Planning Commission - 11/10/1986 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 10, 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. SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK/PRESERVE MEDICAL BUILDING, by Supplee's 7-Hi
Enterprises, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from
Low Density Residential to Office on 1.09 acres, Zoning District
Change from Rural to Office on 1.09 acres with variances to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 1.09 acres
into one lot for the construction of a two-story office building.
Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, west of County Road #18.
A continued public hearing.
(7:36) B. WELTER'S PURGATORY ACRES, by Crow/Chasewood Minnesota. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to
Office on approximately five acres and from Open Space to Medium
Density Residential on approximately 15 acres, Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on approximately 52 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to
RM-2.5 on approximately 30 acres, Preliminary Plat of 52.4 acres
into 96 single family lots, review of an EAW for 26 attached housing
units.
(8:30) C. PRAIRIE ACRES, by Michael N. Sutton. Request for Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 6.24 acres into
13 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: Southwest
quadrant of County Road #1 and Bennett Place. A public hearing.
(8:40) D. MEADOW PARK 3RD ADDITION, by J B & D, Inc. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public Open Space to Low
Density Residential on approximately 13.5 acres, Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5, and Preliminary Plat of 31.5 acres
into 29 single family lots and one out lot and road right-of-way.
Location: Northwest quadrant of Homeward Hills Road and Sunnybrook
Road. A public hearing.
Agenda
Monday, November 10, 1986
P age Two
(9:20) E. WILLIAMS MINI-STORAGE, by Finn Daniels, Inc. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 2.67 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 2.67 acres into one lot for construction of a
storage complex. Location: East of Highway #169, south of the
Modern Tire complex. A public hearing.
(10:00) F. TECHNOLOGY PARK 7TH, by Technology Park Associates. Request for
Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 3.74 acres
for construction of a 27,700 square foot office building. Location:
East of future Golden Triangle Drive, north of Nine Mile Creek. A
publ is meeting.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI . NEW BUSINESS
(10:20) A. Wendell A. Phillippi - Grading in shoreland.
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, November 10, 1986
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Robert Hallett, Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye,
Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Chuck Ruebling (8:00
P.M.)
MEMBER ABSENT: Chairman Ed Schuck
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas,
Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Planner Enger reported that proponents for items IV. A. and IV. F. had
. requested continuance to the November 24, 1986, Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to adopt the agenda with
the following amendment: The order of items under IV. Development
Proposals, be amended to read A., F., B., C., D., E.
Motion carried--5-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to approve the minutes of the
October 6, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as written.
Motion carried--3-0-2 (Gartner and Acting Chairman Hallett abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK/PRESERVE MEDICAL BUILDING, by Supplee's 7-Hi
• Enterprises, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from
Low Density Residential to Office on 1.09 acres, Zoning District
Change from Rural to Office on 1.09 acres with variances to be
• Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 10, 1986
reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 1.09 acres
into one lot for the construction of a two-story office building.
Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, west of County Road #18.
A continued public hearing.
Proponent had requested continuance of this item for amendments to the plan
which were the result of meetings with the neighborhood and Staff over the
past several days. Staff concurred with the request in order to allow for
complete review of the changes.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Gartner, to continue consideration
of the Suburban National Bank/Preserve Medical Building to the November 24,
1986, Planning Commission meeting pending revisions to the plans and Staff
review.
Motion carried--5-0-0
F. TECHNOLOGY PARK 7TH, by Technology Park Associates. Request for
Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 3.74 acres
for construction of a 27,700 square foot office building. Location:
• East of future Golden Triangle Drive, north of Nine Mile Creek. A
public meeting.
Proponents had requested continuance of this item in order to rework plans
for the exterior materials and the tree replacement requirements for the
property. Staff recommended continuance to the November 24,1986, meeting,
noting that these changes by the proponent would eliminate any need for
variance for the property.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to continue consideration of
the Technology Park 7th Addition proposal to the November 24, 1986, Planning
Commission meeting pending revisions to the plans and Staff review.
Motion carried--5-0-0
B. WELTER'S PURGATORY ACRES, by Crow/Chasewood Minnesota. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural ,to R1-13.5 on 51.7 acres and
Preliminary Plat of 51.7 acres for 96 single family lots. Location:
North of County Road #1, west of Bennett Place, south of Olympia
Drive. A public hearing.
Mr. Jim Ostenson, Crow/Chasewood, reviewed the site characteristics and the
proposed development with the Commission. He noted that the Welters owned
approximately 108 acres in this area; however, at this time, proponents were
requesting review of only 51.7 acres.
