Loading...
Planning Commission - 03/24/1986 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 24, 1986 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling 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. HOLAND ADDITION, by David V. Holand. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on two acres and Preliminary Plat of two acres into four single family residential . Location: Creekridge and Bennett Place. A public hearing. (8:00) B. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER 3RD ADDITION, by Ryan Construction. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 15.91 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with Zoning District Change from I-2 park to Office on 6.3 acres for construction of a 69,500 square foot office building. Location: North of Shady Oak Road, west of City West Parkway. A public hearing. (8:45) C. THE RIDGE, by Dirlam Development. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review of 152.4 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 3.2 acres, Rural to R1-9.5 on 6.8 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 10 acres into 17 single family lots. Location: Northwest of Kilmer Avenue, west of Atherton Way. A public hearing. (9:30) D. WENDELL A. PHILLIPPI. Request for Flood Plain and Shoreland for three bridges over Purgatory Creek. Location: 10300 Riverview Road. A public meeting. 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 i EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 24, 1986 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson (7:45 p.m.), Julianne Bye (7:40 p.m. ), Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Chuck Ruebling STAFF PRESENT: 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 Hallett to adopt the agenda as printed. Motion carried--5-0-0 . II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to approve the minutes of the February 24, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--4-0-1 (Ruebling abstained) (Bye arrived at 7:40 p.m.) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. HOLAND ADDITION, by David V. Holand. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on two acres and Preliminary Plat of two acres into four single family residential . Location: Creekridge and Bennett Place. A public hearing. Mr. David Noland explained that the proposed development involved the platting of his property into four single family lots, similar to those already existing in the area. Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 24, 1986 Planner Uram reviewed the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report of 9 p March 7, 1986. He noted that Bennett Place was not improved in this area, but that it would be at some time in the future. Planner Uram stated that an assessment agreement would be necessary at the time of second reading for this development in order to guarantee that the assessments would be taken care of in the future. Gartner asked how the assessment agreement would be handled. Planner Uram responded that the assessment agreement would be part of the developer's agreement and recorded with the deed(s) for the property. Hallett asked if there was a pedestrian system in this area. Planner Uram stated that there was none at this time. Planner Franzen stated that, as part of the upgrading of Bennett Place in the future, there would be a requirement for a bituminous trail, or sidewalk, along on, or both, sides of the right-of-way for the road. He suggested that, if the Commission felt strongly about this, a recommendation regarding a trail and/or walkway should be made to the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, which would be reviewing this item prior to City Council review and action. Ruebling asked if there would be adequate space available within the right- of-way proposed to be dedicated to allow for trail and/or sidewalk construction in the future. Planner Franzen responded that there would be. Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or 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--6-0-0 MOTION 2• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Mr. and Mrs. Noland for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 1.92 acres for the D. Noland Addition, based on plans dated February 28, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 21, 1986. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Mr. and Mrs. Holand for preliminary plat of 1.92 acres for the D. Holand Addition, based on plans dated February 28, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 21, 1985, with recommendation to the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission that a bituminous trail and/or sidewalk be considered within the right-of-way along Bennett Place. Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 24, 1986 Motion carried--6-0-0 (Anderson arrived at 7:45 p.m.) B. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER 3RD ADDITION, by Ryan Construction. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment for 15.91 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with Zoning District Change from PUD-11-84-I-2 Park to Office on 6.3 acres for construction of a 69,500 square foot office building. Location: North of Shady Oak Road, west of City West Parkway. A public hearing. Mr. Bob Cutshall , Ryan Construction, reviewed the previously approved industrial project for this property by Ryan Construction. He then explained the proposed revisions to office uses which were designed to take better advantage of the natural amenities of the property. Mr. Cutshall noted picnic areas and the changes in landscaping from the previous plan. Mr. Cutshall explained that many of the tenants of the first and second additions of City West Business Center had indicated a preference for one- story office space, instead of two-story space. He also noted that this plan would have two more parking spaces than the previously approved plan, adding that proponents were willing to amend the plans to reflect the suggestion in the Staff Report of March 21, 1986, regarding the location of • the "proof-of-parking" area and the addition of a 10-12 ft. wide green space at the south end of the structure. Regarding screening of the mechanical equipment, Mr. Cutshall asked that proponents be allowed some level of flexibility regarding the details of the materials to be used for screening, as the type and sized of mechanical units had not yet been chosen for the project. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of March 21, 1986. Chairman Schuck asked if there would be several tenants in the structure, or just one tenant. Mr. Cutshall responded that there would be several . Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or 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 Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Ryan Construction for Planned Qnit Development Concept Amendment on 15.91 acres for City West Business Center 3rd Addition, based on plans and written materials dated March 7, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 21, 1986. Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 24, 1986 i 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 Ryan Construction for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from PUD-11-84-I-2 Park to Office for 6.3 acres, based on plans and written materials dated March 7, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 21, 1986. Motion carried--7-0-0 C. THE RIDGE, by Dirlam Development. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review of 152.4 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 3.2 acres, Rural to R1-9.5 on 6.8 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 10 acres into 17 single family lots. Location: Northwest of Kilmer Avenue, west of Atherton Way. A public hearing. Mr. Dennis Dirlam, proponent, reviewed the site' characteristics, including the topography, the location of the designated flood plain area, the marshlands, and existing trees and ponding areas. He then reviewed the plat • design features, noting the trail and the proposed road connections to existing roads east of the property. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of March 21, 1986, with the Commission. Hallett asked about the proposed street frontages for the lots. Planner Uram stated that the average lot width at the street frontage was 85-90 ft. with Alternative A of the Staff Report. Mr. Dennis Marhula, representing proponent, stated that the proponent would be attempting to purchase an additional 20-30 ft. to the south of the property, which could potentially be divided amongst all the lots in order to allow each lot to meet the minimum requirement for street frontage within the R1-13.5 Zoning District. Gartner asked how the property would be accessed if the project to the northwest was not developed at the same time, or before, this property. Mr. Dirlam stated that access was available at Kilmer Lane, which currently came to a dead end near the southeast quadrant of the property. Mr. Rod Olsen, 7610 Heritage Road, expressed concern that not enough study had been done of the entire area with respect to the marshland, wildlife habitats, and drainage. He stated that he was pleased that the developer was proposing single family residential use for the property, instead of multiple family. Mr. Olsen stated that his other major concern was that of construction traffic. He asked that special consideration be given to the existing neighborhood in order that their streets not be used for construction traffic. Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 24, 1986 Mr. Marhula stated that the proponents would work to control construction traffic as much as possible. He stated that they were attempting to obtain a private construction easement across the property to the south in order that construction traffic could access the site from Highway #5. Mr. Marhula stated that the preferred situation would be to use the same access as the Donnay's project, located to the north and west of the property. With respect to the marshlands and storm water drainage, Mr. Marhula stated that the Ridge, on its own, would not have a significant impact on the greater picture involving the environment for the entire area. Ms. Barb Johnson, 7660 Atherton Way, asked how many proposed lots would be backing up to the existing lots along the west side of Atherton Way. Mr. Dirlam stated that the back lot lines did not exactly match up to those of the existing lots along Atherton Way. He pointed out that the property sloped down to the west for about six to eight feet, then west of the slope would be where the building pads for the houses would be located. He noted that these lots also averaged about 400 ft. in depth. Mr. Dick Thon, 7550 Atherton Way, asked how the developer connect the trail if the Donnay project did not go forward at the same time. Mr. Dirlam explained how this could work. Mr. Thon expressed concern about run-off that would take place and potentially damage surrounding properties. Mr. Dirlam explained that precautions, such as silt fences, would be employed to prevent this from happening. Mr. Mike Eames, 17345 W. 78th Street, expressed concern regarding the preservation of the wetlands and the quality of the run-off which would be