Loading...
Planning Commission - 11/12/1985 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 12, 1985 Room 5 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; Don Uram, Assistant 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. ALPINE VILLAGE, by Habiger & Associates, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 7.58 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-22 to RM 6.5 on 7.58 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into 21 lots for construction of 19 townhomes. Location: East of Alpine Trail , South of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. A continued public hearing. (8:00) B. SIGNATURE II OFFICE BUILDING, by MRTT Joint Venture. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 20 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, on 20 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 4.07 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 4.07 acres into one lot for construction of a 54,000 square foot office building. Location: West of U.S. #169, East of City West Parkway. A continued public hearing. (8:30) C. FLYING CLOUD OFFICE BUILDING, by Oakwood Builders. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 2.29 acres for construction of a 10,000 square foot office/warehouse. Location: South of Pioneer Trail , east of Highway #169. A public meeting. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES . EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 12, 1985 Special Meeting Room 5, School Administration Building 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to adopt the agenda as printed. • Motion carried--7-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Gartner, to approve the minutes of the October 28, 1985, Planning Commission meeting at printed. Motion carried--5-0-2 (Chairman Schuck and Johannes abstained) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. ALPINE VILLAGE, by Habiger & Associates, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 7.58 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 7.58 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat .of 8.36 acres into 21 lots for construction of 19 townhomes. Location: East of Alpine Trail, South of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. A continued public hearing. It Planner Enger explained that this was the third time the proponent had been Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 12, 1985 before the Commission with this project. Revisions had been made to the plans and additional information provided for City review. Mr. Charles Habiger, proponent, reviewed the three-dimensional model and graphics depicting proposed screening with the Commission. He stated that he had also spoken with the property owner to the east regarding a utility easement for extension of sanitary sewer to the proposed development. He stated that negotiations had been started, but that the property owner to the east had determined that he did not want to have an easement through his property. Mr. Habiger stated that, due to this response, proponents would be asking the City to participate in the extension of the sanitary sewer and in obtaining the necessary easements for the development. Mr. Habiger reviewed the issued of property value. He stated that the value of the units proposed for construction was within the same range, or higher, than those existing in the neighborhood at this time. Mr. Habiger stated that it was not the responsibility of the developer to provide for a private park for the neighborhood by allowing this property to remain undeveloped, that the land owner had a right to develop the property. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 8, 1985 with the Commission. He stated that the major issue was that of land use compatibility with the existing residential uses in • this neighborhood. Gartner asked why the proponents were requesting a variance to allow for greater height of the structures by eight feet. Mr. Habiger responded that it was their desire to work with the topography of the site and not disturb the natural "lay of the land" any more than necessary. Gartner asked what the maximum length of a cul-de-sac could be according to City requirements. Planner Enger responded that the maximum length allowed was 500 feet. Proponents were requesting a 900 ft. long cul-de-sac. Planner Enger noted that there were other cases of such lengthy cul-de-sacs in the City where other alternatives were not available for various reasons. Marhula asked if the cul-de-sac would be temporary, or permanent. Planner Enger responded that it would likely be temporary and eventually the road would be connected to development to the east. Gartner asked whether it would be possible to have a different type of development occur on this property, without City review, if an approval was granted for the 19-unit proposal currently before the Commission. Planner Enger responded that the City took precautions to see that what was approved was developed. For example, the City entered into an agreement with each developer regarding any particular parcel . In each agreement, a specific set of plans were always referred to, those plans being the ones reviewed and approved by the City. Also, the zoning ordinance approved for any parcel was tied to those specifically approved plans. Planner Enger noted that, within the agreement, there was also a clause regarding the conditions of the agreement passing on to any heirs, successors, or assigns of the property. If any changes were desired for the approved plans, it would require review again by the Planning Commission and City Council based on Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 12, 1985 • this condition. Hallett asked about developing the property as Low Density Residential with traditional single family homes. Planner Enger responded that Staff had reviewed the alternative of using the same road alignment as proposed for the townhome development, but, instead, platting single family lots along this road. He stated that it was a feasible plan, which would not necessarily require sewer and water for development. Planner Enger stated that this "single family" plan had been reviewed by the City Engineer. The City Engineer's response was that the smallest lot which could be approved without sewer and water would have to be a half-acre lot, that he