Mr. Ostenson pointed out that the property was generally wooded, but that
many of the trees were poorer quality tree, such as elm and boxelder. He
stated that there were also areas of higher quality trees, which included
oaks and ironwoods as examples.
• Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 10, 1986
The development was designed at a density of 1.85 units per acres, with an
average lot size of 20,000 sq. ft. and a minimum lot size of 13,500 sq. ft.
Mr. Ostensen stated that there were no variances being requested for the
development of the property as shown, and he added that the project had been
designed in compliance with the requirements of the Purgatory Creek Study
with respect to transition and conservancy areas.
Mr. Ostenson stated that the homes in the proposed development would be
valued between $250,0004500,000. In terms of phasing of the development,
he stated that first to be developed would be the northeasterly 30 lots,
then the southeasterly 30 lots, and finally the westerly 30-35 lots. He
added that the covenants and restrictions to be placed on the homes would be
very similar to those which already existed in the developed portion of this
area for purposes of architectural controls, etc.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of November 7, 1986, regarding the development. He discussed the
tree removal proposed for the property and explained that several different
lotting arrangements had been reviewed between the proponent and the Staff
for purposes of saving as many trees as possible. Based upon this review,
one change was made to the northeast corner of the development, thereby
saving more trees and eliminating the need for as much grading as was
• originally shown in this area. Planner Franzen stated that, in several
areas, changes had been made,to the grading plan in order to preserve more
of the vegetation. He stated that the common change was to allow for 2-1
slopes in areas that had been proposed for 3-1 slopes in order to save
trees.
The Staff Report recommendation was for replacement of approximately 400
caliper inches of trees on the property based upon the number of "quality"
trees which would be removed by development, in accordance with the City's
tree replacement policy. Planner Franzen stated that the priority for
location of the replacement trees would be in areas where large tree stands
had been eliminated due to construction. A secondary priority for location
would be along proposed street boulevards.
With respect to the Purgatory Creek Study, Planner Franzen explained that
the area designated as a conservancy area was intended to be a "no building,
no grading" area. He noted that the proposed development adhered to this
requirement. With respect to the area designated as a transition zone by
the Study, Planner Franzen stated that intention in these areas was to
develop with more sensitivity to the natural features inherent on such
property; for example, slopes would be protected, but development would be
allowed to take place. Planner Franzen stated that the proposed development
also adhered to this requirement of the Study.
Planner Franzen stated that traffic would be increased in the existing
neighborhoods surrounding this development. However, he pointed out that it
would be typical of other single family neighborhoods in the City. He noted
that the proposed density of this development was 1.85 units per acre, but
that many single family neighborhoods had been developed at a density of 2.5
units per acre, the maximum allowed in a Low Density Residential area as
designated by the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Therefore, the conclusion was
that traffic would not be as great as if the neighborhood were proposed for
• Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 10, 1986
development at the maximum allowable density. Planner Franzen stated that
it was anticipated that approximately 50% of the traffic from this proposed
development would be northbound, and approximately 50% of the traffic would
be southboud. He added that there should not be more traffic from this
subdivision than in the existing Mount Curve neighborhood.
(Ruebling arrived at 8:00 p.m.)
Anderson asked about sidewalks within the proposed development. Mr.
Ostenson responded that the proponents would be looking for a recommendation
from the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission on this issue.
Planner Enger stated that, in discussions with the Community Services Staff,
it had been suggested that there be sidewalk located along one side of the
Olympia Drive/Bennett Place connection road and along one side of the looped
road within the proposed development.
Anderson stated that he felt the sidewalks were important for the safety of
children. He asked about a trail system along Purgatory Creek. Planner
Enger stated that the 1974 Purgatory Creek Study contemplated a trail along
the creek at some point in the future. However, it was not intended that it
be done as part of any individual development. He stated that the City was
in the process of "collecting" trail easements as various parcels along
• Purgatory Creek were being developed.
Anderson asked about anticipated 50-50 split of traffic north and south
bound from the development. Planner Franzen explained the traffic study in
greater detail and the assumptions made which led to this conclusion. Mr.
Ostenson explained that the general question asked of the traffic consultant
was "where do people go in the morning and how do they get home at night
from this neighborhood." He added that the upgrading of Homeward Hills Road
was assumed to be completed for the purposes of the study.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked if there had been an exact count of the number
of trees on the property by species. Planner Franzen stated that there had
been an inventory completed for all trees that were twelve inches in
diameter, or greater. Mr. Ostenson explained that, due to the density of
trees on the property in certain areas, the tree inventory for any trees
smaller than twelve inches in diameter was done on an area basis. He
referred to the plan showing the tree inventory which had been included as
part of the submission for the proposed development.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked if the Staff was comfortable with receipt of a
scenic easement adjacent to Purgatory Creek with respect to the future trail
that was referred to in the Purgatory Creek Study. Planner Franzen stated
that this was what had been requested of other developers with property
adjacent to the Creek.
