process is appropriate for the future. Retterath asked if there is a time restriction for the proponent returning to the Commission. The Planner replied no, but there were restrictions for republishing. Sutliff asked the current zoning. The Planner replied Rural . Torjesen expressed concern regarding the questions of density transfer and clustering and increasing density. He stated that the surrounding developed areas have all been below the proposed density of each site and expressed concern that this site would be more dense than them. • MOTION Retterath moved to close the public hearing and return the proposal to the develop- er. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. approved Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 26, 1982 C. EDENVALE 15TH ADDITION, by Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. Request to rezone 17 acres from Rural to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat the property for 42 townhouses and 78 manor townhouses (4, 6, 8, and 12 unit buildings) . Located north of Edenvale Boulevard, east of Edenvale 11th and 14th Additions. A public hearing. Bearman stated that the letters from Mr. Jack Pultz and Mr. Harry Picha should be made part of the minutes. The Planner stated that Dick Krier of Westwood Engineering and Planning was present to give the presentation. Krier stated that this is 16.9 acres off of Edenvale Boulevard. The original PUD was approved by the City for multiple. Prpposing attached owner occupied condominium style townhouses to range from $70 to $90,000. There will be 42 townhomes and 78 manor homes. All drainage will comply with City Ordinances. Requesting a density transfer to acquire 7. 1 units/acre. Builder would be Hipp's Construction or First Park Homes (both are constructing on Edenvale 14th) . The streets conform to the engineering requirements. There will be four holding ponds. The plan conforms to the approved EAW and PUD. There will be four-plexes on the south with higher density on the northeast portion of the site. They want to save as many trees as possible. Would like to work with the park depart- ment regarding construction of a totlot. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 4/22/82. He stated that there are problems stemming from no actual builder and plans, not knowing the building materials, elevations, etc. Bearman stated he felt the site is too dense and asked if the land will be sold to someone to build on it. Krier replied`'yes. Bearman asked the amount of traffic to be generated. The Planner replied approximately 840 ADT. Bearman asked the requirements for a totlot. The Planner replied one totlot an acre, for every 50 units. Bearman asked how the homeowner's association can control the site if there is more than one builder. The Planner stated that only some things can be controlled. Torjesen asked why there is less parking than required. Krier replied that they have provided one enclosed attached garage and a 2 space in front which is enough to open the garage door. He also stated that "T" parking is also provided. Harry Picha, 6849 Birch Island Road, stated he submitted a letter and stated he was concerned that no buffer is provided on the portion of the site which abuts his property. He stated he would like a fence put up to keep the people off his property. • Jack Pultz, 15180 Ironwood Court, stated he submitted a letter and stated he was concerned with the cutting into the slope to have access onto Edenvale Boulevard. He submitted a petition and stated he was concerned that there is only one exit for the entire area which is Edenvale Boulevard and felt the traffic would be too dense. approved Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 26, 1982 Bearman asked if Edenvale Boulevard is a collector road. The Planner replied yes and defined a collector road. Bearman asked that the petition submitted by Mr. Pultz be made part of the minutes. The Planner stated that Edenvafie Boulevard is not a complete road and stated that "it _was to continue to Birch—Is land Road and have a sidewalk along it. Bearman asked if the completion has been set. The Planner stated that it will be under construction this year with a completion approximately one year later. No bids have been set yet. Pultz asked if the intersections will be able to handle the traffic and stated he felt that this development would be a burden to Edenvale Boulevard. The