Loading...
Planning Commission - 08/09/1982 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, August 9, 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 Carrie Tietz, Substitute Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF JULY 12, 1982 MINUTES APPROVAL OF JULY 26, 1982 MINUTES III. MEMBERS REPORTS IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. 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- PM 6.5 Districts, and approval of an Envir- onmental Assessment Worksheet. The revised plan proposes ' 199 townhouses and 6 single family units, Located west of Baker Road and Crosstown Baptist..Church, south of St, John's Woods, and east of West 66th Street's easterly terminous. A public meeting. D. EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP, by Undestad Investment Company. Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept approval .for industrial uses on 32 acres (27 acres of which is zoned I72) , rezoning from Rural to I-2 for approximately 5 acres, preliminary plat approval of 6 lots and 3 outlots, possible variances from the I-2 District, and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Co. Rd. 67 and the Chicago Northwestern- Railway, A public meeting. C. NORSEMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK 5TH ADDITION, by Herleiv Helle. Request for rezoning 2 acres from Rural to I-2 Park and preliminary plat approval . Located south of West 74th Street extended. A public hearing. D. SHADY OAK AMOCO, by Amoco Oil Company. Request for rezoning .93 acres from Rural to Hwy-Com and preliminary plat for construction of a gas station. Located in the southwest corner of Crosstown 62 and Shady Oak Road. A public hearing. Agenda-8/9/82 page 2 E. ARBOR GLEN, by BFK Partnership. Request for PUD approval on 40 acres for residential uses, rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for 24 acres for 51 units and from Rural to RM 6.5 for 8 acres for 28 units, and preliminary plat approval for the construction of 51 single family and 28 townhouse units and possible variances. Located in the northeast corner of Baker Road and Valley View Road, and south of Cardinal Creek. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved Monday, August 9, 1982 7:30 P.M. , City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Hakon Torjesen, Dennis Marhula, Grant Sutliff, Robert Hallett, Virginia Gartner MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Carrie Tietz, Substitute Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Gartner moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0. II. APPROVAL OF JULY 12, 1982, MINUTES Enger said that the staff had checked the tape recording of the July 12th meeting and confirmed the motion was called as 4 - 3 vote in favor of no continuance of W. 66th Street. Bearman said he didn't feel there is a need to hear the tapes, but if the motion is going to be left standing at 4-3, he would like Mr. Marhula's comments of the last meeting added to this meeting also. Torjesen added he feels the minutes should state it would appear had there been a raising of hands it would have been a 4 - 3 vote for connecting W. 66th Street. Enger said he felt it was not appropriate to amend the July 12th minutes, but it could be shown in the current minutes. MOTION Retterath moved to recommend approval of the Minutes of July 12, 1982, as corrected. Sutliff seconded, and the motion carried 6-0-1,* Gartner abstaining. APPROVAL OF JULY 26, 1982 MINUTES The following corrections were made: P.2, 7th para. , change "west" for additional parking, to "south". P.4, 2nd para. , change "medium density residential ", to "medium density office". Add the following to the paragraph: '-The for this proposal would set a precedent MOTION for all land lying to the west of Shady Oak Rd." Marhula moved to recommend the minutes of July 26, 1982 be approved as corrected. Torjesen seconded, the motion carried 6-0-1, Gartner abstain. T approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 9, 1982 III. MEMBERS REPORTS None IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. 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 Environmental Assess- ment Worksheet. The revised plan proposed 199 townhouses and 6 single family units. Located west of Baker Road and Crosstown Baptist Church, south of St. John's Woods, and east of West 66th Street's easterly terminous. A public meeting. Bearman noted that this is a public meeting and the City Council is holding a public hearing on this proposal at the present time which is still open. The Council has asked the Commission to review an alternative plan. The Planner explained that there are 3 specific items the Council felt should be incorporated in the alternative plan. 1. The alternate plan should contain an east/west road. 2. The developed area should be consolidated so the Nine Mile Creek area could be part of Forest Hills School park area. 3. There are large lot single family lots on the west side of this proposal that would abut Manchester Lane to provide good transition (see Plan B) . On the east side of the cul-de-sac road there is continuation of townhouse units. The Council felt the cul-de-sac road should extend down to the property's southern boundary to provide access to park and the planning report suggested on previous submission there should be a sidewalk along one side of Kings Forest Road and a sidewalk along cul-de-sac to south. Bearman requested that a letter of August 4, 1982, from Jerry Kingrey be made part of these minutes. Marhula said he sees 4 different issues the Council has asked the Planning Commission to address, and perhaps they should be taken one at a time: 1. Connection of Edenvale Blvd to Baker Road. 2. Connection of St. John's Drive. 