Planner Enger stated that the difference between this proposed development
• and several others that had received approval in similar situations was that
the proponent was not planning to dedicate the flood plain to the City at
this time. It was possible that the dedication of this area would be
forthcoming with a subsequent phase of development of the property.
Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he was concerned that the flood plain
. Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 10, 1986
area be dedicated at this time, especially if a trail was to be part of that
area in the future. He noted that there were several examples of
developments where the City had not received dedication of the area planned
for future trails at the time of City review, and that when it came time to
build the trails, the then-established neighborhoods were against the
construction of the trails, thereby actually eliminating pieces of the trail
system plan.
Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he felt situations such as this placed
the City in an awkward position--that of sticking to already approved plans,
while trying to also appease a neighborhood which did not exist at the time
of the decision. He stated that by not allowing the trails to be built in
designated locations, the City would 'not be providing for access to such
scenic areas for all of Eden Prairie's residents, as was originally
intended. He asked Staff if there was some way to prevent this happening on
this development. Planner Enger stated that the flood plain portion of the
property could be dedicated at this time and that it could be covered with
an easement benefitting the City. Commissioner Anderson stated that he
concurred in Acting Chairman Hallett's concerns and felt that the flood
plain area should be dedicated at this time.
Acting Chairman Hallett suggested that the - City consider using signs in
areas like this, as was currently being done with temporary cul-de-sacs, to
• inform the public that a trail would eventually be located in this vicinity.
He stated that this would serve as warning to anyone planning to purchase
property in the area that a trail would eventually be constructed.
Mr. Bruce Medvic, 9348 Olympia Drive, stated that he felt it would be
important for the covenants and restrictions for this property to be similar
to those of the existing neighborhood. He stated that he felt the most
significant impact of the development on the existing neighborhood would be
traffic. He added that he also felt construction traffic could be a
difficulty. Mr. Medvic stated that he felt there must be another way to
access the property, rather than connecting to the existing neighborhood.
Planner Enger responded to questions about traffic. He noted that there
would be less than 500 trips, or less, per day through the existing
neighborhood from this development.
Mr. Medvic stated that there were no sidewalks along the streets in his
neighborhood currently, and he questioned whether there would be room to add
sidewalks in the future. He asked about the status of the improvements to
Homeward Hills Road and whether the proposed development could be accessed
via Homeward Hills Road, instead of through his neighborhood. Planner Enger
responded that there was adequate right-of-way within which to locate a
sidewalk along one side of Olympia Drive, if it was determined that one
should be installed. He added that Olympia Drive was of adequate design
capacity to handle the projected traffic from the proposed development, in
. addition to the traffic already on the road. With respect to accessing the
development from Homeward Hills Road, Planner Enger stated that it was
possible to provide for extension of the street system to Homeward Hills
Road. He stated that Staff would have to review the possibilities of doing
so due to different ownerships of properties in that vicinity and other
issues, such as adequacy of soils, etc.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 10, 1986
Anderson expressed concern about the traffic for the general vicinity. He
stated that he felt it was more likely that the majority of the traffic,
more than 50%, would be northbound due to the ease of accessibility of the
roads in that direction. He pointed out that there would be less stop
lights encountered and there would also be the possibility of avoiding
County Road #18.
Bye stated that it was apparent that development patterns indicated more
development to the south in Eden Prairie and in communities south of Eden
Prairie, therefore, in the future, even more traffic from the development
would likely be southbound. She added that she shared concerns about the
need for sidewalks in the development.
Gartner asked when Homeward Hills Road would be completed from its current
terminus at Sunnybrook Road, south to County Road #1. Planner Enger
responded that it was planned to be completed by Fall , 1987. She stated
that she felt the development should at least contemplate the possibility of
connection to the northwest toward Homeward Hills Road and Sunnybrook Road
by providing for adequate right-of-way at the property boundary for
connection in the the future.
Mr. Ostenson stated that the northwesterly most cul-de-sac had not been
extended all the way to the border of the property because of topographic
• considerations. He added that the property to the north of the proposed
development in the direction of the extension of Homeward Hills Road was
also difficult due to topography. Mr. Ostenson added that the proponents
were willing to construct a full road right-of-way toward the northwest for
a future connection to that area as far as their property line.
Gartner stated that she felt the preservation of trees for this development
was commendable, but that the first consideration should be for safety.