Planner replied yes it can handle the traffic. Mary Henry, 15120 Ironwood Court, asked the weight of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Bearman replied the Planning Commission and Parks,-Recreation and Natural Resources Commission makes recommendations to the City Council and they decide. The Planner stated that in a majority, the City Council goes along with the recommendations. Jeff Miller, 15195 Ironwood Court, felt that there are too many housing units and not enough parking provided. Steve Cherne, 6931 Raven Court,: asked if the City Council denied the proposal , • if the proponent could go to a higher body. Bearman replied they could go to the courts. Cherne was concerned that the trees will not be saved as they are proposed to be saved. Mr. Hassell , 6821 Woodhill Trail , stated he would like to see doubles and single family homes on this site. Craig Kreibich, 6988 Raven Court, felt the plan was ill=advised. Brad Orndorff, 15100 Ironwood Court, was concerned about flooding problems and felt the drainage for the site is bad. The Planner stated that the ponds are being developed to go with the underground storm sewer pipes. Lee Garber, 15085 Ironwood Court, stated he opposed the project. Judy Baker, 6785 Woodhill Trail , asked if the outlot will become part of the proposal for development. The Planner replied yes. David Miller, 6800 Woodhill Trail , stated he felt the site should be developed for single family. Jack Hillman, 6948 Raven Court, stated he was concerned if there was a fire because of the access. SSutliff asked if trees can be replanted to replace the ones taken out. The Planner replied yes but stated he would like the major trees inventoried. Torjesen stated he felt the plan was not at a stage ready for approval . approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 26, 1982 MOTION 1 Torjesen moved to close the public hearing. Retterath seconded, motion carried . 5-0-2. Marhula and Hallett abstained. Marhula abstained because he works for the firm representing Equitable Life, and Hallett abstained because he arrived late. MOTION 2 Torjesen moved to deny the request so that the developer can address the problems as listed in the staff report dated 4/22/82. Retterath seconded; motion carried 5-Oz2. Marhula and Hallett abstained. D. CARDINAL CREEK 3RD ADDITION, by Gustafson & Associates. Request for approval of a preliminary plat and rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 of the property which is part of Cardinal Creek PUD 72-01. Included in the public hearing on the proposed rezoning will be the consideration of granting of variances pursuant to Sec. 11, Ord. 135 from the provision of said Ordinance applicable to the RM 6.5 District. 16 acres located east of Cardinal Creek 2nd Addition and dine Mile Creek and west of I-494. A public hearing. The Planner stated that Mr. Ron Kruger, representing Greg and Jeff Gustafson, was present to give a presentation. Kruger stated they are requesting 18 double family lots. Jeff Gustafson will be the developer and the doubles will be high quality. Severe grading will S have to be done in the center of the site. As many trees will be saved as possible. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 4/21/82. He stated that the City Forester has visited the site and stated he was concerned that as many trees be retained as possible. Hb felt that the 25' front, yard setback is reasonable. _ Recommended that a minimum of 10 feet be allowed on one side which would allow — 20' on the other side of the unit. Detailed landscaping plan inventory should be done. He suggested that this be the last development on this road before Cardinal Creek Road is made a through road. Marhula asked if the lots conform to the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The Planner stated that Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 17, Block 2 are within 100' of the normal 'ordinary high water mark. Marhula asked where the excess dirt will go. Kruger replied in the first addition along Cardinal Creek Road adjacent to Baker which will remedy seven lots to make them buildable. Greg Gustafson stated that no floodplain was filled in Cardinal Creek First and Second Addition except for the road crossing which was approved by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. The Planner stated that there is a large oak tree in the way of the road and suggested