Planning Commission - 08/22/1983 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, August 22, 1983
7:30 p.m., City Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. TIMBER BAY MANOR HOMES, by Richard Miller Homes, Inc.
Request for Preliminary Plat of 14.8 acres into eight (8)
lots. Location: Timber Lakes Drive and County Road #4. A
continued public hearing.
B. APPLE GROVES, by Northwest Properties. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development
• Concept Review, Planned Unit Development District Review for
a mixed residential land use, Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5,
R1-9.5, and RM-6.5, Preliminary Platting of 40.91 acres for
181 attached and detached single family units, and
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review. Location: South
of Valley View Road and West of Lorence Addition. A public
hearing.
C. CASTLEMOOR OFFICE PARK, by Tudor Oaks/Abio Holdings.
Request for Zoning from Rural to Regional Commercial Service
on approximately 3.5 acres for an office and banking
facility. Location: Highway #169 and Castlemoor Drive. A
public meeting.
D. MONTESSORI SCHOOL, by Ryan Development/Hustad Development.
Request for Zoning from Regional Commercial to Regional
Commercial Service and preliminary Plat of 0.75 acre for day
care facility. Location: County Road #60 and Market Place
Drive. A public hearing.
E. TARGET. Request for Preliminary Plat of 10.11 acres for
retail store (Eden Prairie Center 4th Addition) . Location:
Eden Prairie Center Mall . A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Purgatory Creek Recreation Area
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
• EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, August 22, 1983
City Hall, 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Hakon Torjesen, Robert Hallett, Stan
Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck (7:45 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Hallett, to approve the
agenda as presented.
Motion carried--4-0-0
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to adopt the
minutes of the July 25, 1983, Planning Commission meeting as
presented.
Motion carried--4-0-0
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. TIMBER BAY MANOR HOMES, by Richard Miller Homes, Inc.
Request for Preliminary Plat of 14.8 acres into eight (8)
lots. Location: Timber Lakes Drive and County Road #4. A
continued public hearing.
At its meetings of July 25, and August 8, 1983,` the Planning
• Commission continued this proposal pending additional landscape and
screening information.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 22, 1983
•
Mr. Jim Carver, Richard Miller Homes, Inc., reviewed the revised
landscaping and screening plans for the areas along Island Road and
Timber Lakes Road. -He indicated the types of plantings to be used
in both areas.
Staff reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report for the
project.
Hallett asked proponents if they were aware of the Staff recommended
conditions to approval. Mr. Carver stated that he had met with
Staff prior to the Commission meeting and was aware of the
recommended conditions. Mr. Carver stated that the only question he
had was with respect to the recommendation regarding parking near
the single family home to the east. He explained that the parking
lot area would be lower than the retaining wall.
Torjesen asked Staff what the required side yard setback would be
for parking areas. Staff stated that none was required.
Marhula asked what the distance was between Buildings #1 and #2.
Mr. Carver stated that the distance between the buildings was 35
feet. Marhula questioned whether there would be adequate space for
manuevering purposes between the buildings.
Acting Chairman Torjesen acknowledged that proponent was dealing
with a site which had already been zoned RM-2.5, and, therefore,
likely did not need to deal with the City with respect to some of
these issues. He asked Staff to what extent it would be appropriate
to require special items, such as amendment of the driveways between
the buildings and the parking area to the east of Building #1.
Staff stated that it was appropriate as the Commission saw fit.
Planner Enger pointed out that the City would review such matters if
other plats were before them.
Lloyd Schenke, 7908 South Bay Curve, asked about the landscaping and
screening as it affected his lot. He stated that he had a clear
view of the first story of the structures now, and did not feel that
the berm, as proposed, would be adequate to screen his vision of the
structures.
Planner Enger pointed out that the berm would have an effective
height of six feet from the road elevation, plus whatever height
would be added by the proposed plantings.
Mr. Schenke. stated that a four-foot berm was already in place. The
addition of two feet to the berm would still allow for direct vision
into the lower units from his home.
Mr. Mel Ford, Richard Miller Homes, Inc., asked what the difference
• would be between looking at these units and looking at a single
family home. He stated that he did not believe Mr. Schenke would be
looking at more than one unit from his home. Mr'. Carver added that
it is not possible to completely screen vision of 'the units, but
Planning Commission Minutes 3 August 22, 1983
only to provide a buffer between the differing uses.