3. Connection of West 66th Street. 4. Land use on the east side of the cul-de-sac extending south from the east/west collector road. J --approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 9, 1982 Marhula said he supports a connection of West. 66th Street. However, according to Plan B, the appropriate thing to do appears -to be to extend the cul-de-sac to the property line to provide park access and school access. In Plan B, the right- of-way should be platted to West 66th Street to allow that a connection be made sometime in the future. Torjesen said he continues to support West 66th Street not be a through street. However, he said he is open to the :idea of right-of-way for a possible future through connection. Gartner said she does not understand why the road needs to be extended another 100' to provide pedestrian access to the park. She feels it will only be used as a parking lot. Enger said the Parks and Recreation Commission feels there should be additional access into the northwest portion of the park. There is a gravel parking lot there now which occurs at the end of the gravel road. It is not a public street but an access in a public park. Gartner made reference to Jerry Kingrey's letter, asking if the City did make a commitment to make West 66th Street a through street back in 1973? Enger said yes. He said the idea at that time was when the connection at Kingston was made to Golf View Drive there was a concern there would be too much traffic from the northern area down through Kingston and from Edenvale up to Forest Hills School . It was believed that if a connection was made from West 66th Street to Baker, it would take pressure off Holly and Kingston. �. Hallett said he is in favor of extending the cul-de-sac to the property line for future connection of West 66th Street. He also admitted that the Kingrey letter and the City's old commitment does have an influence on him. He said he still lean's in the direction of no through street, but is influenced by the City's old commitment. Sutliff said he would like to see West 66th Street remain a cul-de-sac, with access to the park, and the extension to the property line (south) for a possible future connection. Sutliff added that if Kings Forest Road does not go through, then he would support West 66th Street going through, but only at that point. Torjesen also expressed agreement that if Kings Forest Road does not go through for some reason, then there should be a connection at West 66th Street. He feels Kingrey's letter brings forth a serious issue. He asked those present if this problem can be solved somehow. Bearman said he continues to support West 66th Street be a through connection. However, he agrees that if it does not go through, he feels the cul-de-sac should go to the property line, then a pedestrian path to the school property. Marhula said there are many design methods to accomplish public access to the park and yet not provide a detriment to the homeowner's at the end of the street. He feels the important issues here are to provide a right-of-way to the park and to provide a right-of-way west on 66th Street alignment. He said he would like to see a connection be approved but in his opinion it appears that will not happen. Marhula said he has concerns and problems with planning two different land uses across the street from one another as shown on this plan (intense multi-family and single family). Marhula said he supports all single family lots on either side of the cul-de-sac. approved Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 9, 1982 Torjesen asked if there is an increase in density with this plan. Enger said originally there were 184 units and now, with Alternate Plan B, there are 205 units. Torjesen asked how many units are proposed east of the cul-de-sac. Bastyr said 42. Gartner said she feels there should be single family on the east side of the cul-de-sac. Enger referred to the development brochure, where two types of multiple units for this property are cited. One, a two story (east) larger building (6-10 units) and the other a 2-5 unit, single story unit. If the Commission is concerned with transition, perhaps it is appropriate to recommend the less intense townhouse type structure. Retterath said she feels there should be all single family here but could go with less intense townhouse type units. Hallett said he is interested in less density. He said he is not as concerned with the impact on single family lots when no one is living there, they will know what they are .getting when they buy. Sutliff said he feels there can be higher density single family on the east side of cul-de-sac because of the good buffer. Bearman said he can support lower density multiple across from single family if there is adequate buffering. Len Thiel , Centurion, said he feels a better job of transition can be accomplished with quality multiple than smaller homes. Marhula said the idea of low profile style