that a median be placed around the tree to preserve it because of its . age. Torjesen asked if the duplexes will be custom duplexes. Jeff Gustafson replied that each lot will be analyzed on a lot by lot basis. He stated that there will be approximately 10 to 15 different types. Bearman asked when Cardinal Creek Road will be completed and expressed concern that it is a long cul-de-sac at present. The Planner replied that there is no time schedule. Bearman asked the length of the cul-de-sac. Kruger replied 800' . Planning Commission Minutes -7- approved April 26, 1982 • MOTION 1 Marhula moved to close the public hearing on Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 7-0. MOTION 2 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Cardinal Creek PUD Development Plan for Cardinal Creek 3rd dated 3/22/82 as per the staff report dated 4/21/82. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-1. Gartner voted no. MOTION 3 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 as per the plans dated 3/22/82 and the staff report dated 4/21/82 with the following changes and/or additions: add to #3, DNR review and approval also be obtained. 13. That the plan conform to the Shoreland Management Ordinance prior to City Council review. 14. The floor area ratio should not exceed Ordinance requirements. Sutliff seconded. DISCUSSION Bearman asked that the City Forester spot trees that should be saved prior to any construction of the road. Marhula and Sutliff agreed. Motion carried 6-1. Gartner voted no because she opposed the long cul-de-sac. MOTION 4: Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated 3/22/82 as per the staff report dated 4/21/82 with the same additions as in motion 3. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-2. Gartner and Bearman voted no because' he also opposed the long cul-de-sac. MOTION 5 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the variances requested. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-2. Gartner and Bearman voted no. V. OLD BUSINESS MOTION Retterath moved to set May 19, 1982 fora Planning Commission meeting. Gartner .seconded, motion carried 7-0. The Planner brought the Commission up to date with the BFI expansion proceedings and gave a brief slide presentation. VI. NEW BUSINESS None VII . PLANNER'S REPORT The Planner reviewed upcoming items. VIII. ADJOURNMENT (��fpy yry 2� Y d to adjourn the meeting at 11:54 pm. Hallett seconded, motion .t�/: r r., �J//i`� ; �11.i �17.➢.G. ffr Wi• �yf•ir r l ,l'r y}wtili// �l/�� '�.�/l Speed Letterm 44-si 2 Speed Letter® To� From_ Jack R. & Irene B. Pul tz den Prairie Planning Commission 15180 Ironwood Court Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344 - 6 0 Oubiect Questions and concerns- Edenvale 15th Addition -ero.lafoFaLD MESSAGE Date 4/20/82 19 1 The ad o-d volume of traffic, in addition tb that from the most recent townhouse project on Edenvale Blvd. L 77-24, RI-13. 5) , will put an added J oad on the railroa�tini_d B on Valley View. 2. How are the streets being paid for? The rear of my property borders the IL 11xw-se Ut' 11 of va l e-$lv&d.1 w i-!lr-rrot-b,en of i -fre-m-th e new s t e et. I feel the developers or new residents should cover the total costs. 3. During construction, what measures will be taken to minimize property . b ae_b.y--(-,o_nstruction workers and equipment' along Edenvale Blvd. I regert having to bring this up, but too often in the past I have seen that many •c-Qnstruction people consider their presence a license or rape the surroundings. 4, T) eto--m y construction ro ects in the area includingthe well the roads are becoming a hazard to automibile' s health. Once again, the a age or benefiting should have to fix them. I� -h0.f FOLD I -N..10 FOLD -- Signed 211Z REPLY Date 19 i 1 Signed Wilson Jones Company .;•fA,1P.L�„rI- v-3r•hnr � *,-..JP -NT r1FTnIN WHIT=rnPY RFT1 IRN PIPC r:nPY i -- -- ------ - - -- --- _ F k � —_ �aa z e.- die, ' z�wee K Petition to Eden Prairie Planning commission * City Council Subject: Proposed Zoning Change, Outlot D Edetivale 3rd. Add. • We are residents of the Edenvale area which is adjacent to the above - property which is being considered for a zoning change to include row type condominium/townhouse structures and manor homes. We are opposed to this change for the following reasons: 1. Since there are already numerous multi-family dwellings in the general area, any additionai multifamily units would place an undue burden on the existing roads, such as Edenvale Elvd. ane the railroad bridge on Valley View Road. .2.