Planning Commission - 11/13/1984 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, November 13, 1984
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
(7:40) A. CARDINAL CREEK VILLAGE, by Chimo Development Corporation. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Environmental
Assessment Worksheet for 350 units of multiple family development on
40.7 acres. Location: North of Cardinal Creek, east of Baker Road.
. A continued public hearing.
(8:40) B. NORTH BAY OF TIMBER LAKES 2ND ADDITION, by Richard Miller Homes.
Request for Zoning District Amendment within RM-2.5 District (with
variances for the Board of Appeals) and Site Plan Review for 12
units within three buildings on approximately 1.34 acres; and
Preliminary Plat of approximately 9.41 acres into three lots and one
outlot. Location: Northwest quadrant of County Road #4 and Timber
Lakes Drive. A public hearing.
(9:10) C. AXEL DENTAL OFFICE, by Richard C. Axel . Request for Zoning District
Change within Office District for a Dental Office and Preliminary
Plat of 0.9 acre for one lot. Location: Southwest quadrant of
Highway #5 and County Road #4. A public hearing.
(9:30) D. CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH. Request for Zoning District Amendment within
Public District for Church Expansion on 2.78 acres. Location: 7800
Carnelian Way. A public meeting.
(9:50) E. LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION, by Lake Heights Ventures. Request for
Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat
of 1.85 acres into four single family residential lots. Location:
Southeast quadrant of Homeward Hills Road and Anderson Lakes
Parkway. A public hearing.
Is
Agenda
Tuesday, November 13, 1984
(10:15) F. RESEARCH FARM ADDITION, by Hoyt Development. Request for Comprehen-
sive Guide Plan Amendment from Sports Center to Regional Commercial;
Office, Industrial, and Multiple Residential and Planned Unit
Development Concept for 189+ acres. Location: West of Highway
#169, at Anderson Lakes Parkway. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: The times listed above are tentative and may be significantly earlier, or
later than listed.
is
18
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, November 13, 1984
School District Boardroom
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Dennis Marhula, Hakon Torjesen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Stan Johannes, Ed Schuck
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to adopt the agenda as
printed.
Motion carried--5-0-0
• II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to adopt the minutes of the
October 29, 1984, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Chairman Bearman abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. CARDINAL CREEK VILLAGE, by Chimo Development Corporation. Request
Tor Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Environmental
Assessment Worksheet for 350 units of multiple family development on
40.7 acres. Location: North of Cardinal Creek, east of Baker Road.
A continued public hearing.
Mr. Fred Hoisington, representing proponent, reviewed the history of the
project to-date, and explained some of the changes made to the plan after
their meeting with the neighborhood on October 23, 1984.
Mr. Roger Freeburg, architect for proponent, reviewed the amended plan,
Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 13, 1984
•
showing how traffic had been redirected and how density had been shifted and
reduced on the property. He stated that there would not be a connection to
existing Cardinal Creek developments during the first and second phases of
development of this property according to the revised plan. The grading
plan had been revised to provide for less cut and fill than the previous
plan.
Mr. Hoisington stated that proponents had felt their plan was in conformance
with the Comprehensive Guide Plan in terms of density. Overall, 68% of the
site would be left as open space, leaving 32% of the property to be
developed. No variances were being requested for the development. With
respect to traffic, Mr. Hoisington stated that proponent's traffic
consultant had made the necessary studies for the development, which led to
the conclusion that there would be less impact on the existing developments
due to the fact that some of the existing residents would use the roads
through the new development. He added that every effort was being made to
protect the natural environments in the area. Lastly, Mr. Hoisington stated
it had been determined that there was adequate capacity for sewer, water,
storm sewer, and streets for this development as planned within the existing
City and County facilities in the area.
Per the Commission's request at their meeting of October 29, 1984, Staff had
prepared an analysis of net and gross densities of various multiple
residential projects within the City, and reviewed this with the Commission.
• Mr. Jim Benshoof, traffic consultant for proponents, reviewed the findings
of the traffic study prepared by his firm for the revised development plan.
Hallett asked what the net and gross densities for this project would be.
Staff responded that the net density would be 7.7 units per acre; the gross
density would be 11.2 units per acre.
Chairman Bearman stated that, while the Comprehensive Guide Plan allowed a
maximum number of units within residential areas, this should not be taken
to mean that the developers were automatically allowed to develop at that
maximum density; rather, the merits of the plan would dictate where in the
range of densities a certain plan could be recommended for approval . He
added that economics of a project would not have an impact on any Planning
Commission recommendation regarding a project.
