Loading...
Planning Commission - 11/14/1983 AGENDA Monday, November 14, 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, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES A. September 12, 1983, Meeting B. September 26, 1983, Meeting C. October 24, 1983, Meeting IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. CRESCENT RIDGE, by DCC Development. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning for 26.6 acres from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 and 20 acres from Industrial General and Rural to RM-6.5, with variances; Preliminary Plat of 27.5 acres for large lot residential and 20 acres for multiple residential ; and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review. Location: North of Highway #5 at the western boundary of Eden Prairie. A continued public hearing. B. CARMEL, by Hans Hagen Homes. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 (with variances) and Preliminary Plat of 43 acres for single family lots. Location: North of Rowland Road and West of Old Shady Oak Road. a public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES is EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, November 14, 1983 City Hall, 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes (8:35 p.m.), Dennis Marhula, Hakon Torjesen MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Schuck STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES - A. September 12, 1983, Meeting MOTION: • Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to adopt the minutes of the September 12, 1983, meeting as printed. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to adopt the minutes of the September 26, 1983, meeting as printed. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to adopt the minutes of the October 24, 1983, meeting as printed. Motion carried--4-0-1 (Chairman Bearman abstained) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. CRESCENT RIDGE, by DCC Development. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning for 26.6 acres from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 and 20 acres from Industrial General and Rural to RM-6.5, with variances; Preliminary Plat of 27.5 acres for large lot residential and 20 acres for multiple residential; and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review. Location: North of Highway #5 at the Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 14, 1983 western boundary of the City of Eden Prairie. A continued public hearing. Mr. John Bossardt, Bossardt-Christenson, representing the proponent, explained the changes in the plan, pointing out the additional walkways, totlot, and tennis courts to be part of the plan. Mr. Bob Davis, architect for the proponent, reviewed the amended elevations for the multiple units. Planner Enger added that, per the amended plans, free-standing garage units were provided for at least half of the required parking spaces. He stated that there had not yet been resolution to the situation involving access to the project via the subdivision to the north along Lorence Way. This would be required prior to occupany of any of the units. Planner Enger stated that care should be taken in the location of the totlot, as required by the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, to be certain that as few trees as necessary would be removed for development of the totlot. Hallett questioned whether it would be necessary to eliminate so many trees with the revised plans. Staff responded that they had been working with the proponent to determine whether alternatives such as retaining walls in strategic locations could be used in order to preserve as many trees as possible. Torjesen asked if there was a limit as to how much of the development could be completed before the access road from the subdivision to the north would be necessary. Staff responded that access was available to the site from Evener Way, also, but there were no other routes available. It was suggested that a temporary access road from Highway #5 could be used for construction traffic and interim traffic until Lorence Way was built through the subdivision to the north. Gartner stated that this alternative would not provide for a secondary access for any of the people living in the townhouses within Crescent Ridge. Planner Enger stated that the City was of the opinion that Lorence Way would be built within a short period of time, although it may not be ready for use by the time the Crescent Ridge development needed it. Torjesen asked if a restriction could be placed on occupancy within the Crescent Ridge development until such time as the Lorence Way access was available. Staff stated that neither the City, nor the developer of Crescent Ridge would have control over such a restriction, which would make it difficult to handle as a requirement of the development. Staff added that it was understood from the developer of the subdivision to the north that the road would be completed in the early Spring, 1984. Torjesen asked if it would be necessary to remove any trees between Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 14, 1983 There were none. MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning for 26.6 acres from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 and 20 acres from Industrial General and Rural to RM-6.5, with variances, for the Crescent Ridge development by DCC Development, based on revised plans dated November 11, 1983, and written materials dated October 3, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 21, 1983, with the addition of the following: 1) No construction shall be allowed west of the bend in Lorence Way until Lorence Way is constructed; 2) No side-by-side units for the townhouses shall be identical, nor any units directly, or diagonally, across from each other shall be identical; 3) A • landscape plan shall be submitted, taking into consideration methods for elimination of as few trees as possible, including, but not limited to, elimination of some free-standing garages, relocation of the totlot and the use of retaining walls for the townhouse units closest to the proposed single family residential units within the project; and, 4) A temporary private looped road be constructed between the two private roads until the completion of Dell Road along the west property line. Marhula questioned the need for requiring the units in close proximity to each other to be differing types. Planner Enger responded that it would likely be possible due to the variety of elevations provided by the developer. Mr. Bossardt stated that he agreed and felt the condition could be met. Torjesen asked if it was the intention of the motion that no units be constructed west of Evener Way. Gartner stated that it was and that she felt no units should be built west of the woods until Lorence Way was connected. Planner Enger stated that the problem was with construction traffic, not residential traffic. