Loading...
Planning Commission - 06/28/1982 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, June 28, 1982 7:30 PM, City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Virginia Gartner, Hakon Torjesen, Dennis Marhula, Grant Sutliff, Robert Hallett STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Hilgers, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF JUNE 14, 1982 MINUTES III. MEMBERS REPORTS IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. ECKERT R.U.S. , by Robert J. Eckert. Request to subdivide via a Registered Land Survey, 7.3 acres into 3 lots. The 7 acres is zoned Rural and the proposed lot sizes are: 3/4 acre (with existing house) , and 2 lots approximately 3 acres in size. Located on Sunnybrook Road. A public hearing. B. EDENVALE 15TH ADDITION (revised) , by Equitable Life Assur- ance Society of the United States. Request for development stage of the Edenvale PUD 70-04, rezone 17 acres from Rural to RM 6.5, preliminary platting of approximately 106 town- houses, and possible variances from the RM 6.5 District. Located north of Edenvale Blvd. , east of Edenvale 11 and 14 Additions. A public hearing. C. KINGS FOREST, by Centurion Company. Request for Guide Plan change of approximately 70 acres from low to medium density residential , Planned Unit Development approval of 31 single family and 153 townhouses, rezoning of 15 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 and 33 acres from Rural to RM 6.5, preliminary plat approval over the 70 acres, possible variances from the R1-13.5 and RM 6.5 Districts, and approval of an Envir- onmental Assessment Worksheet. Located west of Baker Road and Crosstown Baptist Church, south of St. John's Woods, and east of West 66 Street's easterly terminous. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S: REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT 1 ,i MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved Monday, June 28, 1982 7:30 PM, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Grant Sutliff, Virginia Gartner, Dennis Marhula, Hakon Torj esen MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Hallett and Liz Retterath STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Marhula moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0. II. APPROVAL OF JUNE 14, 1982 MINUTES Marhula moved to continue the approval of the June 14, 1982 minutes to the July 12, 1982 meeting. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0. III. MEMBERS REPORTS None IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. ECKERT R.L.S. , by Robert J. Eckert. Request to subdivide via a Registered Land Survey, 7.3 acres into 4 lots. The 7 acres is zoned Rural and the proposed lot sizes are: 3/4 acre (with existing house) , 2 lots approximately 3 acres in size and road right-of-way. Located on Sunnybrook Road. A public hearing. The Planner briefed the Commission on the background. In preliminary meetings with the proponent, .The Planner suggested a plat and zoning, or variance procedure followed by an administration division with Council review. The Owner pursued a variance and at the Board of Appeals -meeting, the request was approved. The request went to the Council and received approval , but the division was not. acceptable to Hennepin County for recording. Torjesen asked what is the Board of Appeals basis for granting variance from the 5 acre requirement. The Planner listed: character of neighborhood, proximity of sewer and water. The Planner noted that sewer and water is available to the area but not enough owners are demanding :it. Sutliff asked what type of soils exist on these sites. The Planner replied a soil test must be submitted at time of building permit issuance. Marhula noted that the lots have only 250' depth to the floodplain, and questioned if further subdivisions can be done. The Planner replied not without sewer and water. approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 28, 1982 Bearman asked if an one in the audience had questions or comments. None were Y raised. MOTION 1 Gartner moved to close the public hearing. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0. MOTION 2 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Eckert RLS dated 6/28/82 with the recommendations of the staff report dated 6/25/82. Torjesen seconded. DISCUSSION -- --- --- ------ - ------- Torjesen _note-d-.t_h_at he is acting not on the substance of the request, but on a procedural question. • He asked that this be made part of the motion; Gartner agreed. Motion carried 3-2. Bearman and Sutliff voted no. Bearman voted no because he believed a broader question than following procedures exists. He stated that he felt this could set a precident. Sutliff voted no because he was concerned with the private system. B. EDENVALE 15TH ADDITION (revised) , by Equitable Life Assur- ance Society of the United States. Request for development stage of the Edenvale PUD 70-04, rezone 17 acres from Rural to RM 6.5, preliminary platting of approximately 106 town- 40 houses, and possible variances from the RM 6.5 District. Located north of Edenvale Blvd'. , east of Edenvale 11 and 14 Additions. A public hearing. Torjesen suggested that this project should be deferred until the private planner is present. A ten minute break was taken. The private planner was not present. MOTION Sutliff moved to switch items B and C around. Gartner seconded, motion carried 5-0. C. KINGS FOREST, by Centurion Company. Request for Guide Plan change of approximately 70 acres from low to medium density residential , Planned Unit Development approval of 31 single family and 153 townhouses, rezoning of 15 acres from Rural to R1-13.5 and 33 acres from Rural to RM 6.5, preliminary plat approval over the 70 acres, possible variances from the R1-13.5 and RM 6.5 Districts, and approval of an Envir- onmental Assessment Worksheet. Located west of Baker Road and Crosstown Baptist Church, south of St. John's Woods , and east of West 66 Street's easterly terminous. A public hearing. The Planner referred the Commission to the staff report and the letters from Captain Wall and the Fire Chief,supporting through roads. ' Len Thiel, Centurion, 15500 Wayzata Blvd. , stated that they have met on three occasions with the neighborhood. approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 28, 1982 • Ron Bastyr, McCombs-Knutson, stated this is a 70 acre site, he noted the surrounding uses of Kings Forest school , residential , and St. John's townhouses. They removed three streets previously planned to connect: Franklin National Bank connection West 66th Street, and St. John's Drive. Access is proposed as a loop street from Baker back to Baker Road. Next to St. John's will be single story brick homes, with separate garages, and entrance. The other units are two story townhouses of brick and cedar, with attached and detached garages with separate entrance and patio. Plan includes a 22 acre park which acts as a buffer, open space and floodplain. The red and white oaks southwest of St. John's will be preserved. Ron Bastyr felt the road plan responds to existing residents' requests. Cul-de-sac at St. John's south border would have knockdown barrier. He reviewed the staff report recommendations stating he agrees with items: 5-10, 12-15, 17, 19 and 20; disagrees with items 4, 11, and 18; and has neither a positive or negative feeling about items 1-3, and 16. The Planner reviewed the staff report recommendations. He then referred to a Hennepin County drawing, delivered today, for additional right-of-way. He suggested the proponent dedicate 17' additional right-of-way, and proponent and County should negotiate on amount of curve dedication. Purposes for planning connection of streets are: Public Safety survelliance and efficiency, emergency response, street maintenance, school bus efficiency, and utility connection. • The Planner recommended that Black Cherry Court should be the western border of phase one otherwise too many units would be on a 750'. long temporary dead end street. He also recommended-multiple driveways 25' in length from garage to curb whether street is public or private,and additional outside spaces are needed. He believed a number of Basswoods will be lost and suggested a tree survey prior to Council review so preservation of trees and construction limits can be assessed. The Planner noted that Forest Hills School is located approximately 25' from the property line. This would mean one half of the road right-of-way from the City property is not possible. The desireability of single family lots looking into the school loading dock and encroaching in floodplain may not be desireable and if unbuildable, could be combined with Outlot A and units credited to the multiple portion. Staff suggested totlot in the northeast area. If dedicated land is used in a density transfer, the units are not exempt from the cash park fee. To conform to the Shoreland Management Ordinance buildings must be 150' from the creek. Sutliff asked if St. John's Drive is a public or private drive. The Planner replied St. John's Drive is public and the other roadsin the development are private. Torjesen asked if the road adjacent to the school always has been in the City plan. The Planner replied approximately 9 years ago West 66th Street was viewed as a through street. Torjesen inquired if the proponent must give up significant area for road right- of-way, and if the City could give land to the developer for lots. Bearman questioned if the City would build West 66th Street without development here; and because of single family glut' on the market, perhaps other road connections would be important - not West 66th Street. He believed each road has significant factors for connection- and no single connection will serve the area's transportation circulation. appproved Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 28, 1982 • Bearman suggested the single family east of West 66th St reet be eliminated, West 66th Street connect to proposed Kings _Forest Drive, but not continue to Baker, instead direct it bortheast to Forest Hills Road. Torjesen noted that the single family east of West 66th Street also is sandwiched between the school land and the proposed dedicated Outlot A. He stated his concern that residents want private neighborhoods but our problem is to develop a viable plan, while maintaining some privacy for neighborhoods. Bearman believed enough meandering roads exist now, and stated he would not want to hear of a life lost because of extra minutes of travel time. Torjesen asked if 25' on drives can be designed without unit loss. Bastyr re- sponded yes noting it may eliminate some more trees. Bastyr stated that phase one to the creek not to Black Cherry Court is important because of the amount of street to be constructed and he noted the density is only 2.6 units/acre. John Palm, 6389 St. John's Drive noted they have less break-ins because of their single entrance and slower traffic. He objected to connection to Kings Forest Drive. Presently there is a 'T' turn around at south end of St. John's Drive. He also objected to connection because of street name difference and problems they may have with through traffic. He said he would be willing to have a • breakdown barrier at the south end of St. John's Drive. Hanley Anderson, 6581 Manchester Lane, did not want the West 66th connection because of impact on their neighborhood. Dick Sathre, 6511 Manchester Lane, stated they have not had any problems to date with emergency access and did not want West 66th Street connected. Jan Anderson, 6591 Manchester Lane, stated that children have to cross Baker Road and Holly Road which are busy. This project will add more busy streets. She was opposed to connecting streets. Louis Kenny, 6617 Manchester Lane, felt that a cul-de-sac would be safer then a through street. He was opposed to the West 66th Street connection. Gloria Allen, 6700 Canterbury Lane, did not feel that West 66th Street needed a connection and felt that the loop would be adequate for safety. Marhula asked the trip circulation expected on West 66th Street if connected, The Planner replied it basically serves the neighborhood - it would not be designed as thoroughfare to any attraction, i .e. , shopping. Dick Iness, 6627 Manchester Lane, felt the continuation of West 66th Street could be a thoroughfare to the Edenvale area. • H. Anderson, 6301 St. John's Drive, stated he felt that the trips will be going to the Shopping Mall . .approved Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 28, 1982 Sutliff suggested that the City could request the surcharging of West Cardinal Creek Road concurrent with phase one. The Planner replied that it would be a good suggestion. Torjesen stated he would like to have staff and the developer negotiate the road locations and connections discussed tonight. Marhula stated he supported the idea, but felt that action could be taken on phase one tonight. Thiel stated he was surprised to learn that the school is approximately 25' from the road. Bastyr felt that the proposed single family would be marketable and did not want to lose any units. MOTION Torjesen moved to continue the item to July 12, 1982 in hope of the City and proponent being able to resolve in regards to item 11 of the staff report and the road connections. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0. ITEM B, EDENVALE 15TH ADDITION (revised) RESUMED. The Planner referred the Commission to the staff report dated 6/23/82 which compares this revised plan to the previous plan. Dick Krier, Westwood Planning and Engineering, stated that they have made changes requested in the staff report and other items brought up by residents at the last public hearing. The units have been reduced from 120 to 106, more screening area at Edenvale Boulevard, more trees preserve , and no detached garages. He then showed slides of sight lines from existing areas to the proposed site, and drawings of cross sections. The Planner recommended approval of the plat and zoning of the revised plan dated 5/17 subject to the items on ;;p.age 5 of the 6/23/82 staff report. He noted that a majority of the large trees will be preserved. Adding that an item #8 should be added to the staff report granting use of wood as an exterior material . Sutliff asked how much further Edenvale Blvd is to be extended. Krier replied they have a petition for connection to Birch Island Road. The Planner stated if the extension to Birch Island Road is not possible this year, it would have to continue at least to Lesley Lane for this project. Torjesen asked if it is common to deal with recreational vehicles in multiple area. The Planner replied yes. • 4approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 28, 1982 Bearman stated he received a letter dated 6/23/82 from Harry E. Picha which requested a fence to protect his farm and crops. John Ryder, 6819 Woodhill Trail , stated he felt the plan generally improved, but did not answer who will pay for Edenvale Blvd. The Planner stated that feasibility hearings are generally held to determine the assessment method. Torjesen asked if Edenvale Blvd. is not constructed this year, would the developer construct a portion. The Planner replied if the development is built this year, the developer could construct that portion to City standards. Jack Humphreys, Equitable, stated they have submitted a petition for the con- struction of Edenvale Blvd. with assessments over the remaining Equitable property. Bert Hassel . 6827 Woodhill Trail , stated he felt that children playing in the proposed totlot next to the Blvd. is unsafe and should be more centrally located. The Planner stated that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission would review the totlot location. Mr. Peters, 15140 Ironwood Court, stated that at the previous meeting, discussion was held regarding the traffic difficulties in this area. He disagreed with the screening slides from Ironwood Court and stated that development will be very . visiblefrom both of his floors. He would like to see 3.5 units/acre development which is comparable to existing areas. Mr. Cherne, 6930 Raven Court, asked if the feasibility study has been started. The Planner replied that it is being done in-house and is not yet completed. Cherne asked if Birch Island Road will be upgraded. The Planner replied it may not be concurrent with Edenvale Blvd. Cherne stated he felt that the City should have roads built and continued prior to developments. Mr. Lassen, representing Equitable Life Assurance, stated he felt that grading on Edenvale Blvd. could begin this Fall . Peters stated he questioned if the market can absorb new lots, and stated that there are a lot of lots in Edenvale. Lassen replied that no multiple lots are remaining. Bearman asked if the developer will work with Mr. Picha regarding the fence that he wants. Krier replied yes. MOTION 1 Gartner moved to close the public hearing. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0-1. Marhula abstained because he works for the firm representing Equitable Life. y approved Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 28, 1982 MOTION 2 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the development stage as per the plans dated 5/17/82 as per the staff report dated 6/23/82 with the inclusion of wood as an exterior material and a solution to Mr. Picha's request. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0-1. Marhula abstained. MOTION 3 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 for approximately 17 acres as per the plans dated 5/17/82 and the staff report dated 6/23/82 with the inclusion of wood as an exterior material and a solution to Mr. Picha's request. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0-1. Marhula abstained. MOTION 4 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat for 106 townhouses dated 5/17/82 as per the staff report dated 6/23/82 with the inclusion of wood as an exterior material and a solution to Mr. Picha's request. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0-1. Marhula abstained. MOTION 5 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the variances requested as per the staff report dated 6/23/82. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0-1. Marhula abstained. • V. OLD BUSINESS Sutliff asked about the Dell Road construction status. The Planner stated that that is being worked on with Chanhassen. VI. NEW BUSINESS Torjesen felt CPT construction traffic use of Scenic Heights Road is inappropriate. Marhula stated that the APA issue has an article on reduced rates for Planning Commission members. Commission members interrested in sub- scribing are to contact the Planning Department. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT The Planner reviewed upcoming items. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Marhula moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 PM. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0.