Chairman Bearman asked if any resolution had been reached with the land
owner to the north regarding access. Mr. Hoisington responded that the
proponents were still working with the land owner to the north and would
continue to do so.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt the project revisions were good, but
that additional work may be necessary. He suggested that the townhouse
units be removed from the area south of the major road through the site and
that the density be reduced to approximately 285 units.
is Torjesen asked if Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition, the duplex development, was
developed as Medium Density Residential . Staff responded that the zoning of
the project was RM-6.5, however the Comprehensive Guide Plan showed the
property as Low Density Residential . Gross density for Cardinal Creek 3rd
Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 13, 1984
•
Addition was 2.5 units per acre and net density was over three units per
acre. Staff explained that this was similar to the situation for the
multiple residential area of Arbor Glen, to the west.
Torjesen stated that he felt the Comprehensive Guide Plan densities and the
densities allowed by Zoning Districts should be more coordinated. He
suggested that this be a topic for the joint Planning Commission/City
Council meeting in December.
Torjesen added that he felt the type of development proposed for the
Cardinal Creek Village development did not compare with the densities of
other multiple projects in that vicinity, such as St. John's Woods. Planner
Enger pointed out that while St. John's Woods was developed at approximately
6.5 units per acre, there was no open space dedication with the project and
a much larger percentage of the property was developed compared to what was
being proposed for Cardinal Creek Village. The area south of the major road
through Cardinal Creek Village was proposed at a net density of 4.56 units
per acre, and with the flood plain area included, a gross density of 2.58
units per acre. North of the major road, the property was proposed at 10.54
units per acre for gross density and 11.9 units per acre for net density.
Hallett asked if "rumble strips" to slow traffic had been considered for
Cardinal Creek Road through the existing Cardinal Creek developments. Staff
responded that the developers had been considering other alternatives, such
. as making the road more circuitous through this area and perhaps providing a
"T" intersection with existing Cardinal Creek Road to make it less desirable
as a through-street. "Rumble strips" may, or may not, be an appropriate
answer for slowing or eliminating traffic through this area.
Gartner asked for explanation of what traffic patterns would be for the
revised development plans. Mr. Jim Benshoof, proponent's traffic
consultant, explained the traffic patterns in detail, indicating that
approximately 65% of the traffic from the development would take a northerly
route, while 35% of the traffic from the development would take a southerly
route. He pointed out that the design of the road through the project was
such that it would make it easier, even for residents in the south half of
the project, to access Baker Road from the north point of major road through
the project, instead of routing south through the existing Cardinal Creek
neighborhoods.
Torjesen asked to what extent the construction of the Crosstown Freeway
would impact the traffic analysis. Mr. Benshoof responded that the figures
he prepared were based on the Crosstown Freeway being extended.
Hallett asked if the Metropolitan Council data upon which Mr. Benshoof had
based part of his analysis took into consideration the location of City
facilities and schools. Mr. Benshoof responded that this was the case to a
point. Gartner asked what the date of the Metropolitan Council data was.
Mr. Benshoof responded that he obtained the data early in 1984; however he
was not certain as to the date the information was prepared. The
information was prepared based on year 2000 projections for traffic by the
Metropolitan Council .
Mr. Gordon Alexander, 6895 Sand Ridge Road, expressed concern regarding
Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 13, 1984
traffic. He stated that it did not seem possible that the traffic on
existing Cardinal Creek Road may be decreased by as much as 75 vehicles per
day as represented by proponent's traffic consultant. He also stated that
he did not feel it made sense to have the lowest density of the project
located just across the street from the highest density of the project
without providing transition, or buffering, within the project itself. He
stated that he would prefer existing Cardinal Creek Road to remain as a cul-
de-sac.
Mr. Dick Clasen, 6898 Edgebrook Place, expressed concern regarding
transition from the existing to the proposed units. He stated that they had
been told at the time of purchase of their home that the development to the
north would be twin homes, or townhouses. Mr. Clasen stated that it
appeared to him that the highest density of the project would be the most
visible portion of the project as it was located at the highest elevation of
the property on a hill . He suggested that the visibility of these units
from other locations be considered. Mr. Clasen added that he felt there
were errors in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet provided by the
developers.