townhouse that he has seen Centurion build elsewhere is a valid consideration. With proper setbacks, etc. , it may be compatible with single family. Resident Jan Anderson, 6591 Manchester Lane, asked if there was any truth to the rumor that Stratford might be connected westward? She said she read in someone's minutes, that it was proposed Stratford be pushed through to pick up Edenvale t Boulevard. Bearman answered that the Planning Commission had not discussed this. Roger Sandvick, 14280 Stratford Road, said he is opposed to West 66th Street going through. He feels there is adequate accessibility for emergency vehicles in his neighborhood as it took only 32 minutes for one to reach his home during a recent incident. Lewis Kinne, 6617 Manchester Lane, said he does not see how West 66th Street could go through because the property to the west has been purchased. Also he feels there is not room for a parking lot to be developed adjacent to the skating rink. . He said the service road the school presently uses could be used as a connection if necessary which would make West 66th Street connection unnecessary. Woodrow Bjork, 14302 Stratford, said he does not favor making West 66th Street a through street. He would rather see an easement in case it is deemed necessary in the future to take the road through. approved Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 9, 1982 Sandvick noted the Council says they would like to see an east/west road, mainly Kings Forest not 66th Street. Bastyr said he would make two proposals at this point: 1. To propose that Kings Forest Road go through and 66th Street remain a cul- de-sac. Dedicate to the City an outlot for a right-of-way according to a quick claim deed at the end of 66th Street. 2. The multiples remain in the form of one story units more in keeping with the character of adjacent single family, this would drop the density from 42 units less than 30 units. The total unit could be about 192 instead of 205. Marhula said he is still hesitant on the land use question. The low profile multiple units would fit into the area if properly done but as yet no plans have been seen. MOTION Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council that approval of the alternate plan for Kings Forest Addition including the following: Kings Forest Road be platted and constructed as a through street from Baker Road to the west property line as shown on Alternate Plan B. Further recommend St. John's Woods Drive connection be platted as a private street with access to the existing public St. John's Drive but containing a knock down type emergency barrier. Further recommend the cul-de-sac be south of the east/west road be platted as right-of- way or outlot to provide access to park and future access and right-of-way westerly to West 66th Street connection. Further, that the land use on the east side of this cul-de-sac be lower intensity multiple of a low profile, set back from road to provide proper berming and screening and landscaping design-. Proponent should have a plan depicting this change prior to Council meeting. Torjesen seconded the motion. Vote carried 6-1, Bearman opposed, feels 66th Street should go through for purposes of unrest among the neighbors per Kingrey letter. Also because of the Kingrey letter, Public Safety concerns, and prior commitments made by the City. DISCUSSION Bearman noted the details discussed on Kings Forest Road in the original motion are still valid with this motion. B. EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP, by Undestad Investment Company. Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept approval for. industrial uses on 32 acres (27 acres of which is zoned I-2) , rezoning from Rural to I-2 for approximately 5 acres, preliminary plat approval of 6 lots and 3 outlots, possible variances from the I-2 District, and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Co. -Rd. 67 and the Chicago Northwestern Railway. A public meeting. Enger explained that the Council had referred this item to the Planning Commission for a review of a revision to the original plan which would include; an east/west road, office land use south of-the road and single family lots south of the road to be serviced from Manchester Lane. -� .,approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 9, 1982 John Shardlow, representing the developer, maintained it is not a good office_ location due to traffic numbers, no;other commercial or businesses in the area, etc. , and mortgage bankers say no to the idea. Therefore, they are proposing a loop cul-de-sac with 29 townhouses on 6.33 acres instead of office. They also propose extension of single drive off end of Manchester Lane to provide access to 3 large single family lots. Enger said that staff recommends the buffer on the east side of the townhouses be as originally designed (75' berm and landscaping) and the buffer to the south be 100' of untouched woods. Shardlow said the Council said they did not favor expansion of non-conforming use on Bury property. Outlot C would be part of the townhouse project and would therefore preclude any expansion of the Bury piece. Enger added, with reference to the staff report of June 11, 1982, staff recommends keeping the elevation of the residential lots low and the industrial lot low. and keeping the road high as a screen between