Planning Commission - 09/27/1982 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, September 27, 1982
7:30 PM, City Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath,
Hakon Torjesen, Virginia Gartner, Grant
Sutliff, Dennis Marhula, Robert Hallett
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1982 MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. WOODLAWN HEIGHTS, by Ruscon Homes. Request for rezoning of
approximately 59.68 acres from Rural to R1-9.5 for construc-
tion of 139 single family detached housing units and pre-
liminary plat approval of 139 lots and 2 outlots. Located
in the southwest corner of Duck Lake Trail and Townline Road.
A public hearing.
B. TREANOR ADDITION, by Guy Treanor. Request .-for preliminary
plat approval of 1 lot into 3 lots for approximately 1.6
acres and rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5. Located south of
Valley View Road across from Franklin Circle 16117 Valley
View Road. A public hearing.
C. SUNRISE KNOLLS REVISED, by Edward A. Sieber. Request for
rezoning from Rural to RM 2.5 on 2.99 acres for construction
of an apartment building of 2 stories ,and'. 20- units. Located
at Co. Rd. 61 and Rowland Road. A public meeting.
D. CLEAN SWEEP, by Clean Sweep. Request for rezoning of
approximately 2 acres from-Rural to I-2 Park with
possible variances from the I-2 District to be reviewed
by the Board of Appeals. Located at_9125 Flying Cloud
Drive. A public meeting.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
A. Volunteers of America request for an enclosed connection between
two office buildings in Lakeridge Office Park.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
L �
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
approved
Monday, September 27, 1982 7:30 PM, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairperson Liz Retterath, Dennis
Marhula, Hakon Torjesen, Virginia Gartner,
Robert Hallett, Grant Sutliff
MEMBERS ABSENT: William Bearman
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Gartner moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Hallett seconded,
motion carried 6-0.
II. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1982 MINUTES
Gartner moved to continue approval of the September 13, 1982 minutes to
the October 12, 1982 meeting. Marhula seconded, motion carried 6-0.
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
None
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. WOODLAWN HEIGHTS, by Ruscon Homes. Request for rezoning of
approximately 59.68 acres from Rural to R1-9.5 for con-
struction of 139 single family detached housing units and
preliminary plat approval of 139 lots and 2 outlots. Lo-
cated in the southwest corner of Duck Lake Trail and Townline
Road. A public hearing.
The Planner briefed the Commission on the-site's previous proposal by Lyman Lumber,
for single family and quads which received first reading of an ordinance for
rezoning.
Marshall Oakes, Ruscon Homes, informed the Commission that their Deer Creek
proposal , which is currently under construction east of.Mitchell Road has
sold out, and there is an increasing demand for modest cost housing. He stated
that they desire to preserve the majority of maple and oaks on the site, will
vary the unit exteriors, that they would like to start phase 1 this Fall , and
no variances are being requested.
Mark Nagel , Ruscon, presented slides of home styles constructed by Ruscon.
.approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 27, 1982
The Planner summarized the recommendations in the September 23 staff report.
Sutliff asked if this plat would accommodate a four lane limited access design for
Crosstown 62. The Planner replied that Hennepin County has no present plans for road
improvements in this area, but that previous plans has contemplated utilizing
Townline Road as a frontage road.
Torjesen inquired if the streets could be modified to align or off-set the Minnetonka
streets without significantly changing the plat. The Planner replied minor changes
would have to be done.
Bill Mauer, Probe Engineering for Ruscon, felt the plat could be easily modified to
accommodate at least 150 foot off-sets from the Minnetonka roads to the north.
Marhula questioned whether the sight distances at these proposed intersection areas
would be adequate. He stated that his recollection was that the proposed location
for the center road would be on the downside of a hill . The Planner replied that
the road intersections would have to be related and this would be done with concern
toward proper sight lines.
Torjesen asked what alternatives there are to removing the mature oak trees within
the Duck Lake Road right-of-way when it is upgraded. The Planner replied that Duck
Lake Road has a very steeply rolling vertical alignment currently, and when this
was upgraded with proper street standards, the grading required would in many places
extend out into wooded areas directly adjacent to the existing road. It would not
be possible to mitigate this without shifting the road toward the east, and impacting
existing single family lots.
Torjesen then asked if it made any sense to leave current Duck Lake Road alone and
build a new minor collector through the plat. The Planner replied that this was a
suggestion that would require more study, but that the number of lots fronting on
this realigned minor collector would be about sixty, and that would be a situation
the City should try to avoid.
Retterath asked if the four lots fronting into Townline Road would cause a problem
and also whether the corner lot could take access from Duck Lake Road instead. The
Planner believed 'T' drives would mitigate problems, and the corner lot could take
access from Duck Lake Road.
Marhula inquired if the wetland outlot would be included in the scenic easement.
The Planner replied the pond outlot would be dedicated and the easement would be
beyond that.
Sutliff asked if upgrading Duck Lake Road would create drainage problems. The
Planner replied the upgrading would improve the drainage and a proper storm sewer
system would be installed.