Mr. Floyd Siefferman, Jr., 6997 Edgebrook Place, listed several concerns,
including: transition from the existing Cardinal Creek neighborhoods,
suggesting that a tier of R1-13.5 zoning be added between the proposed
higher density units and the existing single family homes; run-off into Nine
• Mile Creek; stability of soils during the grading process, especially
adjacent to the existing developments; potential confusion with identical
street names, i .e. the existing Cardinal Creek Road and naming of the major
road through the site Cardinal Creek Road; lack of a mini-park within the
development; potential violation of Pollution Control Agency noise
standards; two internal cul-de-sacs of the development shown as over 500 ft.
in length; one street within the proposed development exceeded an 8% grade;
no connection be allowed between the existing Cardinal Creek developments
and the proposed development until construction of the entire development is
completed to avoid problems with construction traffic through the existing
neighborhood; the transition area should be provided on the developer's
property; the natural areas and topographic features be preserved as much as
possible; and, the development be designed in such a way as not to exceed
the approved densities for other Medium Density Residential developments in
the area at RM-6.5, or approximately 160 units for the entire development.
Mr. Siefferman also asked if the City had adopted the amended 1982
Comprehensive Guide Plan as he was unable to find record of its adoption.
Staff responded that it had been adopted by the City and approved for
adoption by the Metropolitan Council.
Mr. Philip Moenning, 6956 Sand Ridge Road, expressed concern that transition
be provided between the existing and proposed uses. He stated that the
existing and proposed units would be as little as 400 ft. apart and that he
felt greater distance between the unit types would be appropriate.
Mr. Doug Reuter, 8750 Black Maple Drive, stated that he did not feel Planned
. Unit Developments benefitted the City, but only benefitted the developers,
by allowing for general plan approvals, instead of specific approvals. He
stated that he felt once a Planned Unit Development was approved, it became
difficult for the City to control the development of the property in
question.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 13, 1984
i
Ms. Christina Siefferman, 6997 Edgebrook Place, stated that all the schools,
department stores, grocery stores, public facilities, such as fire stations,
etc., were located south of the development and she questioned whether
future residents of the new development would actually take a northerly
route out of their neighborhoods to the extent suggested by the traffic
consultants.
Gartner asked if the three-story buildings were cut into the hill . Mr.
Freeburg responded that they had been located in a valley between high
points in the topography of the property.
Mr. Clasen, 6898 Edgebrook Place, stated that the Staff Report also pointed
out that the buildings were massive in size.
Mr. Hoisington responded to several of the questions raised by residents.
He stated that the development, as proposed, was not in violation of any
Shoreland Ordinance requirements. The noise levels represented within the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet were taken by a reputable firm, and
conditions at that time, such as the fact that snow was on the ground, were
compensated for in reporting of the results within the Worksheet. He stated
that the northerly cul-de-sac which was over 500 ft. in length was intended
to provided access to a landlocked parcel in the future. Potentially, the
road would not have to be built until such time as it could be looped
through the property to the north; however, proponents felt it was their
• obligation to provide opportunity for access to this parcel .
Hallett stated that he felt multiple residential projects provided viable
alternatives to development of property with natural features that single
family development did not, in that units were clustered, or consolidated,
and more natural features could be preserved in the long run. He expressed
concern about the density proposed. He suggested that the density be
reduced to be more closely in conformance with other multiple residential
developments in the vicinity, rather than being the most dense project
within a one-mile radius. Hallett reiterated concern from the previous
meeting regarding a crossing of Baker Road for the children on the east side
of Baker Road. He stated that, due to the location of the school and the
park across the road, many children would migrate that direction and that
the parents should take every step possible to make certain a safe crossing
for them was developed.
Gartner stated that she felt the traffic concerns could be mitigated. She
stated that she was not necessarily against long cul-de-sacs. Gartner added
that she, too, felt the project was still too dense, but that the transition
of open space along the south portion of the project was effective.
Torjesen stated that he, also, was concerned with the density of the
proposal, adding that he felt transition was not so much a concern as
determining a proper density for the site.
Marhula stated that he believed the connection of neighborhoods was
beneficial . He expressed concern for the amount of density also, suggesting
that less density and perhaps spreading out of the density would aid in
transition for the property as well . Marhula stated that he felt traffic
concerns could be mitigated with small adjustments to the site design. He
Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 13, 1984
• pointed out that street and intersection designs could prevent alot of
accidents when properly prepared.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt additional screening may help provide
better transition for the property. He added that he was not concerned
about the location or size of the apartment structures in the north portion
of the property.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to continue the public
hearing to the December 10, 1984, Planning Commission meeting to provide
proponents time to revise the plans per the comments of the Planning
Commission.