uses. Also, staff suggests two residential lots on cul-de-sac instead of three. Shardlow said he agrees with staff to keep the industrial road high. Torjesen asked for the background on the Bury property and the land use. Enger said the Bury property is zoned I-2. This requires 2 acre minimum lot size, and the lot is not in conformance with ordinance and the operation is not in conformance. Hallett asked what are the buffers on the present plan? Enger said to the east it is 50' (was 75' ) and to the south it is 100' (original 250' as industrial). Bearman said he has no objection to multi-residential , but he prefers office, low profile, rather than multi-residential . He feels it is better for the neighbors. Roger $:a-ndvi_ck said he wants to see the 250' setback, he wants to see office use. He feels the 100' setback proposed wipes out the natural buffer (trees, etc.) . Shardlow said the fact the land is undesignated does not mean the owner has no rights to use it. He added the Planner has tried to work cooperatively with neighbors but there is a point that the property owners have rights, just like the neighbors do. When it comes right down to it, it is what is adopted in the ordinance and comprehensive guide plan. 250' setback from single family to medium density residential is excessive. Phil Mahler, 14202 Stratford, said he objects to the 100' setback. This would put a building over the top of the natural ridge line which would cause adverse watershed problems. Woodrow Bjork said first the 250' setback was offered then it was taken away. He feels strongly that 250' is needed. Dick Feerick said he felt the proponent is trying to reach some sort of solution as far as transition is concerned. —approved Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 9, 1982 Wayne Gilbertson, 6580 Leesboro, said he would sooner have warehouse than multi- family. Bearman said the Council has requested the Planning Commission look at an alter- native to industrial. Dick Sather, 6511 Manchester, asked what prompted the changes to the multiple dwelling land use? He said he thought everyone was happy with the warehouse. Enger said there was a change suggested in the Planning Commission minutes of something other than industrial and a letter from a resident in that area. Sandvick said he is opposed to the 42,000 sq. ft. industrial building originally planned. MOTION Gartner moved to recommend to the Council approval of Plan B, which includes the east/west through road, contains industrial use south of the road with a 250' buffer and a 75' buffer east and 3 residential lots; the buffer east of industrial use be installed at time of road construction. Retterath seconded the motion and it carried 6-1. Sutliff voted no because he is in favor of residential on the entire area south of the east/west roadway. Sandvick asked if notices will be sent out prior to the City Council meeting. Bearman said no new notices will be sent out because the Council 's public hearing has been continued to August 17, 1982. Sandvick said he is opposed to the 42,000 s.f.. building originally planned, all members of the Council agreed, even the Planner. He said he is in favor of office condominium type use. A 5 minute break was taken at this time, 10:00 p.m. Bearman turned the meeting over to Retterath for the next item. approved Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 9, 1982 C. NORSEMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK 5th ADDITION, by Herleiv Helle. Request for rezoning 2 acres from Rural to I-2 Park and preliminary plat approval : Located south of West 74th Street extended. A public hearing. Bearman relinquished the chair to Retterath because of potential conflict of interest. Sigmund Helle, representing Herleiv Helle, stated the proposal meets the City's guide plan and ordinances. The owner is willing to dedicate land for the extension of W. 74th Street, in the future. Marhula said that it is his understanding the proponent owns considerable property west of the addition. Has there been an overall conceptplan for this property, or have the requests been in piecemeal fashion? Enger said the proposals have been piecemeal in a sense, but the owner has been following the sketch plan (Figure 1) presented to the City with Norseman Third Addition. Helle said he was still confused with regard to what the City is requiring for W. 74th Street. Enger stated the City is requesting a dedicated and constructed connection to Valley View Road with the next development. Marhula said he feels there are many questions that must be answered with the ultimate development of subsequent plats. He feels the present proposal is somewhat sketchy but appears to be straightforward. The proponent should update their concept plan for the balance of the property. MOTION 1 Marhula moved to recommend closing the public hearing on Norseman Industrial Park 5th Addition. Gartner seconded, the motion carried 6-0-1, Beaman abstained. MOTION 2 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to I-2 as per the plans of June 10, 1982 and the Staff report of August 5, 1982, with the addition of Item 7: Prior to further platting of this industrial park the owner be required to update the concept plan of proposed development and road alignment. Sutliff seconded the motion and it carried 6-0-1, Beaman abstained. MOTION 3 