Mr. Schenke stated that he felt additional plantings were necessary
from the center of Island Road south to the corner of Timber Lakes
Road.
Acting Chairman Torjesen asked Staff if it would be appropriate to
send this matter on to the Council prior to resolution of the
driveway situations and the buffering from South Bay Curve. Staff
stated that these two concerns could be worked out between the Staff .
and the proponent, if the Planning Commission so desired. Mr.
Carver and Mr. Ford stated that they would be willing to work with
the Staff on these matters.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Schuck, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the preliminary plat of Timber Bay Manor
Homes for Richard Miller Homes, Inc., based on plans dated February
23, May 2, and August 22, 1983, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Reports of July 22, and August 19, 1983, and with the
following additions to the Staff recommendations: Under la add:
"Placing a buffer from Timber Lakes Drive, south to the center of
the frontage along Island Road, and adding shrubbery plantings;"
under la add: "Buffering the single family homes east of County
Road #4 in a similar fashion to the berming and plantings along
Island Road and Timber Lakes Drive;" and, add ld to read:
"Driveways between Buildings #1 and #2 and to the east of Building
#1 shall be redesigned and realigned to allow proper manuevering
area for vehicles."
During discussion of the motion, Marhula suggested that proponents
meet with Mr. Schenke to deal with the sight lines from his home to
the site, and amend the landscape/screening plan accordingly. Mr.
Carver stated that they would do so.
Motion carried--5-0-0
B. APPLE GROVES, by Northwest Properties. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development
Concept Review, Planned Unit Development District Review for
a mixed residential land use, Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5,
R1-9.5, and RM-6.5, Preliminary Platting of 40.91 acres for
• 181 attached and detached single family units, and
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review. Location: South
of Valley View Road and West of Lorence Addition. A public
hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 22, 1983
SMr. Hani Hayek, Northwest Properties, presented the requested
development proposal, explaining site features and its relationship
to the surrounding land uses.
Staff reviewed the report evaluating the request, pointing out that
the most important issue was that of the proposed Comprehensive
Guide Plan change. Staff showed that the area was well served by
public facilities, including the schools, Community Center, fire
station, library, and community and neighborhood parks.
Acting Chairman Torjesen asked if the question of transportation
would be different for the north and south portions of the property
due to the bisection of the property by the railroad tracks. Staff
stated that the north portion of the property would be accessing
Valley View Road via its own access; the south portion of the
property would be accessing the thoroughfares via the adjacent
residential streets.
Hallett asked about the location of the existing homestead on the
property. Staff responded that it was located in the southwest
portion of the property, south of the railroad tracks.
Marhula asked if proponent would be developing and building on the
property. Mr. Hayek responded that he would be responsible for the
utilities and streets, but that others would be constructing the
units. David Williams would be constructing the cluster homes to
the south, in the $100,000 range; the single family homes to the
west would be sold to individual builders and would be valued from
$140-150,000; the townhouses would be built by others, as well, in
the $60-70,000 range.
Johannes asked about the phasing of the development. Mr. Hayek
stated that the cluster homes south of the railroad tracks would
begin this Fall , while the single family residential to the west
would be started in Spring, 1984. As for the townhomes, he expected
they would not begin until Fall , 1984, or Spring, 1985.
Acting Chairman Torjesen asked how residents of this project would
access Highway #5. Staff stated that it would be directly via
Valley View Road or, for the south portion of the site, through the
existing residential areas to the east, then to Valley View Road.
Marhula stated that the property to the east had recently been
before the Commission requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan change.
He stated that he felt it was justified due to the physical
constraints on the property including a pond, railroad tracks, and
Valley View Road right-of-way. He questioned whether there were any
such constraints on this property. Staff stated that there were not
the same constraints; however, the property, as proposed, was
suggesting a self-contained townhouse area, which was not dependent
• upon the surrounding areas.
Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that the Commission had received a
letter from the Scotts, residents of the area, stating concern
Planning Commission Minutes 5 August 22, 1983
regarding traffic and stating concern for the impact on the
surrounding facilities, such as Round Lake Park, which would be
caused by a multiple residential development.
