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