Planning Commission - 06/10/1985 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 10, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia
Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
7:35 A. THE GARDEN, by Hakon and Karen Torjesen. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.16 acres and Preliminary
Plat of 10.16 acres into 25 single family lots. A continued public
hearing.
8:00 B. TECH IV, by Technology Park Associates. Request for Preliminary
• Plat of 66.31 acres into one lot and two outlots, and road right-of-
way. A public hearing.
8:05 C. MOUNT CURVE ADDITION, by Mount Curve Developers. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential on 2.24 acres, rezoning from Rural to RM-
6.5 for 2.24 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2.87 acres into ten lots
for eight townhouse units. A public hearing.
8:35 D. HAGEN SYSTEMS, by Hagen Systems. Request for Planned Unit
Development District Review on 20 acres, Zoning District Change from
Rural to I-2 Park, on 3.02 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 9.78 acres
into one lot and three outlots. A public hearing.
9:05 E. HAMPTON INN, by Eden Prairie Hotel Investors. Request for Zoning
District Change from C-Regional to C-Regional Service, with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. 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.
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 10, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chair Virginia Gartner, Julianne Bye, Christine
Dodge, Dennis Marhula
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to approve the agenda as
printed.
. Motion carried--4-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Marhula, to approve the minutes of the
May 13, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--4-0-0
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. THE GARDEN, by Hakon and Karen Torjesen. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.16 acres and Preliminary
Plat of 10.16 acres into 23 single family lots. A continued public
hearing.
This item was continued from the May 28, 1985, Planning Commission meeting
in order to allow the surrounding neighbors a chance to evaluate the impact
of this plan upon the developability of their properties. Staff met with
the neighbors in the interim and arrived at the following two conclusions:
is 1) The Bodin piece lying to the north should not be accessed through this
Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 10, 1985
i
site because of the severe topography; and 2) The concern with the west-
facing wooded hillside adjacent to the Farber property would be resolved
between the property owners. There was some likelihood that the property
owners in the immediate area may, in the future, consolidate their parcels
for an overall project proposal . Until, and unless, this occurs, Staff
explained that it would be appropriate to proceed with the review and
recommendation on the Garden single family subdivision as proposed.
Acting Chair Gartner asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--3-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Hakon and Karen Torjesen for Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 10.16 acres, based on revised plans dated
May 10, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April
• 19, 1985.
Motion carried--3-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Hakon and Karen Torjesen for Preliminary Plat of
10.16 acres into 25 single family residential lots, based on revised plans
dated May 10, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
April 19, 1985.
Motion carried--3-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
B. TECH IV, by Technology Park Associates. Request for Preliminary
Plat of 66.31 acres into one lot and two outlots, and road right-of-
way. A public hearing.
At the May 28, 1985, Special Planning Commission meeting, Staff reported
that it had determined that the public hearing notice for the platting
portion of this project was incorrect. A new hearing process was necessary
and had been scheduled for this meeting.
Staff reported that none of the conditions of the plat had changed and
referred to the previous Staff Report of May 24, 1985, and the brief Staff
Report of June 7, 1985.
Acting Chair Gartner asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 10, 1985
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--3-0-1 (Acting Chair Gartner abstained)
MOTION 2•
Motion was made by Marnula, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Technology Park Associates for
preliminary plat of 66.31 acres into one lot and two outlots, and road
right-of-way, based on plans dated May 17, 1985, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports of April 19, May 10, and June 7, 1985.
Motion carried--3-0-1 (Acting Chair Gartner abstained)
C. MOUNT CURVE ADDITION, by Mount Curve Developers. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential on 2.24 acres, rezoning from Rural to RM-
6.5 for 2.24 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2.87 acres into ten lots
for eight townhouse units. A public hearing.
Mr. Bill Habeck, attorney for proponents, explained who the developers were
and gave a brief overview of the proposed development. Ms. Laurie Johnson,
engineer for proponents, reviewed the site plan, utilities, access, and
other details of the request with the Commission.