Motion carried--5-0-0
B. NORTH BAY OF TIMBER LAKES 2ND ADDITION, by Richard Miller Homes.
Request for Zoning District Amendment within RM-2.5 District (with
variances) and Site Plan Review for 12 units within three buildings
on approximately 1.34 acres; and Preliminary Plat of approximately
9.41 acres into three lots and one outlot. Location: Northwest
quadrant of County Road #4 and Timber Lakes Drive. A public hearing.
• Mr. Terry Lamb, representing Richard Miller Homes, reviewed the proposed
development with the Commission. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings of
the Staff Report of November 9, 1984.
Chairman Bearman asked if sight lines had been prepared from the single
family home area to the west and south. Mr. Lamb stated that there would be
berming and plantings to screen their vision of these multiple units.
Marhula pointed out areas where access to garages would be blocked due to
tight design of the site, if redesign of certain parking areas was not
accomplished. Mr. Lamb stated that this would be corrected.
Mr. Mark Weber, 7966 Timber Lakes Drive, stated that one of the buildings
would be approximately two to three feet away from his driveway and
questioned whether this was proper site design. He stated that he could
perceive problems with things such as snow storage. He also pointed out
that the plans indicated that some of the landscaping around his unit would
be removed and asked whether it would be replaced. Mr. Lamb stated that
trees would be relocated. Mr. Weber stated that he had paid a premium for
his structure due to the view from his unit to the lake. The plan, as
proposed would block that view and he asked if it would be possible to
redesign the site to avoid this situation. Mr. Weber pointed out that there
were diseased trees located on the site which had been marked and asked that
these be taken care of soon. He asked the Commission if the City would
consider having the open space finished prior to additional development of
the property as it had not been completed since the initial development of
the property and the residents were beginning to wonder if it ever would be.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt, based on Staff findings and comments
from the audience, the site was too tightly designed. Marhula stated that
he agreed.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 13, 1984
Mrs. Harvey Olsen, 7964 Timber Lakes Drive, stated that she had also paid a
lot premium for view of the lake and that proposed Building #3 would block
that view. She suggested that one of the structures be removed and added
that she concurred with concerns regarding obstructed access to garages.
Gartner stated that she felt there was too much site coverage by parking
areas, driveways, and buildings, that the site was too tightly designed.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen to continue the public
hearing to the November 26, 1984, Planning Commission meeting to allow
proponent time to revise the plans per the concerns of the Planning
Commission and the findings of the Staff Report of November 9, 1984.
Motion carried--5-0-0
C. AXEL DENTAL OFFICE, by Richard C. Axel . Request for Zoning District
Change within Office District for a Dental Office and Preliminary
Plat of 0.9 acre for one lot. Location: Southwest quadrant of
Highway #5 and County Road A. A public hearing.
Dr. Richard Axel reviewed the plans for development of the dental office
with the Planning Commission. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings of the
• Staff Report of November 9,1984.
Marhula asked if, at the time of the originally approved Planned Unit
development for this site, a design framework manual had been required for
the future uses within this development. Staff responded that it had not
been required at that time. Marhula stated that he supported a
recommendation for the structure using brick as its major exterior material.
Torjesen stated that he had no objection to the use of wood as the main
exterior material .
Staff discussed the orientation of the structure on the lot with the
Planning Commission, with respect to the future addition planned to the
building. The Commission concurred that the recommended Staff alternative
to the building location and design was preferrable.
Mr. Steven Beck, 15301 Creekside Court, asked about the access drive for
joint use by adjacent parcels. Dr. Axel reviewed it further.
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 Marhula, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Richard C. Axel for Zoning District
Planning Commission Minutes 8 November 13, 1984
Amendment within the Office District for a dental office, based on plans
dated September 18, 1984, subject to the findings of the Staff Report of
November 9, 1984. Should the site plan change significantly in an effort to
comply with the 30 ft. setback from the street, the item should be returned
to the Planning Commission for review.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Richard C. Axel for Preliminary Plat of
0.9 acre into one lot for a dental office, based on plans dated September
18, 1984, subject to the findings of the Staff Report of November 9, 1984.
Should the site plan change significantly in an effort to comply with the 30
ft. setback from the street, the item should be returned to the Planning
Commission for review.
