Planning Commission - 01/23/1984 AGENDA
0 Monday, January 23, 1984
7:30 p.m., School Board Meeting Room
Administration Building
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning, Mike Franzen, Senior
Planner, Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. VILLAGE GREENS, by Kerr Companies. Request for Site Plan
Zoning Amendment for 120 condominium units on 12.84 acres.
Location: Northwest quadrant of Valley View Road and Golf
View Drive. A continued public meeting.
B. VALLEY VIEW MANOR HOMES, by Sunrise Properties. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 and Preliminary
Plat of 20 acres for 120 units in 15 condominium buildings.
Location: North of Valley View Road, 1/4 mile East of
Mitchell Road. A public hearing.
C. PRAIRIE CENTER BUSINESS PARK, by Opus Corporation. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept review for 17.4 acres
for three office/warehouse buildings. Location: Southeast
quadrant of West 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive. A
public hearing.
D. KNOB HILL by Countryside Investments, Inc. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary
Plat of approximately 16 acres for 30 single family lots.
Location: Southeast quadrant of Duck Lake Trail and County
Road #4. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI., NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, January 23, 1984
7:30 p.m., School Board Room
8100 School Road
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan
Johannes, Dennis Marhula-, Ed Schuck
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning, Michael D. Franzen,
Senior Planner, Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes, to adopt the
agenda as presented.
Motion carried--5-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Johannes, to approve the
minutes of the December 12, 1983, Planning Commission meeting as
printed.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. VILLAGE GREENS, by Kerr Companies. Request for Site Plan
Zoning Amendment for 120 condominium units on 12.84 acres.
Location: Northwest quadrant of Valley View Road and Golf
View Drive. A continued public meeting.
Mr. Bob Martinson, Kerr Companies, reviewed the changes made to the
site plan since the January 9, 1984, Planning Commission meeting.
He explained that the number of units had been reduced from 138 to
122; density was now 9.5 units per acre; the floor area ratio was
0.31 ; sidewalks had been included in the plan as directed by the
Commission; approximately 42 units would be walk-outs, with the rest
slab on-grade; the circulation changes were made. to alleviate
traffic problems; the additional utility information was provided;
and, the landscape plan had been provided in detail .
1�'
Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 23, 1984
Mr. Herb Baldwin, representing
proponent, reviewed the detail of the
landscape plan for the site, pointing out the key locations for
screening of parking and screening from the adjacent, differing uses
and public roads.
Mr. Dick Wolsfeld, BRW traffic consultants for proponents, reviewed
the traffic impact resulting from the amended site plan. He pointed
out that the increase in traffic on Valley View Road would be
approximately 10%, while the increase in traffic on Golf View Drive
would be approximately 15-20%.
Staff reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report evaluating
the revised request.
Marhula asked if the reconstruction of Valley View Road at the
entrance to the project would be done by the property owners. Mr.
Martinson stated that no final determination had yet been made.
Planner Enger pointed out that the traffic report from BRW clearly
indicated a need for reconstruction of this intersection. He added
that the remaining questions revolved around payment and timing of
the work to be done.
Hallett stated that the current traffic situation in this area was
difficult and that he would not want to see this project proceed
without this traffic matter being rectified.
Marhula asked if the City Engineer had made any comments on the
entrance islands. Planner Enger stated that their usual position
was to have them removed; however, this may be a workable situation.
Hallett asked if the homeowners' association would be required to
handle the maintenance of the islands. Staff stated that they would
and added that the developer's agreement could be structured in such
a way to assure that the City could assess back the costs of
maintenance against the property owners in the event the City was
required to handle the maintenance.
Acting Chairman Gartner asked for questions and comments from
members of the audience. There were none.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the Site Plan and Zoning Amendment for 122
condominium units on 12.84 acres for the Village Greens project by
Norm Kerr, based on plans dated January 16, and 18, 1984, and
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 20,
1984, with #4 of the recommendations to be changed to read as
follows: "The development shall not proceed without the
reconstruction of Valley View Road at the intersection with the
planned public road to provide proper sight distance to the
intersection;" and the addition of #9. The developer's agreement
shall provide for maintenance responsibilities by the homeowners'
association, and, in the event the City is requested to take over
Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 23, 1984
these responsibilities, assessment of the costs back to the owners.