Ms. Johnson explained that there were duplexes and four-plexes to the north,
the golf course to the west, and single family uses to the east and south,
therefore, proponents felt their proposed use was a good transitional use to
the single family areas in the vicinity. She explained that, while the site
was approximately 75% covered with trees, the majority of those trees were
box elder and elm. Some oak trees were present on the site. She stated
that the site had been designed to preserve as many of the good trees and
the natural conditions of the site as possible. Ms. Johnson stated that the
large area in the southwest corner of the site, plus five of the six large
oak trees on the site, would be preserved. She noted that, according to the
report of the City Forester, the sixth tree was in fair to poor condition
and would likely not last for more than two years.
Ms. Johnson presented a single family plat of the property for comparison as
to the ability to preserve natural features of the site with such a design.
She showed that many more trees would be lost with such a design. Also,
such a design would leave small yard areas for the potential residents and
would provide clear visibility of the maintenance building of the golf
course, immediately to the west of the proposed development.
Mr. Habeck stated that the units would be priced between $150-175,000 each
and would be between 1,500-1,600 sq. ft.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of June 7, 1985, with the Commission. He stated that the report of
the City Forester revealed that the two most westerly large oak trees would
likely not live beyond another two years. He stated that, because of this,
Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 10, 1985
the City would not be asking for replacement of these trees within the
landscape plan for the site.
Marhula stated that while he considered clustering of the units to be a good
design for a site such as this in order to preserve the natural features, he
did not feel that clustering of the units automatically should mean
increased density for the project, as well . He asked how large the rear
yards of the multiple units would be. Ms. Johnson explained that they would
share the open space of the entire project.
Marhula asked whether the utilities for the project were intended to be
public or private. Ms. Johnson stated that proponents were still in the
process of reviewing this with the City Engineering Department. Marhula
stated that the plans indicated a hydrant located within a private lane.
Planner Enger stated that it was common for the City to require public
easements over the utilities in such a situation.
Bye noted that traffic in this area had been increasing over the recent
years and that, while this project would not likely significantly increase
traffic for the area, the City should keep this in mind as future
development occurs in this area. Mr. Habeck stated that this was one of the
consideration in designing the access to the project from Mount Curve Road,
instead of at Franlo Road.
Bye added that Anderson Lakes Parkway in this area had become a thoroughfare
for traffic and suggested that perhaps another road of that size may be
necessary to facilitate traffic through the area. Planner Enger stated that
Anderson Lakes Parkway was designed as a collector road through the area.
Eventually, it would be four lanes in width, instead of its current two
lanes. He stated that the City owns adequate right-of-way for the widening
of the road.
Gartner asked about the use of County Road #1 and County Road #18, to the
south, for traffic circulation. Planner Enger stated that these
intersections, too, were quite busy during peak hour traffic periods.
Marhula asked if there would be a homeowners' association with this
development for maintenance of the common areas and possibly private
utilities and roads. Mr. Habeck stated that this was being considered.
Gartner asked if the golf course would own the maintenance building. Mr.
Habeck stated that they would.
Mr. Bob Hawkinson, 9505-15 Clubhouse Road, expressed concern about the
amount of box elder trees, and, therefore, box elder bugs, in the area. He
stated that he felt these trees should all be removed. He also expressed
concern that vehicles exiting the site would shine car lights into his
windows across the street, and he asked that this be resolved. Mr.
Hawkinson also noted that traffic in this area for the morning peak hour was
heavy. He stated that he felt the residents of the proposed subdivision
would have a long wait to get onto Mount Curve Road.
Mr. Roland Broderson, 10752 Mount Curve Road, expressed concern that a
townhouse development may lower the value of his single family home.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 10, 1985
Mr. John Goggin, 10000 Sumac Circle, stated that he did not feel a proper
transition would be taking place with this project. He also expressed
concern about traffic in the area, stating that, in his neighborhood, there
were approximately 80 children, and that he was concerned about their safety
with increased traffic.