Marhula stated that, while he generally did not have an objection to wood as
an exterior material, he did in this case since the surrounding buildings
within this development were all brick.
Motion carried--5-0-0
• D. CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH. Request for Zoning District Amendment within
Public District for Church Expansion on 2.78 acres. Location: 7800
Carnelian Way. A public meeting.
Mr. Wayne Jeske, architect for proponent, reviewed the plans for the church
expansion with the Planning Commission. Planner Franzen reviewed the
findings of the Staff Report of November 9, 1984.
It was pointed out that the proponents would need to request a variance from
the Board of Appeals to exceed the height restrictions of the Public
District for the church spire.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Christ Lutheran Church for Zoning
District Amendment within the Public District for expansion of the church
structure on 2.78 acres, based on plans dated August 28, 1984, subject to
the findings of the Staff Report dated November 9, 1984.
Motion carried--5-0-0
E. LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION, by Lake Heights Ventures. Request for
• Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of
1.85 acres into four single family residential lots. Location:
Southeast quadrant of Homeward Hills Road and Anderson Lakes Parkway.
A public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 November 13, 1984
• Mr. Jim Ryan, representing Lake Heights Ventures, reviewed the proposed
development with the Commission. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings of
the Staff Report of November 9, 1984.
Torjesen asked if the utilities had been installed to service this
development. Mr. Ryan responded that they were complete.
Mr. Doug Reuter, 8750 Black Maple Drive, stated that he was pleased to see a
developer request a lowering of density from the City, as opposed to an
increase.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Lake Heights Ventures for Zoning District
Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 for 1.85 acres for four single family
residential lots, based on plans dated August 22, 1984, subject to the
• findings of the Staff Report dated November 9, 1984, deleting #3 from the
Staff Report regarding sidewalks.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Lake Heights Ventures for Preliminary
Plat of 1.85 acres into four single family residential lots, based on plans
dated August 22, 1984, subject to the findings of the Staff Report dated
November 9, 1984, deleting #3 from the Staff Report regarding sidewalks.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
F. RESEARCH FARM ADDITION, by Hoyt Development. Request for Comprehen-
sive Guide Plan Amendment from Sports Center to Regional Commercial ,
Office, Industrial, and Multiple Residential and Planned Unit
Development Concept for 189+ acres. Location: West of Highway #169,
at Anderson Lakes Parkway. A public hearing.
Mr. Mike Gair, Gair and Associates, representing proponents, reviewed the
proposed plan with the Commission. He discussed suitability of the site for
the proposed uses, compatibility of the uses with the surrounding
facilities, such as Highway #169, market and economic needs for additional
areas such as that proposed for "high-tech" industrial users, and the
• relative impact of the proposed plan on municipal and metropolitan area
systems. Mr. Gair stated that their research had found that Highway #169
would be upgraded to a four-lane highway by 1986-87, which would improve the
traffic capacity of the area substantially.
Planning Commission Minutes 10 November 13, 1984
• Mr. Steve Hoyt, Hoyt Development, stated that the land available for "high-
tech" uses within Eden Prairie was diminishing at a rapid rate. He stated
that it was the opinion of proponents that additional lands should be made
available for such uses and that this property was well suited for such
uses.
Planner Enger reviewed the findings of Staff Report of November 9, 1984,
explaining concerns about the project including substantiation for the
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change requested, more specific identification of
the uses proposed by the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, traffic concerns
regarding potential directions of traffic and the impact of traffic from the
property on affected intersections and proposed road improvements, detailed
information including potential building areas, floor area ratios, parking
plans, a mass landscaping plan, internal roadways, architecture, access,
grading, and environmental concerns with respect to Purgatory Creek.
Gartner asked about the City's original plans for the Sports Center use
designated for the southern portion of the property. Planner Enger
explained that the City had perceived a need for a major sports complex,
including multiple ball diamonds, skating and hockey rinks, tennis courts,
etc.
Chairman Bearman asked what the compelling reasons were for location of
these types of uses proposed in this area. Proponents responded that the
. close proximity to the Major Center Area and the access to Highway #169 were
influencing factors.
Torjesen stated that he was not comfortable with proposed plan for more
commercial and industrial development. He stated that he did not feel the
City should yield to development pressures to change the use of this
property to commercial and industrial without adequate justification for the
change to the Comprehensive Guide Plan uses.
