Planning Commission - 12/10/1984 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION �•w,.
Monday, December 10, 1984 =
School Board Meeting Room
7!30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula,,. Ed Schupk, t kon•:.Torjesen:
.� ,
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Pl-anAing; Ric�-Ale ',Ffi'Zen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording -Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. CARDINAL CREEK VILLAGE, by Chimo Development' Corporati.ouw Request
for Planned Unit Development -Concept Review. and :E0 fto' nmental
.. Assessment Worksheet for 350 units of multiple family deyelbpment on
40.7 acres. Location: North of Cardinal Creek, east off; 6aker Road.
A continued public hearing.
B. RESEARCH FARM ADDITION, by Northrup King. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment from Low' Density Residential, High Density
Residential, and 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
A. Proposed Amendment to Advertising Sign Pf'strict
B. Proposed Amendment to Public District YefTnition "" -• }
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, December 10, 1984
School District Boardroom
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Hakon Torjesen, Virginia Gartner, Robert
Hallett, Stan Johannes (7:40), Dennis Marhula
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman William Bearman, Ed Schuck
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to adopt the minutes of the
November 2, 1984, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--4-0-0
(Johannes arrived at 7:40 p.m.)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
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.
Mr. Fred Hoisington, representing proponent, reviewed the amended plans with
the Planning Commission. He pointed out that there were only 20 units now
located south of the creek in order to provide better transition between the
existing and proposed developments.
Mr. Roger Freeburg, architect for proponent, pointed out the open space
areas which had been added south of Cardinal Creek Road. He stated that
units had also been removed from the area north of Cardinal Creek Road for a
total reduction from 350 units to 280 units, or 70 units less than the
original proposal . Twin homes, only, were proposed on the south side of
Cardinal Creek Road, which were intended to act as extension of Cardinal
Creek 3rd Addition, also a twin home project.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 December 10, 1984
Mr. Freeburg reviewed the sight sections through various portions of the
site which had been of concern at previous meetings.
Mr. Jim Benshoof, traffic consultant for proponents, reviewed the revised
traffic information for the site. He explained the different trip
generation rates for the various housing types proposed within the project.
Mr. Benshoof also reviewed the alternatives for connection of existing
Cardinal Creek Road through this project.
Mr. Hoisington stated that the gross density for the project was now 9.8
units per acre; net density was at 11.0 units per acre. The area south of
Cardinal Creek Road was now at a gross density of 1.4 units per acre and a
net density of 2.5 units per acre. The overall density for the site was at
a gross density of 6.88 units per acre, similar to other multiple
residential projects in this vicinity.
He pointed out that 71% of the property was proposed to be open space, with
29% of the site to be hard-surfaced, or covered with structures, including
roads.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of December 7, 1984, regarding the project.
• Marhula stated that at a previous meeting on this project, there had been
discussion about different geometrics for the design of the connection of
existing and proposed Cardinal Creek Road. He asked if proponents had
considered alternative configurations of the road connection in the revision
of their proposal . Mr. Benshoof responded that there was little
differentiation in trips generated with reconfiguration of the road
connection. Mr. Hoisington stated that the road connection could be
reconfigured, if the Commission so desired.
Marhula stated that, in the past, the City had approved projects in low and
medium density guided areas to be developed in a manner which clustered the
units, thereby creating larger open spaces, but allowing zoning for more
dense unit types. He stated that he felt it would be appropriate to
consider RM-2.5 zoning for this site in the more dense areas, allowing for
clustering of the units away from the existing single family areas, with an
overall number of units for the site which would meet the Medium Density
Residential density range of the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Planner Enger stated that it was not the intention of the Comprehensive
Guide Plan to anticipate a final configuration of unit types for any parcel
of land, but to deal with a volume, or density, only in general terms. He
added that density transfer in Eden Prairie had only been allowed in
situations where performance on the part of the developer warranted it.
Marhula asked if proponents were requesting any zoning designations at this
time. Planner Enger responded that they were not; proponents would be
required to return to the Planning Commission and City Council for review of
specific zoning review through the public hearing process.
Acting Chairman Torjesen asked if there had ever been a situation whereby
proponents had not required additional review by the Commission and Council
Planning Commission Minutes 3 December 10, 1984
i
once density levels had been approved. Planner Enger stated that the
process required that the City review specific zoning requests through the
hearing process in all cases. He gave several examples where this had been
done.