Motion carried--5-0-0
B. VALLEY VIEW MANOR HOMES, by Sunrise Properties. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 and Preliminary
Plat of 20 acres for 120 units in 15 condominium buildings.
Location: North of Valley View Road, 1/4 mile East of
Mitchell Road. A public hearing.
Mr. David Hansing, engineer for proponent, reviewed the proposed
plan with the Commission, pointing out significant site features and
plan characteristics. He also presented slides of a similar project
including the units proposed for the project.
Mr. Hansing responded to several of the recommendations of the Staff
Report. He stated that the did not feel it was a good idea to add
free-standing garages to the plans, as they tend to invite
vandalism. Pulling units away from the southwest knoll on the site
would be difficult for the developer, in that the material from the
knoll was needed to balance the remaining portions of the site for
grading.
Staff reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report regarding the
project.
Marhula asked if the rear elevation was intended to be the "front"
entrance for four of the units. Mr. Hansing stated that this was
SO.
Mr. Hansing stated that the developer would expect to be able to use
the southwest wooded knoll for development, if the City would
require more parking spaces, garages, and no units to be placed on
the southeast knoll ; otherwise, the developer would plan to dedicate
the land to the City for park purposes as suggested by the City.
Marhula asked for Staff's reasons for recommending no buildings be
located on the southeast knoll . Staff responded that the southeast
knoll should be saved to help separate the project from Valley View
Road.
Marhula asked what the developer's experience had been with the
sales of these units. Mr. John Voisika, proponent, responded that,
in a similar project, the average sales were one a day, which, in
their opinion, was pointing to a need for this type of unit in the
community.
Johannes asked about the size of the individual units. Mr. Voisika
responded that the units ranged from 832 sq. ft. to 1,004 sq. ft.,
depending on the number of bedrooms in the floor plan.
Johannes asked for an explanation of the park/density transfer
situation with this proposal . Staff explained that the City owned
the ponding area to the northeast of the project and had paid for it
Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 23, 1984
previously. If the City wanted to maintain a portion of this
project area for park purposes, the City would be required to "pay"
for it in some way. One of the ways would be a density transfer
from the park property to the remainder of the land.
Hallett stated that he felt it was important to accommodate the
proposed lower cost housing which would be provided by this project.
He stated that he was concerned about traffic on Valley View Road,
as well as the view of this project from Valley View Road. Hallett
suggested that a compromise be worked out with respect to the
dedication of the southeast wooded knoll area.
Planner Enger stated that, regarding free-standing garages, it had
been the City's experience with multiple projects that more garage
space was necessary for these types of projects, due to the number
of garages which became storage space for recreational vehicles,
etc., or workshop space.
Hallett asked the developer what his response was regarding the
addition of free-standing garages to the development. Mr. Voisika
stated that he preferred not to have them because of the poor views
these buildings would provide while driving through the site, as
well as potential for vandalism.
Gartner suggested that the buildings, especially along Valley View
Road, could be "reversed" to have the front elevations facing the
public roads.
Johannes stated that he agreed with Hallett regarding the safety of
Valley View Road traffic and the views from Valley View Road of the
project. He added that he, too, felt the City should try to
negotiate the park dedication issue regarding the southwest wooded
knoll .
Mr. Kevin Blohm, 7465 Scott Terrace, stated that he was concerned
about the lack of variety of elevations for the project. He stated
that he felt it would be important to provide such variety for this
type of structure and project. As a builder, he had found that the
developments were much more attractive if this was done.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to continue the
public hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting to allow the
developer time to redesign the plans per the concerns of the
Commission and Staff.
Motion carried--5-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 23, 1984
C. PRAIRIE CENTER BUSINESS PARK, by Opus Corporation. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept review for 17.4 acres
for three office/warehouse buildings. Location: Southeast
quadrant of West 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive. A
public hearing.