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 3: . Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat of 27.5 acres for multiple residential for Crescent Ridge development by DCC Development, based on revised plans dated November 11, 1983, and Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 14, 1983 the proposed single family units and the multiple units for the project. Mr. Bossardt stated that some trees could be saved if a few of the detached garages were eliminated. Torjesen asked Staff if there would be a difficulty with reducing the number of detached garages. Staff responded that the parking requirements were met on the site already, and that the detached garages in this area could be removed without affecting the parking requirements. Gartner asked if the proponent was still suggesting variance from the required front yard setbacks. Staff responded that the site plan had been corrected to bring the front yard setbacks into compliance with the Code. Hallett asked if there were plans for the 50-acre ponding area for recreation purposes beyond the trails shown around it. Staff responded that the ponding area would basically remain as it is now visually. Upon dedication of the area to the City, there would be several alternatives available, including duck ponds, etc. Staff added that it would be possible to dredge out a portion of the ponding area, as was done with Neill Lake, also. This would be left to the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. Chairman Bearman asked Staff to check into the rights of the public • on private roads, as were proposed in this development. Staff responded that the City Attorney had been contacted about this and was preparing a response. Chairman Bearman asked if this project would provide privacy fencing and landscaping between the units as had been done with several projects within the community. Mr. Davis responded that this would be shown in the landscaping plan to be submitted to the City at a later date. He added that it was their intention to screen between each unit. Chairman Bearman stated that he concurred with Hallett regarding the location of the totlot. Significant trees should not be removed in order to locate a totlot as shown on the plans. Mr. Bossardt stated that they would review this, adding that he believed that the majority of trees in that vicinity were diseased elms, which would require removal. Torjesen pointed out that the length of the road within the multiple portion of the development was approximately 900 feet, which was substantially greater than allowed by Code for a dead-ended street. He stated that safety matters should be considered in this area and potentially an alternative routing provided to eliminate a 900 foot cul-de-sac. Torjesen asked when Dell Road was scheduled. Staff responded that it would be at least three years. Planner Enger suggested that a looped road system connecting to the private roads could be accomplished for a temporary period of time, or at least until Dell Road was completed. Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from the audience. Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 14, 1983 written materials dated October 3, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 21, 1983, with the addition of the following: 1) No construction shall be allowed west of the bend in Lorence Way until Lorence Way is completed; 2) No side-by-side units for the townhouses shall be identical nor any units directly, or diagonally across from each other shall be identical ; 3) A landscape plan shall be submitted taking into consideration methods for elimination of as few trees as possible, including, but not limited to, elimination of several free-standing garages, relocation of the totlot and the use of retaining walls for the townhouse units closest to the proposed single family residential units within the project; and, 4) A temporary private looped road be constructed between the two private roads until the completion of Dell Road along the west property line. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 4• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council a negative declaration for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Crescent Ridge development by DCC Development, based on revised plans dated November 11, 1983, and written materials • dated October 3, 1983. Motion carried--5-0-0 B. CARMEL, by Hans Hagen Homes. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 (with variances) and Preliminary Plat of 43 acres for single family lots. Location: North of Rowland Road and West of Old Shady Oak Road. A public hearing. Staff received some revised information on the project as requested by the Planning Commission; however, utility information, including any detailed information describing the storm sewer system, was not submitted. Planner Enger reported that the proponent had revised the request to eliminate the northern 25% of the property nearest the proposed Crosstown highway alignment from consideration at this time. The vehicle by which the developer requested the side yard variances discussed at the October 24, 1983, meeting was now the Planned Unit Development District Review and the zoning district request has been modified to R1-13.5. Proponent also chose to reorient the direction of access to Rowland Road, rather than Shady Oak Road, while still taking sewer and water from the direction of Shady Oak Road. Staff stated that several alternatives existed for access to the Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 14, 1983 property and road systems within the