Loading...
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. •