Ms. Michelle Foster, Opus Corporation, reviewed the request for
development with the Commission. She stated that, while Opus
realized that the area should be a "transitional" development
between the industrial use to the east and the Purgatory Creek
recreational area to the west, the idea of maintaining the uses as
strictly office, as opposed to a mix of office and industrial, was
not an option for Opus. She suggested changes to the development
framework as proposed by the Staff Report and submitted a copy of
the proposed changes to the Commission.
Planner Enger reviewed the recommendations of the Staff report
evaluating the project. He stated that, compared to the development
framework suggested by the Staff in the Staff Report, the proposed
framework by Opus did nothing more for this area than the basic
requirements of the I-2 Park district of the City Code. Planner
Enger stated that this area needed to be dealt with as a transition
area and that the most important factor involved in the proper
development of this parcel would be the character of the product as
an office development.
Planner Enger pointed out that the examples of buildings offered by
Opus to the Staff and Commission would meet the criteria suggested
by the Staff Report, and, therefore, would be appropriate for use as
a development framework for this transitional area.
Schuck questioned why Opus would not commit to the development
framework suggested by the Staff, even though it was their intent,
by the examples given, to build within such a framework. Ms. Foster
stated that she understood the criteria to be required, not
suggested, by the Staff.
Hallett stated that he agreed with Schuck, and stated that he felt
this location was a key to the development of this entire area. As
a cornerstone within the City to the Major Center Area, he stated
that he felt the image of the site should be high and should take
advantage of the future recreation area to the west.
Mr. Mark Anderson, Real Estate Division of Opus, stated that they
would like to maintain flexibility within the development as there
were no known clients for the property at this time.
Mr. Johathan Miller, architect for the proponent, stated that he did
not feel there was that much difference between the intent of the
Opus proposed development framework and the Staff Report recommended
development framework. He felt that Opus could work with Staff to
mitigate any differences.
Mr. John Lumen, representing Feeders, Inc., owners of the property,
Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 23, 1984
stated that they , had operated on the basis that the site was
industrial . He stated that they were concerned about the type of
product built on this property, too, as Feeders was also the owner
of the property to the west.
Marhula stated that he felt the site plan shown by the developer was
not appropriate according to the statements that had been made at
the meeting.
Ms. Foster stated that as long as the items within the Staff Report
were considered suggestions, or guidelines, instead of rigid
critera, then Opus would have no difficulty in working within such
guidelines.
Acting Chairman Gartner asked for questions and comments from
members of the audience. There were none.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept
for Opus Corporation for the Prairie Center Business Park, based on
plans and written materials dated December 20, 1983, photographic
representations submitted to the Planning Commission on January 23,
1984, and subject to the suggested guidelines of the Staff Report
dated January 20, 1984.
Motion carried--5-0-0
D. KNOB HILL , by Countryside Investments, Inc. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary
Plat of approximately 16 acres for 30 single family lots.
Location: Southeast quadrant of Duck Lake Trail and County
Road #4. A public hearing.
Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, reviewed the requested
actions with the Commission. He pointed out significant site
features and design characteristics of the plan.
Staff reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report evaluating
the request.
Marhula asked if Lot 6 would require a variance for the front yard
due to the unusual shape of the lot. Staff responded that this
would be checked.
Acting Chairman Gartner asked for questions and comments from
Planning Commission Minutes 7 January 23, 1984
members of the audience. There were none.
MOTION 1 •
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes, to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2•
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Countryside Investment,
Inc., for zoning district change from Rural to R1-13.5, based on
plans dated January 6, 1984, and subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated January 20, 1984.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made -by Marhula, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Countryside Investment,
Inc., for preliminary plat of approximately 16 acres into 29 single
family lots, based on plans dated January 6, 1984, and subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 20, 1984.
Motion carried--5-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Hallett, seconded by Schuck.
Acting Chairman Gartner adjourned the meeting at 12:15 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
*V o��as-
Kate Karnas
Recording Secretary