Gartner asked if this property had ever been part of a Planned Unit
Development for this area. Planner Enger responded that it had; however,
the area included in that Planned Unit Development involved property west of
Baker Road and all of existing Cardinal Creek 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Additions.
That plan had approved higher density across a much larger area than what
was being proposed, or what had been built so far in this area.
Gartner asked if proponents had obtained permission from the adjacent
property owners to extend Cardinal Creek Road to the north, intersecting
with Baker Road. Mr. Hoisington stated that proponents were still in the
process of negotiating with the land owners involved. He added that
proponents had approached the City about making the construction of the road
in this area as a public improvement project. Gartner asked if this was
feasible. Planner Enger responded that it was.
Gartner asked if a right-turn lane, with a center island, had been planned
as part of this intersection for Cardinal Creek Road. Mr. Hoisington stated
that the road had been designed in this manner.
• Hallett asked whether approval of this project would force the City into
accepting this road as a public improvement project. Planner Enger stated
that it would not. The Council would have the option to do so only if
appropriate. He pointed out that the Commission, and next, the Council ,
were only being asked to consider a Planned Unit Development Concept Plan at
this time. No grading, or construction, of any magnitude were being
approved at this time.
Hallett asked if condemnation was necessary at this time. Mr. Hoisington
stated that proponents felt the situation could be worked out with the
adjacent land owners. He added that, as an alternataive, the road easement
from their property, north to Baker Road, was still in existence, providing
access to Baker Road for the property. He pointed out that this was a less
desirable situation for access, however.
Acting Chairman Torjesen asked if this was similar to the situation which
occurred in the northeast portion of the community wherein the public
improvement project was ordered. Planner Enger pointed out that the
situation in the northeast portion of the community was one in which the
public improvement project had already been ordered. None had been ordered
for this area as yet. He added that this was also different because it was
only a Planned Unit Development Concept. The other project involved zoning.
Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that there were always implications to be
aware of in situations involving a public improvement project and advised
the residents to stay aware of such developments.
Acting Chairman Torjesen asked if would be appropriate to approve the
project contingent upon the access being at the location shown, across two
other properties. Planner Enger stated that it would be.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 December 10, 1984
Johannes asked if extension of the road across the property owned by the
other two individuals would force them into developing their property before
they had intended to do so. Planner Enger stated that this was a
possibility. He added that it would increase the value of their property.
Mr. Greg Gustafson, representing proponents, stated that it was their
opinion that the best access would be the one shown on the plans with a "T"
intersection at Baker Road. He stated that one of the property owners
involved was not opposed to the road being built on his property, but he did
not want to pay for it. The other property owner had been contemplating
development soon. Mr. Gustafson stated that proponents were not yet ready
for final decisions in this matter and that development of the property was
contingent upon settling this issue.
Hallett asked about the price range of units proposed. Mr. Gustafson
responded that the units would range from $450-650 per month for rental .
Hallett asked about the noise standards and questions of violating those
standards as raised by the residents at previous meetings. Mr. Hoisington
stated that no daytime standards were ever exceeded, but that for one hour
during nighttime, the noise standards were a problem.
Hallett asked how this project compared, as revised, with other multiple
• residential projects in the area for density. Planner Enger stated that it
was comparable to other multiple residential projects in the vicinity and
listed several .
Mr. Roger Swigart, 13184 Cardinal Creek Road, stated that he was concerned
about traffic safety. He stated that the residents were looking for
alternatives to those proposed for connection of existing and proposed
Cardinal Creek Road. He expressed concern that the figures given by the
traffic consultant included mass transportation possibilities, but that none
existed for this area at this time. Mr. Swigart requested that no plan be
approved which would allow connection of existing and proposed Cardinal
Creek Road and presented an alternative routing for the road to the
Commission.
Mr. Art Roberts, 13543 Woodmere Circle, stated that he felt most trips
generated from this area would be directed toward the south and questioned
the advisability of constructing such a project with Baker ' Road in the
condition it was--two-lane, curving, and in need of repair. He added that
he felt it would be easier for residents within Cardinal Creek Village to
use the southerly route because there would be less traffic, they could
avoid the back-up involved in left-turn movements, and the routes were
basically the same in length. Mr. Roberts stated that the bulk of the
traffic would be on the roads when children were around, which would be
during the time children were being picked up by school buses and at the
time children were home from school and outside playing. He pointed out
that people from working households often did their errands at night, after
• work, which would also increase traffic during the evening hours, when
children were outside playing. He suggested that the access to Cardinal
Creek Road for the proposed project be limited to an emergency access, only.