Mr. Jon Dodge, 11142 Mount Curve Road, stated that his home and the homes of
his neighbors were required to pass a review by an architectural review
committee before they were allowed to construct their homes. He asked
whether it would be possible for this project to be reviewed by the
architectural review committee and added that the existing homeowners would,
otherwise, have no assurance that the units built would fit with the
neighborhood.
Ms. Gloria Gran, 10435 Olympic Circle, stated that her home was located
south of the project and that she was concerned about screening of the
project from her neighborhood. She also expressed concern about drainage
from the property and whether development of the property would cause
additional water to stand on the lots in her neighborhood. Planner Enger
explained that the Engineering Department would review the storm water
drainage for the site and would take her concerns into account. Ms. Gran
added that, regarding traffic, she concurred with her neighbors that it was
becoming a problem for this area.
Mr. Mitchell Berg, 9610 Franlo Road, stated that he was the owner of the
home directly to the south of the project. He stated that it appeared to
him that a great deal of vegetation would be removed from the site, making
the units more visible to him. He asked if it would be possible to move the
units further to the north.
Ms. Dorothy Broderson, 10752 Mount Curve Road, expressed concern about
damage to the trees caused by construction. She stated that her main
objection was the requested Comprehensive Guide Plan change which would
allow greater density on this site.
Regarding the trees, Planner Enger stated that this developer would be
required to place snow fencing at the drip line of the trees, thereby
substantially reducing the potential for root damage. Further, if the trees
were damaged during construction, except for the two identified by the City
Forester as having short life spans currently, the developer would be
required to replace the trees per the formula noted in the Staff Report.
Gartner asked how much time it would take for a tree to show signs of damage
if it were damaged during the construction process. Staff responded that
this could take as long as two years. She asked if there was any way the
developer could be held liable after leaving the property. Staff responded
that bonding was maintained for a period of one year after completion of the
construction.
Gartner asked if the development was part of the Olympic Hills Homeowners'
Association. Mr. Habeck responded that they were not.
Staff suggested that his project may benefit from a neighborhood meeting as
many of the individuals in the area had questions about the details of the
Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 10, 1985
development for which the developer could have answers at the next Planning
Commission meeting.
Mr. Hugh Overstreet, 10246 Laurel Drive, asked how close the units would be
to Franlow Road. Ms. Johnson stated that they would be between 55-60 ft.
from the right-of-way line. Mr. Overstreet asked how high the berm would be
along Franlo Road. Planner Franzen stated that it would be approximately 16
ft. in height. Mr. Overstreet asked if this would cause sight vision
distance problems. Planner Franzen responded that, based upon the design of
the berm, there should be no such problem for the site.
Marhula stated that there were some positive aspect of the plan as designed,
but that several issues remained to be resolved, including the access to
Mount Curve Road, storm water drainage, whether there would be covenants for
the property, transition to the adjacent units, especially to the existing
house to the south.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to continue the public hearing
to the June 24, 1985, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponent to
resolve the issues raised at this meeting.
Motion carried--4-0-0
D. HAGEN SYSTEMS, by Hagen Systems. Request for Planned Unit
Development District Review on 20 acres, Zoning District Change from
Rural to I-2 Park, on 3.02 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 9.78 acres
into one lot and three outlots. A public hearing.
Mr. Al Hagen, proponent, stated that currently, Hagen Systems had 62
employees at their facility and that within the next three, or four, years,
that number was expected to double. He stated that the company made
computer system integrators and wrote software programs for various uses.
This building would be the corporate headquarters for their operation.
Mr. David Broesder, architect for proponent, reviewed the plans with the
Commission. He stated that the proponents had found that the soils of the
site were worse than was anticipated, which made it less feasible to spread
the building across the site. The northwest area of the lot proved to be
the best for the location of the structure. He noted that, because of the
site characteristics, the Hagen Systems building would appear to be 1-12
stories in height from most locations around the property. He pointed out
that there would be one bay for receipt of deliveries, with an overhead
door. There would be berming and plantings installed to screen this door.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of June 7, 1985, with the Commission. He stated that there were two
important recommendations for change to the plan: 1) Better access for the
site was necessary; and, 2) Screening of the parking and loading areas
needed to be strengthened from the views from Highway #169 and from the
proposed residential development to the north, including use of planting
islands. Planner Franzen stated that Staff and the proponents could work
this out prior to the Council meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 10, 1985
Marhula questioned the proposed access to the site, noting that the Staff-
recommended access appeared to be a better method for access to the
property. He also asked about pedestrian circulation for the development.