Michelle Nixon, 18105 Valley View Road, stated that she had not been
concerned with the proposed development to the east and had
understood the constraints on the property, justifying their request
for multiple residential. However, she did not feel the constraints
were the same for this development. Ms. Nixon expressed concern for
the amount of traffic which would result from the intensity of a
multiple residential development on this area. She stated that
traffic was already a problem because of the high school, Community
Center, and the Round Lake Park activities. Ms. Nixon also stated
concern for the impact of $70,000 townhomes upon the existing
residential homes valued at $150,000.
Dick Thon, 7550 Atherton, stated that he had received notification
that the Commission would be reviewing a proposal for additional
multiple residential units to the south of this property at its next
meeting. He questioned how much residential development would be
allowed in this area designated for low density development.
Lonnie Grey, 7780 Heritage Road, expressed concern for additional
traffic caused by such a development, suggesting that a traffic
study may be warranted. Ms. Grey stated that Round Lake Park was
being used to its capacity and could not handle the impact of
additional residential units beyond single family.
Jack McCreary, 7109 Park View, stated that the land north of this
development existed as a large lot single family development. He
stated that he did not feel there was an adequate transition
provided between the proposed townhomes and the single family homes
to the north of Valley View Road. Planner Enger stated that a
transition would be desirable for this area and suggested that an
eight-to-ten foot landscaped berm would aid in transition between
these two areas.
Jack Wiley, 17266 Round Lake Road, stated that he represented
approximately 50 residents of the Round Lake Estates area. They had
met and discussed the project in detail, highlighting the following
concerns: 1) They did not feel there was benefit to the City by the
addition of multiple residential to this area of the community, and
they were concerned about becoming an "apartment city" if
development of this type was allowed; 2) Traffic was a matter of
concern at this time for the area and the addition of multiple
residential development would only increase the problem of traffic
congestion in the area; 3) They were concerned about the impact of
higher density residential use upon the amenities of the area,
which, in their opinion, were already over-used.
Joan Brinkman, 18117 Valley View Road, questioned how 40-50 ft. tall
evergreens could be transplanted effectively, as proposed by the
developer. She also questioned whether builders would construct
homes in the $140-150,000 range when the lots were located in such
x
Planning Commission Minutes 6 August 22, 1983
. close proximity to the townhouses with such little buffering between
the uses. Ms. Brinkman added that it was difficult to accept such a
change when they had made an investment in their homes based on the
fact that the property around them would be low density residential.
She questioned whether the City would allow a "dominoe effect" to
take place with multiple residential in this area, considering that
the land to the east was approved as multiple, this area was
proposed for multiple, and the land to the south was being proposed
for multiple residential development.
Eugene Peterson, 7443 Hames Way, stated that he felt the developer
should show some need for developing the property as multiple
residential. He stated that he felt the total amount of multiple
was too large. Mr. Peterson emphasized concern for the traffic, as
well, because of the schools and other community facilities in the
area.
Mr. Hayek responded to several of the comments from the residents.
He stated that it was their intent to screen the townhomes from the
view of the proposed and existing single family residential units.
They had consulted with a tree surgeon regarding the transplanting
of the evergreen trees and had been told that, while not a simple
task, it could be accomplished, if done properly. Additional
plantings would be used, as well.
Mr. Hayek stated that discussions had been held with the developers
of the land to the south regarding connection of the two
developments. It was the desire of Northwest Properties not to
connect the two developments.
Hallett asked whether the road system in the area would be capable
of handling the traffic resulting from such a development. Planner
Enger responded that Valley View Road was currently a two-lane road,
intended to be a four-lane road. He also pointed out that the
traffic in the area was not due to the existing residential
developments. In actuality, the traffic was a result of the high
school, Community Center, and Round Lake Park activities. These
were intense uses, and would continue to be intense uses. He
stated that the addition of residents in this area, even multiple
residential development, would be imperceptible as far as what is
already taking place in the area. People in the area would likely
walk to such facilities, not drive, and therefore, not add to the
traffic problems.
Planner Enger suggested that the Community Services Department
should look at the scheduling of events in the area and alternatives
to programming of the events to alleviate the traffic problems in
the area.