Mr. Gordon Alexander, 6895 Sand Ridge Road, stated that he felt any
Planning Commission Minutes 5 December 10, 1984
•
additional traffic on Cardinal Creek Road would be too much. He stated that
he did not feel the proponents were providing proper density transition
within their own project as they were proposing twin homes across the street
from apartments.
Mr. Floyd Siefferman, Jr., 6997 Edgebrook Place, listed several concerns
including: he felt the project should be considered only in terms of its
developable acres at approximately 28.2 acres, not 40 acres; he felt the
twin homes were approaching a reasonable transition, but that more work
needed to be done in this area; trees planted should be of a large size and
the area should be heavily landscaped; the easement to the north which
currently permitted access for the property to Baker Road should not be
considered as a viable alternative for access to the development; the
project should not be called Cardinal Creek Village and the road should not
be called Cardinal Creek Road to avoid confusion with existing developments
and the existing road bearing the name Cardinal Creek; the proposed access
to Baker Road across two other properties should be a requirement of the
development; construction traffic should not be allowed to be routed through
the existing developments; and the project should be less dense to provide
better transition to existing projects and within the site, itself.
Mr. Kevin Kuester, 13124 Cardinal Creek Road, reported unpleasant past
incidents with the contractors proposed to be involved in the project.
Mr. Hoisington responded to several of the concerns of the residents. He
stated that proponents had endeavored to meet the concerns of the
neighborhood and the requirements of-the City in preparing their proposal.
Construction traffic was intended to access the development other than
through the existing residential areas. Baker Road was scheduled to be
upgraded in 1987, with curvature removed and lanes widened, which would
mitigate concerns about its capacity and use. The largest building proposed
for the site would be 40-60 units in size, which was a moderate-sized
building by construction standards.
The Commission discussed the possibilities of more indirect connection of
existing and proposed Cardinal Creek Road. Staff was asked to review
alternatives for such indirect connection of the road and report back to the
Commission.
Gartner asked about alternatives such as a "stop sign," or break-down
barriers for access by emergency vehicles, only. Staff responded that a
"stop sign," may be effective. The City's experience with break-down
barriers for emergency vehicles had been less than satisfactory.
Marhula stated that he felt the proponents had responded satisfactorily to
the questions raised at the previous meetings.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 6 December 10, 1984
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Chimo Development for Planned Unit
Development Concept for Cardinal Creek Village, based upon revised plans
dated November 28, 1984, subject to the findings of the Staff Report dated
December 7, 1984, with the following added conditions:
1) Proponent shall work with Staff regarding alternative alignment for
the connection of existing and proposed Cardinal Creek Road in the
vicinity of Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition to discourage traffic from
this route.
2) Approval of the project shall be contingent upon proper access being
provided for this development to Baker Road.
3) The approved density range shall be from 208 to 280 units. Approval
for anything beyond 208 units shall be based upon the specific
performance of the proponent proving that the densities proposed for
each individual site will work with the site, meeting normal
standards and requirements for the zoning districts proposed.
Further, in that proponent has requested no variances for the Planned Unit
• Development Concept Plan proposed, no variances shall be hereby recommended,
nor granted.
Motion carried--4-1-0 (Hallett against)
Hallett stated that he voted against as he felt the density was too great in
the area north of Cardinal Creek Road and that the road access to Baker Road
should be worked out. He stated that, overall, he was comfortable with a
maximum of 280 units and that he felt the transition to the existing single
family area was well done.
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City
Council a finding of no significant impact for the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet for Cardinal Creek Village, based on revised plans dated November
28, 1984.
Motion carried--5-0-0
B. RESEARCH FARM ADDITION, by Northrup King. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential, High Density
Residential, and 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. Ed Roessler, representing Northrup King, reviewed the history of the
project stating that Northrup King had supported the concept of the
completion of Anderson Lakes Parkway through the site.
Mr. Dick Putnam, Tandem Corporation, representing proponent, discussed
various plans which had been prepared for the development of the site.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 December 10, 1984
Mr. Jim Benshoof, traffic consultant for proponent, reviewed traffic
generation totals based upon different plans for development of the site.
The Commission discussed the land uses and traffic in general terms with the
proponents.
