Planning Commission - 07/22/1985 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, July 22, 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
A. HIGHWAY #101/VALLEY VIEW ROAD, by City of Eden Prairie. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on six lots totalling
3.62 acres. A public meeting.
B. CARDINAL CREEK VILLAGE, by Chimo Development Corporation. Request
for reconsideration of a Planned Unit Development Concept Review and
Environmental Assessment Worksheet for up to 249 units (208-249
units) of multiple family development on 40.7 acres. A public
hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTE
is EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, July 22, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Robert Hallett, Stan
Johannes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Dennis Marhula
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative
Assistant, Don Uram, Assistant Planner
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION•
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Bye, to adopt the agenda as printed.
Motion carried--4-0-0
• II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Johannes, to approve the minutes of the
July 8, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as written.
Motion carried--3-0-1 (Hallett abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. HIGHWAY #101/VALLEY VIEW ROAD, by City of Eden Prairie. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on six lots totalling
3.62 acres. A public meeting.
Planner Franzen explained that this item was Staff-initiated as a
"housekeeping" matter. He stated that the property involved was currently
zoned Rural ; however, four of the six lots involved already had homes built
upon them. In review of the requested building permit for the two remaining
lots, it was discovered by Staff that the zoning for the property was not
R1-22 as assumed. Therefore, rezoning of all the property was in order.
it The owner of the two remaining lots would be processing an administrative
Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 22, 1985
combination of the two lots through the City Engineering Department.
Planner Franzen stated that all of the lots would meet the requirements of
the R1-22 Zoning District change proposed.
Johannes asked about the requirement for Cash Park Fees for the lots.
Planner Franzen explained that it has been City policy to collect the Cash
Park Fee at the time of building permit issuance for all properties within
the City. Therefore, this fee would be due for the remaining lot, only, at
the time of building permit issuance.
Mr. Jim Skrank, 7131-192nd Avenue West, asked if the change from Rural to
R1-22 zoning would have an impact on the amount of taxes paid for the
properties involved. Planner Franzen stated that he had reviewed this with
the City Assessor. The homes in this area had been assessed as single
family homes in the past and the rezoning would have no impact on this.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 for six
lots, totalling 3.62 acres, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated July 19, 1985.
Motion carried--4-0-0
B. CARDINAL CREEK VILLAGE, by Chimo Development Corporation. Request
for reconsideration of a Planned Unit Development Concept Review and
Environmental Assessment Worksheet for up to 249 units (209-249
units) of multiple family development on 40.7 acres. A public
hearing.
This item was referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council at its
May 21, 1985, meeting upon the request by , the proponents for the City to
reconsider their revised plans for the Planned Unit Development Concept of
Cardinal Creek Village and the accompanying Environmental Assessment
Worksheet.
Planner Franzen reviewed the previous plans with the Commission, along with
the actions recommended and approved by the various City Commissions and the
City Council .
Mr. Greg Kallenberger, Chimo Development, reviewed the changes in the plan
from the previous Planning Commission review of the project. He stated that
the density in the southwest portion of the property, that area south and
west of the proposed major road through the project, had been changed to 1.4
units per acre gross density, or, 2.5 units per acre net density. The
northeast portion of the property was now shown at 8.6 units per acre gross
density, or 9.7 units per acre net density. He added that the amount of
open space was now proposed at approximately 65%. Mr. Kallenberger
explained that the original concept of the developer had been to provide a
"village" type of development for the property, and that that idea had been
revived in the revised plans, with more, smaller buildings for the site.
Mr. Roger Frieberg, architect for proponents, reviewed the revised
Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 22, 1985
architectural plans with the Commission. He pointed out that the proponents
had changed the name of the major street through the project from Cardinal
Creek Road, which was objected to by some of the existing neighbors, to
Stonewood Court, instead. Mr. Frieberg indicated the location of the
proposed recreation building for the property, and explained the changes in
architecture in detail .
Hallett asked about the size of the units proposed. Mr. Kallenberger
responded that the units, overall , were larger than previously proposed.
For example, the largest units previously proposed were approximately 1,000
sq. ft. Now the largest units proposed were 1,100 sq. ft. Also, he stated
that there were a greater number of larger units in this proposal, than in
the previous submission. Mr. Kallenberger stated that the price range of
the units would be between $600-$900 per month.