Regarding the multiple residential in this area of the community,
Staff stated that the mix in the Preserve had proven very successful
and that the values of the single and multiple family units in that
area were high, by comparison. There were not many multiple
residential units in the northwest area of the community, yet this
Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 22, 1983
area had an abundance of public amenities, which could support
multiple residential development.
Hallett stated that he felt the site was well buffered from the
existing uses. With single family on the west, multiple family to
the east, cluster homes south of the railroad tracks and Valley View
Road to the north, he stated that he felt the proponent had provided
a well-planned site. He added that he felt additional buffering was
necessary to transition to the land to the north of Valley View
Road, and that the amount of townhouse units could be reduced.
Hallett also emphasized a need for affordable housing and a variety
of housing types within the community, and stated that he felt this
proposal succeeded in meeting those needs for this northwest portion
of the community.
Hallett also stated concern for not allowing a continuation of
multiple residential throughout this entire area.
Schuck stated that he concurred with Hallett, especially as
concerned the provision of economic opportunity for the community.
Marhula stated that there were many amenities in the area, which
lent themselves toward support of multiple residential development.
He stated that he felt the cluster home development proposed south
of the tracks was workable. However, he expressed concern for the
• townhouse area. He stated that he felt he could not support the
townhouse area as proposed, adding that he did not feel there had
been adequate justification shown for this change at this density.
Marhula stated that he felt strongly that the transition be improved
between the existing uses to the west and the townhouses, as well as
between the proposed single family and townhouse units. He added
that he did not feel two lots in depth was sufficient to make the
transition.
Kris Williams, 7370 Hames Way, -also expressed concern for too much
multiple residential in the area, considering the area was planned
for low density.
Johannes stated that, while he understood the concerns of the
residents for too much multiple residential in the area, he felt
that the proponent has prepared a good proposal with a good attempt
at buffering. He stated that the proposal met the City's needs for
economic opportunity and variety of housing types. Johannes stated
that. he was unsure whether the mix proposed, with the amount of
townhouses, was appropriate.
Marhula stated that the City had studied the need for multiple
residential in the community several years ago, finding that the
City had a greater need than had been met. It had been City policy
to support multiple residential proposals, where appropriate, over
the past several years, but this proposal needed revision.
Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that he felt the proponent had made
Planning Commission Minutes 8 August 22, 1983
a serious attempt at providing a transition between the uses. He
added that he felt that, although the City, too, needed to be
flexible and open to change, change must be justified, and he did
not feel the proposal provided adequate justification for the amount
of townhouses shown.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Schuck, to close the public
hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan change.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the proposed Guide Plan change from low
density residential to medium density residential for the proposed
townhouse and cluster home areas of the Apple Groves proposal by
Northwest Properties, based on plans dated July 29, July 30, and
August 3, 1983, and written materials dated July 29, August 16, and
August 18, 1983, and "subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report of August 19, 1983.
Motion carried--3-2-0 (Acting Chairman Torjesen and Marhula against)
Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that, prior to review of the
remainder of the proposal, he would prefer to see greater detail
provided for the transition areas proposed, especially since it had
been such an important issue during the discussion. The other
members of the Commission concurred.
The Commission also concurred that the density of the townhouses
should be reduced in order to provide adequate space for transitions
to the north and west.
Mr. Hayek stated that he would work with Staff to amend the plan as
requested.
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck, to continue the
public hearings and meetings on the Planned Unit Development
District Review, Zoning District Change, Preliminary Plat, and
Environmental Assessment Worksheet, pending additional detailed
information regarding transitions between differing uses, and
responsive to suggestions made at this meeting.
Motion carried--5-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 9 August 22, 1983
C. CASTLEMOOR OFFICE PARK, by Tudor Oaks/ABIO Holdings.
Request for Zoning from Rural to Regional Commercial Service
on approximately 3.5 acres for an office and banking
facility. Location: Highway #169 and Castlemoor Drive. A
public meeting.
Mr. Michael Kontac, Tudor Oaks, presented the plans for the office
and banking facility proposed, and its relationship to the
surrounding area. Mr. Kontac explained the relationship of this
property to the adjacent, City-owned property in terms of sharing
parking areas.