reaching Mitchell Lake from the development of this property. Mr. Marhula stated that there may be a problem for a short period of time during construction, but that it would be corrected right afterwards. Mr. Gary Green, 7590 Atherton Way, stated that he would like to see the trail system better maintained in this area. Mr. Eugene Peterson, 7443 Hames Way, expressed concern for the overall storm water drainage system from Round Lake to Mitchell Lake in this area of the community. He stated that he did not feel that adequate study had been made of the storm water needs to date. Mr. Marhula explained the storm water drainage system proposed for this development and how it integrated into the overall storm water drainage system in this vicinity. Mr. Peterson stated that he was concerned about volume and purification of the water system. Mr. Peterson asked if the Donnay's project to the north and west also drained into the low area west of this site, just north of Highway #5. Mr. Marhula explained that this was generally the case, with the exception of a small portion of the proposed development in the northeast corner of the Donnay's property. . Mr. Peterson stated that he still felt strongly that an overall study of the drainage in this area would be beneficial to the City. Planner Franzen explained that the watershed district governing this area had completed a study of this type, which had determined such factors as how much upland storage was necessary and the types of improvements to the storm sewer Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 24, 1986 system which would be required. He noted that the y q storm sewer system would need to be approved and installed prior to issuance of any building permits on the property. Mr. Olsen asked about construction traffic in the event that the Donnay's project to the north and west did not take place at the same time as the Ridge. Mr. Marhula stated that the proponents would attempt to obtain a construction easement to access the property from the south at Highway #5; otherwise, the proponents would be required to use the public streets to access the site. Mr. Thon asked when the comments from the watershed district would be available. Planner Franzen stated that the watershed district generally commented some time after Planning Commission review, but before the Council review of a project. He noted that watershed district approval was required prior to building permit issuance. 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 Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Dirlam Development for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment of the Crescent Ridge PUD of 152.4 acres, to be known as The Ridge, based on plans dated March 14, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 21, 1986. 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 Dirlam Development for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments if necessary, to be known as The Ridge, based on plans dated March 14, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 21, 1986. Motion carried--7-0-0 MOTION 4• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Dirlam Development for preliminary plat of approximately ten acres into 17 lots for single family development, to be . known as The Ridge, based on plans dated March 14, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 21, 1986. Motion carried--7-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 24, 1986 Gartner noted that she would prefer that the proponent acquire additional property in order to meet the minimum Code requirements for street frontage, as opposed to the other alternatives suggested. Other commissioners concurred. D. WENDELL A. PHILLIPPI. Request for Flood Plain and Shoreland for three bridges over Purgatory Creek. Location: 10300 Riverview Road. A public meeting. Mr. Phillippi reviewed his request for approval of three bridges located over Purgatory Creek on his property. He explained how they had been installed, the purposes for them, and how the bridges may be expected to impact the area. He noted that there would be very little, if any, environmental impact from the bridges. Gartner asked about liability on the part of the City in the case of any accident, or mishap. Mr. Phillippi stated that he would agree that the City be "held harmless" in any such event. Mr. Phillippi stated that he felt the City should be aware that there were potentially severe erosion problems along Purgatory Creek in this vicinity, • which was largely undeveloped. He stated that he was aware that the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers would study situations like this, making recommendations for improvements, simply at the request of a municipality. The Commission concurred that the City should contact the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers and asked that Staff do so. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval after-the-fact of the request of Mr. Wendell Phillippi for Flood Plain and Shoreland Management review for three bridges over Purgatory Creek subject to the condition that the City not be responsible for any potential damage which may occur to these structures because of flows in Purgatory Creek and that the City be held harmless in the event of any accident, or other mishap resulting from the bridges. Motion carried--6-1-0 (Dodge against) Dodge stated that she was against as she was uncomfortable approving the bridges "after-the-fact." V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. Planning Commission Minutes 8 March 24, 1986 VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 9:32 p.m.