Loading...
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