George Kissinger, 6601 Barberry Lane, felt grading on the site would be excessive.
He suggested a lift station located in the northwestern corner to serve the site
so the hill would not be cut 25-30 feet and that the sidewalk along the west side
of Duck Lake Road be eliminated to preserve the oak trees. Kissinger also felt
that street lights in the proposal should be kept to an absolute minimum, stating
that this neighborhood felt they are a nuisance. The Planner replied that the area
of cut was largely open field and that the City tries to eliminate lift stations in
a proposal unless they are absolutely necessary. With regard to sidewalks, The
L I
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 27, 1982
Planner said that sidewalks along Duck Lake Road would be an extension of the existing
situation and that the addition of sidewalks would not be the factor in upgrading of
Duck Lake Road which would effect tree removal one way or the other. Street lights,
The Planner continued, were placed most sparingly but that the City most often
received petitions from existing neighborhoods requesting additional lights for safety
purposes.
Marhula mentioned that the majority of the lots seemed to be anticipated to be
walk-outs or tuck-unders from the grading plan. He asked if these are the only type
of units Ruscon proposed to build. Marshall Oakes responded that an entire variety
of units would be built, but for the overall grading plan, grading was planned as
shown.
Marhula stated that the Commission should be aware that final grading may be some-
what different than shown.
Ann Luek, 6381 Duck Lake Road stated she felt the lots accessing to Duck Lake Road
would cause problems and that residents along the east side of the road should not
be assessed for the road. The Planner replied that a feasibility study would have
to be done before proceeding with improvement of Duck Lake Road. The study would
suggest an assessment role and method of spreading assessments, for the City
Council 's determination.
MOTION 1
Marhula moved to close the public hearing on Woodlawn Heights. Sutliff seconded,
motion carried 6-0.
MOTION 2
Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning of
approximately 59.68 acres from Rural to R1-9.5 for construction of 139 single
family detached housing units as per the plans dated 8/21/82 and the staff report
dated 9/23/82 adding to #6 'as per City policy' . Sutliff seconded.
DISCUSSION
Sutliff stated that if it is redeisgned, there may not be 139 units. The Planner
stated that maybe minor changes might be made.
Torjesen expressed concern that maybb they should wait and see the changes. The
Commission felt if they become major, the project should return to the Commission.
Motion carried 6-0.
MOTION 3
Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat
for 139 lots and 2 outlots dated 8/21/82 as per the staff report dated 9/23/82
adding to #6 'as per City policy' . Sutliff seconded.
DISCUSSION
Hallett pointed out that Lot 4, Block 3 should front on Duck Lake Road, not Townline.
Sutliff and Marhula agreed.
Motion carried 5-1. Sutliff voted nay because he felt that the platting could be
improved.
l s
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 27, 1982
B. TREANOR ADDITION, by Guy Treanor. Request for preliminary
plat approval of 1 lot into 3 lots for approximately 1.6
acres and rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5. Located south
of Valley View Road across from Franklin Circle 16117 Valley
View Road. A public hearing.
Mr. Treanor requested approval to divide his 1.6 acre R1-22 property into 3 lots.
The Planner described surrounding zonings and lot sizes. He stated that Valley
View Road right-of-way would be part of the plat and 3 utility hook-ups are avail-
able to the property. He then reviewed the recommendations of the staff report
and suggested that the two new drives be combined to one access point to Valley
View Road.'
Mr. Treanor preferred the use of 'T' drives onto Valley View, not a joint access.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the platting: Jim Gordon, 16210
Westgate Lane; Mr. Lahti, 16213 Valley View Road; Mr. Klem, 16250 Westgate;
Mr. Thompson, 16101 Valley View Road; Mr. Johnson, 16221 Westgate; Mr. Hockert,
16180 Westgate; and Mr. Fleishman, 16170 Westgate Lane. The objection was that
the lots would not be in character with the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr-'Carlson, 7352 Franklin Circle, stated that most of the lots in his subdivision
• are under 22,000 sq. ft. in size and he is in favor of Mr. Treanor's request.
MOTION 1
Hallett moved to close the public hearing on Treanor Addition. Sutliff seconded,
motion carried 6-0.
MOTION 2
Hallett moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from R1-22
to R1-13.5 for approximately 1.6 acres as per the plans dated 9/16/82 and the staff
report dated 9/24/82. Marhula seconded.
DISCUSSION
Torjesen expressed concern that the proposed lot sizes are not similar to the
immediate area.
Marhula believed other division of large lots along Valley View Road may occur when
assessments for road improvements are levied.
Torjesen stated he does not support R1-1.3.5 on the south side of Valley View Road
where it is R1-22.
Motion failed 2-4. Hallett and Marhula voted aye.
The Planner explained to the Commission that normally they would not proceed with
action on a preliminary plat request when a motion for rezoning had been defeated.