Mr. Putnam stated that there were disparities in amount of assessments on
this property compared to other areas of the community, stating that the
assessments for this property were -higher and would require development of
the property at commercial , or industrial, levels to pay for the utilities
assessed. He stated that residential projects could not support the
assessments levied. Therefore, proponents were considering a higher level
of use than those proposed by the Comprehensive Guide Plan at this time.
Hallett stated that perhaps a better use of the site would be single family
residential .
Mr. Andy Feyer, 8872 Knollwood, stated that he did not feel the portion of
the property adjacent to the existing single family development should be
developed as High Density Residential .
Mr. Todd Walker, 8926 Pine Bluff Court, expressed concern regarding the
traffic levels discussed and the impact of this upon Highway #169. He
stated that commercial and industrial development tend to be well kept when
new, but that they often deteriorated. Mr. Walker stated that he did not
move to this area to be adjacent to industrial uses as were being proposed
and questioned the ability of the City to regulate the types of industrial
uses which would be allowed to occupy space in this area, if it were to
become industrial . He added that he was unaware of other areas of the
community where residential areas were directly abutting industrial uses as
was being proposed for this property.
Mr. Ed Ludke, 12630 Crowfoot Court, stated that he agreed with the concerns
already discussed by the neighborhood. He stated that he, too, was against
industrial uses and did not want to be living in an area where factories
would be allowed.
Ms. Bea Bernier, 8886 Pine Bluff Court, expressed concern about pollution of
the nearby lake and creek, if industrial uses were allowed.
Mr. Freyer stated that the previous proponent for this project had been an
industrial developer. He questioned whether it would be possible to stop
such industrial development from occurring in this area. He stated that it
appeared as if proponents had returned with the same proposal which had been
turned down previously and asked why proponents had been allowed to repeat
the same project.
Gartner responded that the Commission had made it clear to proponents that
they could return and refile their request, provided that the land uses
proposed could be justified, which had not been done in the past.
Mr. Putnam stated that he hoped it was clear that proponents did not have a
clear plan, as they did not feel they did at this time. They had wanted to
return to clarify questions as to what would be acceptable as far as land
Planning Commission Minutes 8 December 10, 1984
use on this property. He stated that proponents hoped to balance what would
be acceptable to the City with what would be economically feasible for the
proponents.
Gartner asked proponents why they felt High Density Residential land use as
shown on the Comprehensive Guide Plan, which was not directly adjacent to
the existing single family area, was not an acceptable use for this site.
Mr. Putnam stated that developers of high density residential projects were
looking to build four-to-ten stories in height, which was not an acceptable
type of structure for the City of Eden Prairie. He stated that this type of
development occurred in a city which was more mature in its development than
Eden Prairie was at this time.
Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that he felt the previous Staff Report
regarding this proposal was still valid in that he did not feel it was in
the City's best interest to have any more industrial land added within the
community. He stated that he felt the community should maintain the
essentially residential character it had and that he would prefer the
proponents look toward other types of residential uses for this site.
Hallett stated that he would prefer office uses, if any commercial uses were
to be allowed, for this site along Highway #169. He stated that this was a
focal point of the City and that he was against industrial uses, unless they
• were not office-like in character and appearance. Hallett stated that he
definitely preferred residential use to the west.
Johannes stated that he felt some type of business park may be acceptable
upon specific proof by the proponents, through site plans, that such a use
could work on this site. He stated that he was open to industrial uses,
with proper controls.
Marhula stated that he concurred with the other Commissioners, adding that
he felt there was room for change within this area of the Comprehensive
Guide Plan and that proponents should be required to justify the changes
they would propose.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to continue the public
hearing to the January 14, 1985, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried--5-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Proposed Amendment to Advertising Sign District
Planner Enger reviewed the proposed change to the Advertising Sign portion
of the Code regarding location of Advertising Signs upon rezoning of
property to a use other than Rural . The Commission discussed the proposed
change with Staff.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 December 10, 1984
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the proposed change to the Advertising Sign portion of
the City Code regarding location of Advertising Signs upon rezoning of
property to a use other than Rural .
Motion carried--5-0-0
B. Proposed Amendment to Public District Definition
Planner Enger reviewed the proposal to remove Quasi-public as a use with the
City Code. The Commission discussed the proposal in greater detail .
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City
Council removal of Quasi-public as a use from the City Code.
Motion carried--5-0-0
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner.
Acting Chairman Torjesen adjourned the meeting at 11:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
r r A77/
Kate Karnas
Recording Secretary