Chairman Schuck stated that, previously, there had been concern about the
amount of alteration necessary to the hill in the central portion of the
project. He asked if this was the case with this proposal and whether
retaining walls would be necessary in order for the structures to be built
as proposed. Planner Franzen indicated that the level of detail necessary
to review the need for retaining walls had not been provided by the
proponents at this stage of the development, but would be necessary as
further development of the property was reviewed by the City. He stated
that, based upon the plan submitted, any density greater that the bottom of
• the range of 209 units would have to be justified by the developer. As
presented, Staff would be willing to recommend approval of the lower end of
the density range proposed, only.
Planner Franzen stated that one of the concerns of Staff in review of the
project was the curb view of the project. The change to more clustered and
smaller buildings provided a greater view of the garages and parking areas,
detracting from the curb appeal of the project. The Staff report stated
that the previous six criteria for review of future development of the
project would still apply.
Johannes stated that he agreed that the design of the project appeared
"tight," and would look much like the Residence Inn project along Highway
#169. He stated that he felt the project would have a massive look as
proposed. Johannes stated that he also felt that transition would be a
major consideration for this project. He suggested that the larger
buildings of the previous proposal, with architectural treatment to provide
better scale, and provision of more open space, might have been a better
approach to the development of this property. Johannes stated that he was
not as concerned about the number of units for the project as he was about
the look of the project.
Hallett stated that he was pleased that the number of units had been
reduced.
Bye stated that she was concerned about the curb appeal of the project. She
41 stated that she felt there was too much view of driveways and garages from
the interior of the project, as well .
Johannes asked about the length of the building at the southeast corner of
Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 22, 1985
the project. Planner Franzen responded that it was approximately 200 feet.
By comparison, recent apartment projects in the City had shown buildings of
290 feet in length. Johannes stated that he was concerned about the wide-
angle view of the structures. He asked what the distance was between the
structures. Mr. Frieberg responded that it varied between 30 and 70 feet.
By comparison, the Residence Inn had buildings between 20 and 40 feet apart.
Mr. Floyd Siefferman, Jr., 6997 Edgebrook Place, presented pictures of
Bryant Lake from the property, stating that this was a unique parcel which
should be developed carefully. He expressed concern that the revised
proposal resulted in less open space than was previously shown by the
developers. Mr. Siefferman suggested that the development be reduced to
approximately 168 units, instead of 209. He stated that the developers had
previously represented that the units would be owner-occupied, but were now
stating that the units would be rented, instead, and expressed concern about
the upkeep of the units and the area in general, if the units were rented,
as opposed to owned by people living in the area. He stated that he felt
the sizes of the units proposed were still small .
Mr. Siefferman stated that he felt there was a fault in the City's PUD
ordinance in that there was not a cap provided for the amount of density
increase that would be allowed for a PUD. He also expressed concern for the
crowding of Forest Hills Elementary School in this area and stated that this
should be taken into consideration in planning for this development.
• Mr. Roger Swigart, 13184 Cardinal Creek Road, reviewed the number of
apartment projects that existed in the City of Eden Prairie, and the number
being proposed. He then reviewed the developments within the vicinity of
the existing Cardinal Creek area and stated that he did not feel a precedent
had been set for the level of density proposed by this developer for this
area.
Mr. Swigart pointed out that, during previous review of the project by the
City, the developer had agreed to work out a more creative design of the
road connection between the proposed and existing areas of Cardinal Creek.
He stated that he did not feel this had been done yet by the developer. Mr.
Swigart stated that the developer was currently proposing a 25 ft. cut in
the central portion of the property and noted that this would mean the
cutting of a tree stand in this area. He showed a slide of the trees
involved. He pointed out that the removal of these trees, which were
greater than twelve inches in diameter, would be in violation of City policy
regarding preservation of trees.
Mr. Swigart expressed concern for the resultant view of this project from I-
494. He stated that those vehicles travelling north on I-494 would have a
view of seven separate levels of structures based on the current plan and
that this would present a massive view of the structures, with no break for
trees, or open space.
Mr. Swigart stated that he did not feel the developer had adequately
addressed the problem of the north access to the property. In addition, he
expressed concern that this would not be an "up scale" development as stated
by the developer, based on the rental rates proposed.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 22, 1985
i
Mr. Swigart stated that in 1985, approximately 50% of the units proposed
were apartment units. He stated that he felt the City should call a halt to
development of so many multiple units in the community.
Mr. Art Roberts, 13543 Woodmere Circle, expressed concern for the lack of
transition provided to the existing residential development to the south in
existing Cardinal Creek. He stated that he felt the units should be owned,
not rented, as the developer had originally represented. Mr. Roberts
pointed out that the request of the developer was for 20% greater density
than was approved by the City Council .