Hallett stated that he felt the site may not be suitable for single family
residential development; however, the uses proposed by proponents should
also be justified.
Gartner stated that she felt there was not a compelling reason presented for
changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Chairman Bearman stated that two calls had been received by City Staff from
Dan Heaser, 8889 Knollwood Drive, and from Mr. and Mrs. Phil Dybing, 8902
Pine Bluff Court, indicating their preference for the property developed in
accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Guide Plan. Mr. Heaser and the
Dybings had expressed concern for proper transition to the existing single
family residential in this area and for proper treatment of Purgatory Creek,
as well .
Mr. James McGlennen, 8888 Knollwood Drive, stated that he did not feel
proponents were providing adequate transition from the existing Low Density
• Residential area to the west of the property to the proposed High Density
Residential and Industrial uses proposed.
Mr. Andrew Freyer, 8872 Knollwood Drive, stated that he bought his home
Planning Commission Minutes 11 November 13, 1984
• based on the designated uses of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated
that he did not feel the property should be turned into an industrial park.
He also expressed concern for the impact of traffic on the neighborhood to
the west, and the safety of children in the area if more traffic and more
intense development of commercial and industrial uses were allowed.
Mr. Doug Reuter, 8750 Black Maple Drive, indicated that he did not feel the
proposed uses were appropriate for this site. He requested that the
proposal be denied and that the City not allow such changes to take place.
Ms. Bea Bernier, 8886 Pine Bluff Court, stated that she agreed with most of
the concerns addressed by her neighbors previously. She expressed concern
for the proposed proximity of an industrial area to Staring Lake, adding
that where she had lived previously, such development had had a negative
impact upon the lake causing much money to be spent clearing up polluted
waters.
Mr. Wilson Montgomery, 8933 Knollwood Drive, expressed concern for what he
considered to be a lack of transition between the existing single family
residential areas and the proposed development. He stated that he felt the
buffer, or transition area, should take place on the developer's property.
Mr. Montgomery suggested that more time was needed by the City and the
neighborhood in order to properly evaluate the impact of such a large
development upon the community.
• Mr. Lloyd Cherne, 5704 View Lane, Edina, owner of the property to the north
of the proposed development, stated that he felt access to his property
should be considered in the design of this project. He stated that he felt
it would be better to combine access to the two sites, rather than have two
accesses, close together, from Highway #169. Mr. Cherne added that he had
no objection to the plan proposed by the proponents.
Mr. Robert Morast, traffic consultant for proponents from OSM, Inc.,
reviewed the preliminary traffic information for the development. He stated
that volumes would be between 16,000 to 25,000 Average Daily Trips from the
proposed development.
Mr. Bruce Hoyt, Hoyt Development, stated that he felt the property was well
suited to the development proposed and that its proximity to Highway #169
and the Major Center Area made it ideal for the uses proposed.
Mr. Harry Leadbetter, 8876 Knollwood Drive, stated that he felt better
transition between the existing neighborhoods to the west and the proposed
uses was necessary. He added that he felt the transition should take place
on the property proposed for development.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to close the public
hearing and recommend to the City Council denial of the proposed
. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential, High Density
Residential, and Sports Center to Commercial Regional Service, High Density
Residential, and Industrial, based on lack of compelling reason(s) for the
change and inadequate information provided by the proponents to support such
Planning Commission Minutes 12 November 13, 1984
• a change.
Gartner added that she felt the citizens of the community should be able to
count on the Comprehensive Guide Plan as adopted by the community.
Marhula stated that he felt more information was necessary before any
decision on this proposal could be made. He stated that he felt parts of
the proposal made sense, but that justification for other parts of the
proposal were not adequate. Marhula added that he would prefer the matter
be continued to allow the proponent to provide information needed by Staff
and the Commission to make a more informed decision.
Torjesen stated that the Commission had acted to deny proposed Comprehensive
Guide Plan changes in the past and that, in a situation such as this, he
felt it would be more appropriate to deny the proposal and invite the
proponents to resubmit an entirely new plan.
Hallett stated that he agreed with Marhula that portions of the proposed
changes to the Comprehensive Guide Plan made sense for this property, but
that additional information was needed to make a good decision on the
property. He stated that he, too, preferred continuance of the item, and
that proponents should return with additional information.
Motion carried--3-2-0 (Hallett and Marhula against)
• V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula.
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 2:05 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate Karnas
Recording Secretary
i