would not be comfortable without sewer and water on any lots smaller than a half-acre in size. Mr. Barry Kramer, 7000 Alpine Trail, expressed concern about the potential for traffic problems in the area with the addition of this development. He stated that recent traffic counts had been done for this area; however, he added that he did not feel the traffic counts had been taken in the appropriate location. Mr. Kramer stated that he felt traffic counts should be considered along Alpine Trail, since, in his opinion, the majority of the traffic would be routed along Alpine Trail . Mr. Kramer noted that Alpine Trail was only 26 ft. wide, adding that, with cars parked on either side, the width of this road would be prohibitive for carrying as much traffic as was planned by this proposed development, in addition to the existing . traffic on the road. Mr. Kramer expressed concern for the safety of children in the neighborhood, also. He pointed out that the intersection of Alpine Trail and Hillcrest Lane was a school bus stop. He stated that he did not feel that the sight lines at this intersection were such that the children would be easily seen by traffic. Mr. Kramer presented slides of the intersections discussed. Mr. Al Bode, 16090 Alpine Way, stated that he was still concerned about the difference in land use proposed for the site. He added that he did not feel a Comprehensive Guide Plan change was in order for the property. Mr. Bode stated that the majority of the people in the neighborhood with whom he had spoken had told him that the City had the area zoned as R1-22 and guided for Low Density Residential land use. Mr. Bode stated that he felt this must be the information that the developer had, as well. Mr. Bode stated that he felt the developer's requests for variance to height of the structures and for length of cul-de-sac should not be approved in any case. He asked what the benefit would be to anyone but the developer, in the event these variances were granted. Regarding the property value information provided by the developer at this, and the previous, Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Bode stated that he felt it was not appropriate for the developer to be using assessed valuation for comparison purposes as it was a known fact that assessed value could be significantly lower than market value for property. Mr. Bode also questioned the ability of the developer to sell the townhouse units given the recent information in newspapers regarding the abundance of townhomes in the Metropolitan Area. Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 12, 1985 Mr. Dwight Harvey, 16190 Alpine Way, expressed concern about the requirement for a sanitary sewer connection to be paid for by the City, instead of by the developer. He stated that he had spoken with Mr. Anderson, owner of the property to the east, regarding his wishes for development at this time. Mr. Anderson indicated to him that he was not prepared to develop at this time and was not in favor of granting an easement for purposes of extension of a sanitary sewer line across his property. At this time, Mr. Anderson's property had been established as a wildlife santuary by Mr. Anderson, himself. Mr. Harvey stated that, in his opinion, it appeared that the developer was taking advantage of this property owner just for the purpose of developing, without offering anything in return. Mr. Harvey expressed concern about the compatibility of the proposed multiple family use with the existing single family neighborhood, which had been in place for 20-25 years. He noted that in the eleven years he had lived in his home, that the two owners of the property proposed for development that he knew had been content to leave the property in its present state, with a family living in the A-frame house. Mr. Harvey stated that he did not feel the existing neighborhood was against development, completely, for this property, only that they were against any multiple family units being developed on the property. He stated that he felt the issue was one of consistency. Mr. Harvey stated that the developer had stated that only three homes would • have direct visual impact from the proposed multiple family units being developed on this property. He then presented slides indicating that other existing homes would also have views of the structures. Mr. Harvey noted that because the developer wanted to place 20 ft. of fill on the property and because the developer was also requesting a variance to allow for the structures to be 38 ft. in height, that many of the existing homes in the single family neighborhood would have views of the proposed units, not just three of them. Mr. Harvey stated that he had found that all developments in the area to the north and west had generally been single family over the past several years. He stated that, if this development was approved, it would be the only townhouse development north of Highway #5, as far north as the Eden Prairie north municipal boundary. Mr. John Lyngdal, 16170 Alpine Way, stated that he concurred with Mr. Harvey regarding the fact that the existing neighborhood was not "anti- development," but that they did not want a multiple family development approved for this property. He stated that he felt the developer should have known about the difficulties of this site all along. Marhula stated that he felt the multiple family units provided for as little disruption of the topography as would be possible for development of this property; however, he added that he was concerned about the compatibility of the land use with the existing neighborhood. Marhula asked if the proponents would be requesting the City to install the sanitary sewer with a public improvement project. Mr. Habiger responded that this was the case. Mr. Habiger added that the proposed location of the easement through Mr. Anderson's property to the east was in the best Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 12, 1985 possible location for Mr. Anderson to develop his property at some point in the future. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 Marhula asked if the City ever became involved in the condemnation of property for purposes of extension of sanitary sewer to service development. Planner Enger responded that condemnation was one of the most expensive methods for a City to use in a situation like this. He stated that the proponents had indicated that they would cover all of the City's costs, if this became necessary in order to obtain sanitary sewer for the property. Planner Enger added that it was the City Council that most often became involved in these matters. Hallett asked if Mr. Anderson would be reimbursed for his property if it were condemned. Planner Enger stated that it would require a court proceeding to do so, but that the settlements were often generous. Gartner asked if the proponents had agreed to pay for the sanitary sewer line across Mr. Anderson's property. Planner Enger stated that the City • Staff had received a letter to that effect. Gartner asked how long the extension of pipe would be. Planner Enger responded that it would be approximately 1,100 ft. Marhula asked if other alternatives for servicing the property with sanitary sewer had been explored, suggesting that possibly a lift station would be a viable alternative. Planner Enger responded that Staff had reviewed the possibility of a temporary lift station, but that City policy was to install a lift station only as a last resort. Planner Enger stated that there was continual maintenance required with lift stations over the life of the system, which could be costly. Gartner asked if the amount of fill proposed, 20 ft., would end up damaging many of the existing trees. Planner Enger stated that this should not be the case. He stated that some trees would be lost, regardless of the type of construction done on the property; however, the majority of them would be saved. Planner Uram reviewed the landscape plan for the development, indicating the trees to be saved, those to be lost, and those to be replaced by the developer. Planner Enger stated that, upon review of the grading plan for the development, it was Staff's opinion that the amount of grading shown was the least amount of grading likely to take place for development of this property. He stated that both plans, single family development and multiple family development, both with the same road system, would likely be equal in terms of preservation of the natural features of the site. Chairman Schuck asked if the proponents were willing to consider development of the property as R1-22, instead. Mr. Habiger stated that, if the townhouse development was not approved by the City, then the proponents 0 Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 12, 1985 would likely return with a single family development proposal for the property. Marhula stated that it was not a question of density at this time, but one of housing style and neighborhood styles. He stated that one of the questions that the Commission must answer was what the incentive would be to approve a development of this type in this location. Marhula pointed out that Staff had determined that there was no difference between the multiple family and single family development approaches to this property in terms of preservation of natural features, therefore there would be no "trade-off" for approving a multiple family development on this property. Marhula stated that he was concerned about the compatibility of the neighborhoods. Dodge asked what would happen if the Planning Commission recommended approval of this project and the City Council did not approve the extension of sanitary sewer. Planner Enger responded that the project would not be built in that case. Johannes asked if attached units were allowed in the R1-22 Zoning District. Planner Enger responded that they were not. Marhula asked if any duplexes existed in this area. Planner Enger responded that there were three. • MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Habiger and Associates, Inc., for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to RM-6.5 for 7.58 acres, based on the finding that the plans for multiple family development are not compatible with the adjacent and existing single family neighborhood.. Motion carried--7-0-0 Marhula noted that the neighborhood should be aware that the development of the property as single family may mean greater traffic volumes in the future. B. SIGNATURE II OFFICE BUILDING, by MRTT Joint Venture. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 20 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, on 20 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 4.07 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 4.07 acres into one lot for construction of a 54,000 square foot office building. Location: West of U.S. #169, East of City West Parkway. A continued public hearing. Planner Franzen stated that this project had been continued to this meeting from the October 7, 1985, Special Planning Commission meeting, pending additional study of the traffic for the area. He noted that the additional traffic data had been submitted, and that it was found that there would not be an increase in traffic beyond what was originally planned for this area. Planner Enger explained that the major difference came from the fact that the commercial center located at the southeast corner of City West Parkway Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 12, 1985 and Shady Oak Road had eliminated a fast food restaurant from its proposed uses, thereby reducing the traffic generation for the entire development. Marhula stated that, at the last meeting regarding this project, the Commission discussed the traffic for this area and the fact that much of the area that had already been developed was generating less traffic than originally predicted in the first traffic study for the City West development. He asked if the lesser volumes had been considered when this recently revised traffic study had been done, as the City had considered this a contributing factor to approval of these developments. Planner Enger stated that it had been taken into consideration. Marhula asked if there was additional traffic volume available for this development. Planner Enger stated that there was not, in Staff's opinion. He added that the traffic volume which would now be generated by the development of the City West area was now reduced to the point which the City had been comfortable with previously. He stated that the traffic volumes were now at the level considered acceptable at the time of review of the commercial center at the southeast corner of City West Parkway and Shady Oak Road. Marhula stated that it appeared that there were two "fronts" to the structure. Mr. David Broesder, architect for proponent, reviewed the architectural design for the project. • Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of MRTT Joint Venture for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 20 acres Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, on 20 acres, and Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 4.07 acres for an office building to be known as Signature II, based on plans dated September 25, 1985, and the traffic study dated November 6, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated October 4, and November 8, 1985. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of MRTT Joint Venture for Preliminary Plat of 4.07 acres into one lot for an office building to be known as Signature II, based on plans dated September 25, 1985, and the traffic study dated November 6, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated Planning Commission Minutes 8 November 12, 1985 October 4, and November 8, 1985. Motion carried--7-0-0 C. FLYING CLOUD OFFICE BUILDING, by Oakwood Builders. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 2.29 acres for construction of a 10,000 square foot office/warehouse. Location: South of Pioneer Trail , east of Highway #169. A public meeting. Mr. Jack Haverly, Oakwood Builders, reviewed the site plan and surrounding development conditions with the Commission. Planner Enger reviewed the history of development in this area as detailed in the Staff Report. He pointed out that there had been a resolution adopted by the City Council listing conditions which must be met prior to the City considering any further development of this area. Planner Enger stated that all the conditions of that resolution had now been satisfied. Johannes expressed concern regarding the Schaitberger home adjacent to the proposed development. He stated that he could understand the point of the developer in orienting his structure toward Highway #169 for exposure to the public, but that he also felt the Schaitberger home should be protected and visually buffered properly from this industrial use. Johannes asked how high a berm would have to be to screen the building from the Schaitberger home. Planner Enger responded that it would have to be at least as high as the structure, itself. Mr. Haverly explained the uses within the building. He noted that the structure was only 68 ft. wide and would not support the type of industrial truck bays necessary for large trucks. Hallett concurred with Johannes that the major difficulty with the project would be screening from the Schaitberger home. He stated that he felt it was clear that the conditions of the resolution adopted by Council had been met. Marhula stated that he, too, was concerned about the screening of the use from the Schaitberger home. He asked if any additional information would be helpful in reviewing this matter, such as sight lines. Mr. Harold Schaitberger, 12880 Pioneer Trail, read a statement to the Planning Commission regarding his concerns on the property. Chairman Schuck directed that the letter become a permanent part of the file on this project. Mr. Schaitberger indicated in the statement that he was against the construction of the structure as it would make his home the only buffer between the existing residential units on one side of him and the industrial use proposed. Mr. Schaitberger suggested that it would make sense to combine his parcel with the property proposed for development, or with the property to the east. Hallett asked what type of land use would likely occur in this area once development was completed in this neighborhood. Planner Enger stated that it could be industrial between Pioneer Trail and County Road #1, but that other uses could also be considered. Currently, industrial use was shown on the Comprehensive Guide Plan for this area. Planning Commission Minutes 9 November 12, 1985 Mr. Haverly stated that he and his partners had spoken with Mr: Schaitberger regarding the addition of his property to their parcel for development. He pointed out that he did not need additional property for the size building being proposed. Johannes stated that he felt it would be best to combine Mr. Schaitberger's property with the property to the east for future development. It was noted in discussion that the City could not force this, however. Dodge stated that she felt the City owed Mr. Schaitberger an answer to his questions regarding land use and buffering from the proposed use. Bye concurred. Mrs. Virginia Gunnerson, owner of the property proposed for development, stated that she had been attempting to sell the property for some time. She stated that she felt it was important for the City to have a long term plan for the area and added that she had always been under the impression that the use of the property would be industrial . Mrs. Gunnerson added that she did not feel it was appropriate to ask for screening for the Schaitberger residence which would eventually be removed when that property was developed as industrial in the future. Mr. Gene Peterson, one of the future owners of the structure, stated that he felt it was unfair for Mr. Schaitberger to be in a position to stall, or • hold up, development on the Gunnerson property in this situation. He stated that he had discussed the matter with Mr. Schaitberger and had considered purchasing the property, but that the price was too high. MOTION: Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Bye, to continue the consideration of this project to the December 9, 1985, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow proponents time to address sight line and screening issues and to allow time for the neighbors to work out their differences on development of this property. Motion carried--7-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS December 23, 1985, Planning Commission Meeting Planner Enger noted that the second meeting in December would fall during Christmas week and suggested that the meeting be cancelled as there were no projects pending which would be scheduled for this meeting. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to cancel the regularly scheduled December 23, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 10 November 12, 1985 Motion carried--7-0-0 VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m