Loading...
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