property. These included: 1) Primary access from Shady Oak Road through the major hill or south of the major hill ; 2) Primary access from Shady Oak Road south of the major hill, planned as a minor collector road and access to Bryant Lake Park, with no roads fronting on the through-road; and, 3) Access taken from Rowland Road with a loop through the major hill, or, two cul-de-sacs in lieu of the loop, to preserve more of the major hill . Planner Enger pointed out that the implication of the developer taking primary access from Rowland Road would be that Rowland Road would require upgrading in order for the development to proceed. The representatives of the County Park Reserve District had stated their intention to upgrade Rowland Road to a park access road in 1985 or 1986, pending approval of funding from the Metropolitan Council . Mr. Hans Hagen, proponent, stated that he would be willing to meet with the landowners in the area regarding sanitary sewer access to the property. He added that, regarding the location of the blacktopped trail along Rowland Road, it would be their proposal to delete this trail along Rowland Road and berm along the road instead. Mr. Hagen stated that this would aid in buffering the • property from the adjacent rural area. Also, he stated that there would be adequate trail access for the people within the development along the internal roads of the development for access to the Hennepin County Park to the south. The Commission discussed the road considerations with the proponent and Staff in greater detail . Chairman Bearman asked about the cut proposed at the top of the hill at the east side of the property. Planner Enger responded that a 26 ft. cut was proposed, but that it would not be visually noticed from anywhere around the site as the tree line was sufficiently mature to screen any such cut. Torjesen stated that he felt there were many properties which would require access and asked that Staff investigate the various possibilities based on the Guide Plan, to include input from the neighborhood, regarding the road systems. Planner Enger responded that he felt the major questions revolved around Rowland Road and the possibility of an east-west access road. Marhula stated that he felt it would be appropriate to see the alternatives to the access situation for the various parcels adjacent to the proposed Carmel Addition prior to taking action on the proposal. Regarding road access for the area, Chairman Bearman raised questions regarding whether the road network for the area was sufficient; whether Rowland Road should be a minor road for the area or a major road; and whether another road would be required of a major or minor collector status in addition to Rowland Road. Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 14, 1983 Gartner stated that she felt cul-de-sacs would be warranted in a situation such as the Carmel plat, due to the nature of the site and the lack of impact upon the surrounding properties of cul-de-sacs. Marhula asked if the scheduling of improvement to Rowland Road was a difficulty for this project. Staff responded that Rowland Road was not an issue based on the initial alignments chosen for utilities from Old Shady Oak Road. The initial design did not impact the scheduling of improvements for Rowland Road. Marhula asked if this would change based on the revised design of the plat. Staff responded that it would. Johannes asked what the projected build-out date was for the property. Mr. Hagen responded that approximately 25 units would be sold each year, for a three-to-four year build-out time. Gartner stated that, as an interim measure, perhaps the developer could be limited to the number of units built until Rowland Road was improved. Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from the audience. Mr. Ed Sieber stated that he supported the use of Rowland Road as the major access. • Mrs. Julia Larsen, 6509 Rowland Road, owner of a large portion of the property proposed for development as Carmel, stated that previous developers had made proposals for the property which had not met the Guide Plan requirements. She added that, because this developer met the requirements of the Guide Plan, she felt the Commission should act favorably upon the request. Mr. Michael Loosen, 6200 Old Shady Oak Road, spoke in favor of an additional east-west road to service the Carmel property and the adjacent parcels. Mrs. Gayle Farber, 6525 Rowland Road, also spoke in favor of an additional east-west road, adding that she would like her property to be considered for access purposes to such a road. Mrs. Farber added that, while Mr. Hagen had shown how access could be provided to her property, she was not necessarily in favor of development of her property at this time, only that her potential for development not be eliminated by the plans for roads being discussed. Mr. Al Pavelka, 6324 Shady Oak Road, stated that he was in favor of an additional east-west road. Mr. Leonard Uherka, 6301 Shady Oak Road, expressed concern about utility access for the property. He stated that his property had just received utilities, for which he was being assessed. This development proposed the crossing of his same parcel with utilities, and Mr. Uherka questioned whether he would be responsible for paying for the utilties in such a case. Staff responded that assessments were assigned to properties on a benefit basis, but that the Council Planning Commission Minutes 8 November 14, 1983 would make a final decision on such a matter. Mrs. Farber asked if an additional east-west road would automatically become a secondary park access to the Hennepin County Park Reserve area to the south. Chairman Bearman stated that this would be a possibility. Mr. Don Uherka, 6517 Rowland Road, questioned the advisability of an additional east-west road. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to continue the public hearing pending additional information regarding transporta- tion systems and road access for the area. Motion carried--6-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS • None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner. Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 11 :30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate Karnas Recording Secretary