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