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plan dated June 10, 1982, as per the staff report of August 5, 1982 including Item 7 as added. Sutliff seconded the motion and it carried 6-0-1, Beaman abstained. approved Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 9, 1982 At this point the meeting was turned back to Bearman. D. SHADY OAK AMOCO, By Amoco Oil Company. Request for rezoning .93 acres from Rural to Hwy-Com and preliminary plat for construction of a gas station. Located in the southwest corner of Crosstown 62 and Shady Oak Road. A public Hearing. Mr. Enger stated that the proponent had requested continuance in order to modify the site plan according to staff recommendations. MOTION Retterath moved to recommend this item be continued to the August 23, 1982 meeting. Gartner seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. E. ARBOR GLEN, by BFK Partnership. Request for PUD approval on 40 acres for residential uses, rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for 24 acres for 51 units, and from Rural to RM 6.5 for 8 acres for 28 units, and preliminary plat approval for the construction of 51 single family and 28 townhouse units and possible variances. Located in the northeast corner of Baker Road and Valley View Road, and south of Cardinal Creek. A public hearing. Enger referred to the Staff report of August 5, 1982 which contains recommendations and review of this project. Enger introduced Jim Hill present on behalf of the proponents. Mr. Hill stated the 40 acre site proposed will be made 'up of 51 single family lots and 28 townhouse units. He said the Staff report recommends a sidewalk on Road B and a trail connecting the Cardinal Creek trail to this site. Enger said the Planning Staff recommends approval of this PUD concept phase and approval of the request for rezoning. Enger read the recommendations of the August 5th Staff report. Marhula asked for a clarification of the density transfer in this proposal . Enger said in most cases density transfer refers to open space but also can be used in cases where there are mixed uses in a PUD, such as this one of single family and townhouse units. Staff feels the shifting around in density is appropriate in this case. The large lot single family and townhouse units are well separated and there is good transition. Marhula said on an overall map of the neighborhood, Forest Hills Road looks like it should extend through to Baker Road. He said he feels the City should not close off that option with this project. M approved Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 9, 1982 Marhula asked if the existing mining operation permit has expired? Hill said it is the proponents intent to complete mining operations and grade the site this year. There is a considerable amount- of -excess material that will go off the site or be used as fill on the site. Resident Jerrold T. Miller, 7120 Gerard Drive, said his property is on the east boundary of this site and he is concerned with grade changes near his property. He does not want to see the trees disturbed. Dick Ferrick said he will work with the property owner on this problem. Bearman said by ordinance there can be no more than a 3:1 grade. Enger added that the grading plan shows the slope stays at a 2:1 grade. Resident Lonny Jensen, 6979 Sandridge Road, said he does not want to see excessive grading near his property. Bearman advised him i.f children are endangered by a grade, then the developer is required to build a fence. MOTION 1 Gartner moved to close the public hearing on Arbor Glen. Torjesen seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. MOTION 2 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Arbor Glen PUD as per the plans dated June 30, 1982 and the Staff report of August 5, 1982 and per Highway Department letter dated August 2, 1982. Hallett seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. • MOTION 3 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and RM6.5 as per the plans dated June 30, 1982 and the Staff report of August 5, 1982 and the Highway Department letter dated August 2, 1982. Hallett seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. MOTION 4 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated June 30, 1982, as per the Staff report of August 5, 1982 and the Highway Department letter dated August 2, 1982. Torjesen seconded the motion and it carried 7-0. V. OLD BUSINESS Gartner requested the City make a study of the cul-de-sacs in the City for the purpose of knowing what the response time is for emergency calls, etc. Is it safer to be on a cul-de-sac, i .e. , crime rate lower than in an open neighborhood, are emergencies more intense, insurance rates higher? There was a lengthy discussion which followed Mrs. Gartner's request. Enger said he would investigate a study of this type and consult with public safety on the matter. VI. NEW BUSINESS None —approved Planning Commission Minutes -11- August 9, 1982 • VII. PLANNER'S REPORT Enger said the City Council wants to have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, August 17, 1982. They wish to discuss several different items, including cul-de-sacs. Enger requested all Commission members to give a firm commitment whether they could attend or not. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carrie Tietz Substitute Recording Secretary