Mr. Gordon Alexander, 6895 Sand Ridge Road, stated that he felt 209 units
was still too much density for this property by about 25% and that he did
not feel the developer was looking at the property carefully enough in order
to design a project that would work with this area. He also expressed
concern about potential traffic problems in the future, especially along
existing Cardinal Creek Road. Mr. Alexander pointed out that he did not
feel the developer was adequately protecting -the hills of the project, any
more than was proposed by the previous plan.
Mr. Oscar Miller, 6521 Baker Road, stated that he had heard much about the
developer wanting to use his property for provision of better access from
the north end of the development. He stated that, while he had no objection
to his property being used for the road, he did not feel he should pay for
this road when the benefit for the road would all accrue to other property
than his own. He stated that he had no assurances from the developer that
he would be paid for his property, and further, he had no intention of
selling, or moving, from his land. Mr. Miller stated that he felt since the
developers would receive the profits from the property, the developers
should pay for the road, not him, or the City.
Johannes stated that he was unsure whether the City was able to control
whether the units were rented, or owned, for any project. He pointed out
that condominiums could still be rented out by individual owners of the
units, as could single family homes.
Johannes stated that he felt the Commission was still in a position to make
a negative recommendation for a project of 209 units if the developers did
not meet the criteria discussed and approved for the development of this
property. Other Commissioners concurred.
Hallett asked that the City Forester be requested to review the trees in the
central portion of the development, as mentioned by Mr. Swigart, in order to
determine their type, size, etc. , and report back to the Commission prior to
the next stage of development of this proposal. Hallett asked about the
connection of the development to the existing area of Cardinal Creek. Mr.
Kallenberger responded that the developers had not been able to complete the
plan to that level of detail at this time. However, they would be willing
to do whatever the City felt necessary to meet the needs of the neighbors in
this case in order to make use of the road connection by the future Cardinal
Creek Village residents less -desirable.
Hallett asked for Staff's response to the statement about too much multiple
residential development in the community. Planner Franzen stated that this
Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 22, 1985
site had been designated on the Comprehensive Guide Plan for Medium Density
Residential development for years. He stated that it is also a known fact
that development, like many things, was cyclical . The current economic
situation was one which made it desirable to develop multiple residential
properties. He pointed out that very little multiple residential
development had taken place within the recent past, even prior to 1980.
During 1983 and 1984, for example, the economic situation was one which made
it more desirable to develop commercial/industrial properties, and the City
had an influx of that type of development. Planner Franzen pointed out that
the projects being proposed as multiple residential this year had been on
property which had been designated for such uses by the Comprehensive Guide
Plan.
Chairman Schuck stated that he felt the developers had a unique piece of
property to deal with for this development. He stated that he felt the
challenge was to the developers to be creative in order to propose a
development that would work on this site. Chairman Schuck stated that he
felt the developers should stick to the lowest end of the density range,
near 209 units, and that the problems discussed at this meeting should be
mitigated by creative design for this development. He stated that he felt
the terrain of the property demanded special treatment of the property.
Mr. Kallenberger stated that the developers mainly wanted to have a range of
units established for this development at this point in time. Chairman
Schuck stated that he felt it was clear from the discussion at this meeting
that the Commission was looking for development of the property around 209
units, and not greater, based on the plans presented, even though the
request was for a range of 209-249. The other Commissioners concurred.
Bye stated that she could only agree that the concept of 209-249 units was
an acceptable range based on the general nature of the information
presented. She added that she would want to see detailed plans at the next
stage of this development before she would agree that a plan within that
density range would be acceptable and stated that the plan would have to
meet the criteria listed within the Staff Report even to achieve a density
of 209 units.
Hallett stated that he did not feel that 249 units was possible for this
property and that the developers would have to be closer to 209 units for
the entire property. He added that he felt they would have to prove that
209 units would work based on the criteria of the Staff Report, that 209
units was not automatically approved for the site.
Chairman Schuck stated that he felt the developers still had an opportunity
for more than 209 units, but not based upon the plans presented at this
time. He encouraged the developers to be creative with their design and to
put their talents to work to present a plan which would fit into the
community within the guidelines listed in the Staff Report.
qL MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--4-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 22, 1985
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Chimo Development for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment for Cardinal Creek Village, for a range of
209-249 units on 40.7 acres, based on plans dated July 12, 1985, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report of July 19, 1985.
Motion carried--4-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council to submit to the State Environmental Quality Board for review the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Cardinal Creek Village, for a range
of 209-249 units on 40.7 acres, by Chimo Development, based on plans dated
July 12, 1985, with a finding of no significant impact.
Motion carried--4-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Bye, seconded by Hallett.
Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m.