Staff reviewed the report evaluating the request. Of concern was
the access situation as it affected circulation of traffic on the
site and to and from the site. Staff presented an alternative plan
for access, which provided full access to Highway #169.
Acting Chairman Torjesen asked if the changes to the access
situation were significant enough to postpone action on this item to
the next meeting pending revisions by proponent. Staff stated that
it was a situation which could easily be resolved by Staff and the
proponent.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Tudor Oaks/Abio Holdings
for zoning from Rural to Regional Commercial Service of
approximately 3.5 acres for an office and banking facility, based on
plans dated July 28, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report of August 19, 1983.
Motion carried--5-0-0
D. MONTESSORI SCHOOL, by Ryan Development/Hustad Development.
Request for Zoning from Regional Commercial to Regional
Commercial Service and preliminary Plat of 0.75 acre for day
care facility. Location: County Road #60 and Market Place
Drive. A public hearing.
Mr. Bob Ryan, Ryan Development, presented the request and explained
the proposal as it related to the surrounding properties.
Staff reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report.
Marhula stated that the grades of the parking lot were more steep
than necessary and suggested lessening the grades. Mr. Ryan stated
that they would do so.
Acting Chairman Torjesen asked for comments and questions from
members of the audience. There were none.
Planning Commission Minutes 10 August 22, 1983
• MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Ryan Development for a
Montessori School for zoning from Regional Commercial to Regional
Commercial Service, for a day care facility on 0.75 acres, based on
plans and written materials dated August 15, 1983, and subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 19, 1983.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Ryan Development for a
Montessori School for preliminary plat of 0.75 acres for a day care
facility, based on plans and written materials dated August 15,
1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
August 19, 1983.
Motion carried--5-0-0
E. TARGET. Request for Preliminary Plat of 10.11 acres for
retail store (Eden Prairie Center 4th Addition). Location:
Eden Prairie Center Mall. A public hearing.
Dale Hamilton, Suburban Engineering, representing proponents,
presented the request for the preliminary plat of Eden Prairie
Center 4th Addition, which would be the location of the recently
approved Target store at Eden Prairie Center.
Staff reviewed the recommendations of approval, including several
from the previous review of .the site plan for the site.
Acting Chairman Torjesen asked for comments and questions from
members of the audience. There were none.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Schuck, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Schuck,to recommend to the
Planning Commission Minutes 11 August 22, 1983
City Council approval of the preliminary plat of Target (Eden
Prairie Center 4th Addition) based on plans dated July 15, 1983,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of August 19,
1983.
Motion carried--5-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Purgatory Creek Recreation Area
The Commission had previously received a memorandum from Bob
Lambert, Director of Community Services, and copies of the
consultants' plans for development of the Purgatory Creek
Floodplain. Staff asked for Commission comments regarding
individual components of each plan.
The Commission generally concurred on the following:
Water, visually, would be a good feature; water, for recreation
purposes, was not a necessity, and may not be appropriate in
this area.
The Plaza area was a good idea in concept, but should be done as a
private.venture, as opposed to a City project.
Restaurants would be a desirable feature for the area.
A small amphitheater would be a desirable feature.
An arboretum, if done, should be privately done; compared to other
features, not an important component of the area.
Picnic areas would be a desirable feature to serve the surrounding
businesses' employees.
A golf course would be a desirable feature.
A driving range would be a desirable feature.
Open game fields should be provided.
Regarding the consultants, it was the general consensus of the
Commission that the Tietz representatives would be the most
desirable to work with, in terms of project management,
professionalism, and ability to work with the surrounding and
existing residents and businesses of the area.
Lee Data
Hallett questioned the progress on the Lee Data site in terms of
Planning Commission Minutes 12 August 22, 1983
of landscaping. Planner Enger stated that Staff was currently
working with Lee Data to work out a better screening plan than had
been used at present. He added that he would report back to the
Commission as plans progressed.
Overlook Place
Hallett expressed concern for the loss of oak trees at the Overlook
Place site. He ' asked Staff to research the minutes and other
documents of the file to determine the responsibility of the
developer in this situation. Staff stated that they would report
back to the Commission on the matter.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Schuck.
Acting Chairman Torjesen adjourned the meeting at 12:15 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate Karnas
Planning Secretary