• However, in this case, Mr. Treanor had received a variance from the Board of Appeals
to allow smaller lots in the R1-22 zone, and it would be appropriate for the
Commission to consider action on the preliminary plat.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 27, 1982
MOTION 3
•Hallett moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat
dated 9/16/82 to divide 1 lot into 3 lots on approximately 1.6 acres as per the
staff report recommendations dated 9/24/82 adding #4 'T' drives for lots A and B
be added. Marhula seconded, motion carried 4-2. Sutliff and Torjesen voted nay.
C. SUNRISE KNOLLS REVISED, by Edward A. Sieber. Request for
rezoning from Rural to RM 2.5 on 2.99 acres for construction
of an apartment building'of:2rstories and 20 units. Located
at Co. Rd. 61 and Rowland Road. A public meeting.
Frank Reese presented the proposal. He stated the County did not retain this piece
with Shady Oak right-of-way because it was thought to be buildable. He said the
site would be cut 6-10 feet for building siting.
The Planner showed slides of the property and views from the property.
Marhula inquired what the approximate rental rates would be. Sieber replied $415
for 1 bedroom and $500 for 2 bedrooms with a construction cost of approximately
$45,000/unit.
Torjesen asked if proper screening could be accomplished in the 10 feet between
the drive and the west property line. The proponent replied affirmative.
• David Green, 6561 Shady Oak Road, felt there was ins6fficient land for -the building.
Mrs. Gerecke, 6622 Golden Ridge Road, expressed' concern about increased traffic.
Mr. Dudycha, 6602 Golden Ridge Road, requested plantings along the south property
line.
Mrs. Windfeldt, 6621 Golden Ridge Road, stated the entrance would cause traffic
problems.
Robert Green, 6533 Shady Oak Road, said the area does not want medium density
residential in this location.
Marhula asked if the units would be condominiumized in the future. Sieber replied
it is not in their present plans.
MOTION
Sutliff moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural
to RM 6.5 on 2.99 acres for construction of an apartment building of 2 stories
and 20 units as per the plans dated 8/17/82 and the staff report dated 9/23/82 and
the Hennepin County letter dated 9/23/82. Hallett seconded.
DISCUSSION
Torjesen stated that the proposed zoning is consistent with the Guide Plan but in-
consistent with existing grandfathered uses around it. He would like to minimize
the impact on the surrounding residents and recommended that the staff review
screening plans in detail prior to building permit issuance. Motion maker and
seconder-agreed to include this as part of the motion.
Motion carried 6-0.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 27, 1982
D. CLEAN SWEEP, by Clean Sweep. Request for rezoning of
approximately 2 acres from Rural to I-2 Park (with
possible variances from the I-2 District to be reviewed
by the Board of Appeals) . Located at 9125 Flying Cloud
Drive. A public meeting.
Mr. Eugene Hansen, Clean Sweep, stated he started keeping sweepers on this site
in 1969. The barn was remodeled for storage and a steel building was constructed.
Fire destroyed the building 12 years ago and since then equipment has been stored
outside and the house on the site has been used as an office. Mr. Hansen requested
rezoning on the site and variances for the following: outside storage, metal
building, use of the house as an office for 5 years, an industrial use without
public sewer, and setback variances.
The Planner showed slides of the present operation on site and the filling which
was taken place without City review. He stated that the 1.9 acre size, being
less than 2 acres requirement is because of 169 right-of-way which was recently
needed. The Planner stated the Planning Staff does not recommend approval of
any variances other than rezoning of the 1.9 acre lot. t
Sutliff asked what classification of road the street at the lighted intersection
would be. The Planner replied a minor collector.
Torjesen asked if the Vo-tec access centerline and this access's centerline are
. aligned. The Planner stated he would find out.
Retterath felt a 20' setback for the Clean Sweep building from the future road
would be reasonable.
Mr. Hein, 9135 Flying Cloud Drive, stated if the area east 6f them is planned as
residential , perhaps the Clean Sweep site should be residential . He expressed
concern about what might be dumped in Clean Sweep's septic system and how it
would affect the adjacent residents' water supplies.
Mr. Hansen stated his septic system is equipped with an oil separator.
Marhula felt the variances requested should be reevaluated by the proponent.
Mr. Simchuck, 9145 Flying Cloud Drive, felt Anderson Lakes Parkway will adequately
serve the area.
Torjesen asked what type of filling is allowed. The Planner said plans are to be
submitted for a permit. Solid wastes are not to be dumped on sites but in the
landfill .
MOTION
Marhula moved to return the request to the proponent for revision as per the
September 22, 1982 staff report and continue the item to October 12, 1982. Gartner
seconded, motion carried 6-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
None
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 27, 1982
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
A. Volunteer's of America - request for an enclosed connection between
two office buildings in Lakeridge Office Park.
The Planner informed the Commission of the Volunteer"s of America's
request for 0 lot line setback to construct a corridor between
buildings 5 and 6, 6f. Lakeridge Office Park which would be reviewed
as a PUD amendment by the Council .
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Marhula moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:30 am. Retterath seconded,
motion carried 6-0.