Staff responded that the pedestrian circulation system would be coordinated
with the entire City West development.
Acting Chair Gartner asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
Mr. Jerry Korsunsky, architect for proponent, stated that proponents would
like the opportunity to work out the access situation with the Staff.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hagen Systems for Planned Unit
Development District Review on 20 acres, and Zoning District Change from
Rural to I-2 Park, with variances, on 3.02 acres, based on plans dated April
22, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 7,
1985.
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hagen Systems for Preliminary Plat of
9.78 acres into one lot and three outlots, based on plans dated April 22,
1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 7, 1985.
Motion carried--4-0-0
E. HAMPTON INN, by Eden Prairie Hotel Investors. Request for Zoning
District Change from C-Regional to C-Regional Service, with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary
Plat of one lot and one outlot. A public hearing.
Mr. George Watson, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed site design
and site characteristics with the Commission. Planner Franzen reviewed the
findings and conclusions of the Staff Report of June 7, 1985.
Planner Enger stated that the Commission should be aware that any decision
• on this parcel would impact the potential flexibility of design on the
remaining parcel between the proposed Hampton Inn and the existing Residence
Inn to the southwest. The remaining parcel would end up with the private
drive access located through the middle of it, seeming to split the
remaining parcel into two parts.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 10, 1985
Mr. Wally Hustad, Jr., owner of the property, asked that the Commission
consider the Hampton Inn project based upon its own merits. He stated that
the buyers of the remaining parcel had been made aware of the location of
the private drive access through this parcel and that it would need to be
dealt with in their design of the site.
Dodge asked proponents why they were not proposing brick for the majority of
the exterior material. Mr. Bosio responded that he would need to clear this
with the corporate headquarters. The building proposed was one of the
standard designs of Hampton Inns.
Marhula stated that he found it difficult to recommend approval of a project
that would create a fragmented parcel such as that which would exist between
the existing Residence Inn site and the proposed Hampton Inn site. He
questioned whether the property would be usable by another use.
Marhula stated that when this property was first reviewed by the Commission
at the time the Residence Inn was before the City, the property owners had
stated that the use of this site would be for a full service hotel . The
Hampton Inn was not a full service hotel . Marhula questioned whether this
was the highest and best use of the property. He stated that he would not
be opposed to the use, if it worked for the site and fit with the
surrounding properties. Gartner concurred.
• Gartner stated that she would be especially concerned if a restaurant use
were proposed on the remaining parcel that patrons of the restaurant would
be required to cross the road splitting this parcel with the road being the
only access to the Residence Inn to the southwest.
Bye questioned whether the proposal for the Hampton Inn would impact the
ability of the remaining parcel to develop due to its being split by the
private road.
Dodge stated that she was concerned about the exterior materials for the
structure, as well as the landscaping proposed, based upon the Staff
evaluation of the need for screening for the site.
The Commission discussed possible methods of redesigning the site and
potential rearrangements of ownership of the parcels involved which would
avoid the problem created by the private road crossing the remaining parcel .
Mr. Bosio stated that he would like the opportunity to review the concerns
raised by the Commission and to return to the Commission with revisions to
the plan at their next meeting, if the issues could be resolved.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to continue the public hearing
• on this item to the June 24, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, allowing
proponent the opportunity to resolve the issues raised by the Commission.
Further, the Planning Staff is authorized to publish the item for review by
the City Council at its meeting of July 2, 1985.
Motion carried--4-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 10, 1985
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye.
Acting Chair Gartner adjourned the meeting at 12:50 a.m.
•