- The. increased traffic would also he a hazard to children and bicyclists In the area, but mainly on E.denvale Elva. 3. The addition of over 100 units in a 16.9 acre area would tend to destroy the semi.,rural character of the neighborhood. 4. This high density, 7.1 units/acre, units would undoubtedly cause adverse social problems similar to those seen in other high density areas of Eden Prairie. This could cause a depreciation of home values in the neighborhood. 5. The past development of the immediate area has been geared to preserving the natural qualities of the land. This has been accomplished at considerable expense to the present property owners. A massive project like that proposed for outlot D, would undoubtedly necessitate complete land re-contouring and destroy the vesthetic qualities the people have tried to preserve. 6. 'He uneerstand that other land in the immediate area is already zoned multi-f<-mily. It is our fear that if this trend continues, the area will become too urbanized. 7. We ouestion�the ability of the schools to handle this extra load. lf/VG CIA 'r" h , 'u�6z ��, C�' .�_kse4le—_� r' .. ._. fs6VO a c a�J.� 6.DL4 L4 ���.-� /�9�0 /ram U--cv�Q �.`-..____E�-�.�r°`-�--------•--• _ � /� '• �7�O�f �v/rc`t��Jrt c Tt/C ._._ .(�rrlt/I/�$Z�- __.__. --- -���at,.,G�• /!z!�!(. _/.sv y I -. �(1 ea—al lcGee. li 2�aG1,_v��t..----- _..... Petition to Eden Prairie Planning commission * City Council Subject: Proposed Zoning Change, Outlot D Edevivale 3rd. Add. We are residents of the Edenvale area which is adjacent to the abofe • property which is being considered for a zoning change to include row type condominium/townhouse structures and manor homes. We are opposed to this change for the following reasons: 1. Since there are already numerous multi-family dwellings in the general area, any additional multifamily units would place an undue burden on the existing roads, such as Edenve]s Blvd. and the railroad bridge on Valley View Road. 2. The increased traffic would also he a hazard to children and bicyclists � in the area, but mainly on Edenvale Blvd. 3. The addition of over 100 units in a 16.9 acre area would tend to destroy the semi,-rural character of the neighborhood. 4. This high density, 7.1 units/acre, units would undoubtedly cause adverse social problems similar to those seen in other high density areas of Eden Prairie. This could cause a depreciation of home values in the neighborhood. 5. The past development of the immediate area has been geared to preserving the natural qualities of the land. This has been accomplished at considerable expense to the present property owners. A massive project like that proposed for outlot D, would undoubtedly necessitate complete land re-contouring and destroy the aesthetic qualities the people have tried to preserve. 6. We uneerstand that other land in the immediate area is already zoned multi-family. It is our fear that if this trend continues, the area will become too urbanized. 7. We ouestio the ability of the schools to handle this extra load. if �(,cryimc�2riz-e-c, : moo" , -_ .. ���G� � �� � -•------ ---___.. ... ;�:-u_:�_ -- 1` 1 F5 .S<r m wood_.. G+ "P -------- - - _ ~ . .____._._.___..•!_..__._ Petition to Eden Prairie Planning commission t City Council Subject: Proposed Zoning Change, Outlot D Edevivale 3rd. Add. We are residents of the Edenvale area which is adjacent to the above property which is being considered for a zoning change to include row type condominium/townhouse structures and manor homes. Be are opposed to this change for the following reasons: 1. Since there are already numerous multi-family dwellings jn the general area, any additional multifamily units would place an undue burden on the existing roads, such as Edenve]k Elvd. and the railroad bridge on Valley Vier Road. . 2. The increased traffic would also be a hazard to children and bicyclists In the area, but mainly on• Edenvale Elve. i 3.- The a edition 'of over 100 units in a 16.9 acre area would tend to .destroy the semirrural character of the neighborhood. 4. This high density, 7.1 units/acre, units would undoubtedly cause adverse social problems similar to those seen in other high density areas of Eden Prairie. This could cause a depreciation of home values in the neighborhood. 5. The past development of the immediate area has beenn geared to preserving the natural qualities of the land. This has been accomplished at considerable expense to the present property owners. A massive project like that proposed for outlot D, would undoubtedly necessitate complete land re-contouring and destroy, the aesthetic qualities the people have tried to preserve. 6. We uneerstand that other land in the immediate area is already zoned multi-family. It is our fear that if this trend continues, the area will become too urbanized. , 7. We auestion the ability of the schools to handle this extra load. 6�-�c.-.- � • �.� --ion'/9 .. ��yrc�.___��39�,c_---.__.---._.._____._. ;. ta - - 611 __- . go Lkrocpw —�_ - lam_.--=cc�►,� �, _:__. . -4- Petition to Eden Prairie Planning commission * City Council Subject: Proposed Zoning Change, Outlot D Edenvale 3rd. Add. We are residents of the-Edenvale area which is adjacent to the above property which is being considered for a zoning change to include • row type condominium/townhouse structures and manor homes. We are opposed to this change for the following reasons: 1. Since there are already numerous multi-family dwellings in the general -area, any additional multifamily units would place an undue burden on the existing roads, such as Edenve]«Plvd. and' the railroad bridge on Valley Vier Road. 2. The in.creesed traffic would also he a hazard to children and bicyclists in the area, but mainly on Edenvale Elva. + 3. The addition of over 100 units in a 16.9 acre area would tend to destroy the semirrural character of the neighborhood. 4. This high. density, 7.1 units/acre, units would undoubtedly cause adverse social problems similar to those seen in other high density areas of Eden Prairie. This could abuse a depreciation of home values in the neighborhood. 5. The past development of the immediate area has been geared to preserving the natural qualities of the land. This has been accomplished at considerable expense to the present property owners. A massive project like- that proposed for outlot D, would undoubtedly necessitate complete land re-contouring and destroy the Hesthetic qualities the people have tried to preserve. 6. We understand that other land in the immediate area is already zoned multi-f;-mily. It is our fear that if this trend continues, the area will become too urbanized. 7. We auestion the ability of the schools to handle this extra load. lY CGS Ct . ._. 9 37 2661 l qz 31 _ 15175 ofA o nod. Cr. _ __73 -d88d �._ �c!L.._�_•_G'� .. .1.5/_f_'o__ ivs�•.t�.l L� 1r34�-i���o_.. GT- —1 ' /S795, Thor �),VO LGl�(.Gv✓�c I`' . mil;j --?JrU z f a� LA�vno- leU ,ccrt� i�C�px 931- ,-S V) J�(cKol?'4 CT 934 937 - .9e3 9 9'3��z3 to 7-.,f7 -z�d�/_ Petition to Eden Prairie Planning commission t City Council Subject: Proposed Zoning Change, Outlot D Edenvale 3rd. Add. We are residents of the Edenvale area which is adjacent to the above property which is being considered for a zoning change to include row type condominium/townhouse structures and manor homes. We are opposed to this change for the following reasons: 1. Since there are already numerous multi-family dwellings jn the general area, any additional multifamily units would place an undue burden on the existing roads, such as Edenvale Flvd. and the railroad bridge on Valley View goad. 2. The increased traffic would also he a hazard to children and bicyclists in the area, but mainly on Edenvale Blvd. , 3.. The addition of over 100 units in a 16.9 acre area would• tend to destroy the semi-rural character of the neighborhood. . 4-. -This high density, 7.1 units/acre, iunits would undoubtedly cause adverse social problems similar to those seen in other high density areas of Eden Prairie. This could cause a depreciation of home values in the neighborhood. 5. The past development of the immediate area has been geared to preserving the natural qualities of the land. This has been accomplished at considerable expense to the present property owners. A massive project like that proposed for outlot D, would undoubtedly necessitate complete land re-contouring and destroy the aesthetic qualities the people have tried to preserve. 6. We uneerstand that other land in the immediate area is already zoned multi-family. It is our fear that if this trend continues, the area will become too urbanized. 7.-We ouestion the ability of the schools to hanele this extra load. r ' I A n �� ,,