Terry Johnson, 9378 Olympia Drive, stated that he felt traffic was
northbound most of the time out of the existing neighborhood. He also
expressed concern with respect to construction traffic resulting from this
development. He suggested that construction traffic find an alternative
route to access the development, rather than through the existing
residential neighborhood.
Jim Lexcen, 9354 Olympia Drive, stated that he concurred with the concerns
of his neighbors with respect to traffic. He questioned whether the streets
were of adequate size to handle the resulting traffic volume from the
proposed development. Mr. Lexcen pointed out that there would soon be an
elementary school opening in this area, as well , and emphasized concern for
children walking to the school given the potential traffic resulting from
this proposed development, and other development taking place in this
vicinity.
• Anderson stated that he felt a traffic light at Anderson Lakes Parkway and
Homeward Hills Road (the intersection at which the elementary school was
located) would only encourage traffic to circumvent this route and use
Preserve Boulevard, instead. Acting Chairman Hallett stated that the School
District currently bussed children across busy thoroughfares like this, even
though they may be close to an elementary school . As an example, he noted
• Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 10, 1986•
that children from the Cardinal Creek neighborhood were bussed across Baker
Road to Forest Hills Elementary School due to traffic considerations.
Dodge asked what would be involved if access was required from this
development to the northwest, instead of through the existing neighborhood.
Planner Enger explained that the two major considerations would be
topography and the fact that the proponent did not control all the property
to Homeward Hills Road, but that there were several other property owners
involved.
Dodge stated that she, too, was concerned that sidewalks be available for
pedestrian circulation through the development.
Gartner asked if there was adequate room within the rights-of-way proposed
for this development for inclusion of sidewalks. Planner Enger responded
that there would be room for sidewalks on at least one side of each of the
rights-of-way within the development. He pointed out that the right-of-way
would need to be 60 feet in width to allow for sidewalks on both sides of
future streets.
Mr. Medvic asked if it would be possible to construct a bridge for
automobile traffic across Purgatory Creek in this area. Mr. Ostenson stated
that this would be an expensive proposition. He added that he would work
• with the property owner toward establishment of a construction traffic
access that would keep such traffic out of the existing residential
neighborhood.
Ruebling stated that he felt the possibility of accessing Homeward Hills
Road from this development should at least be considered.
Anderson asked if the City had any policy regarding the cleaning of roads
which had been used by construction traffic. Planner Enger responded that
there was a City Code provision for cleaning the roads in such situations
and that this provision was called out in each developer's agreement for
development of property.
Mr. Ostenson expanded on the consideration of a bridge to cross Purgatory
Creek. He stated that the area to be crossed would likely be about 400 ft.
over an area which varied 20-40 ft. in topographic changes. By comparison,
he noted that this would be roughly equal to the bridge crossing Purgatory
Creek at Anderson Lakes Parkway. Mr. Ostenson stated that this idea had
been originally proposed at the first neighborhood meeting held by them with
the neighborhood. Upon review, he stated that it had become obvious that
there would be significant environmental damage, if such a bridge was
constructed. Also, the costs were prohibitive.
Planner Enger stated that Staff had not recommended the crossing of
Purgatory Creek for access to Homeward Hills Road by this development,
• noting that it would be contrary to the basic principles of conservation of
the Purgatory Creek area. He added that it may be possible to access
Sunnybrook Road, directly, and that Staff could pursue this with the
proponents.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked Staff whether the issues of the road
• Planning Commission Minutes 8 November 10, 1986
connection to the northwest, the trail along Purgatory Creek, an alternate
construction traffic access, and sidewalks could be handled prior to Council
review of the development. Planner Enger stated that the trail along
Purgatory Creek would be referred to the Parks, Recreation, and Natural
Resources Commission for their action. With respect to the alternate
construction traffic access and the sidewalks, he stated that Staff was
prepared to make recommendations at this time that an alternative route for
construction traffic be established and the sidewalks be located along one
side of the Olympia Drive and Bennett Place connections and along one side
of the loop road through the property. Planner Enger stated that the one
matter which could not be immediately resolved was that of the road
connection to the northwest. He noted that it would be necessary to meet
with the proponents to work out a solution prior to the Council meeting.
Otherwise, all other issues raised could be handled at this time.
Mr. Ostenson stated that, with respect to the road connection to the
northwest, all proponents would be able to do would be to build a road to
the edge of their property. He reiterated that they agreed to this and were
willing to amend their plans to reflect such a change.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson,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 Crow/Chasewood for Zoning District change
from Rural to R1-13.5 on 52.4 acres for Welter's Purgatory Acres, based on
plans and written materials dated October 20, 1986, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 24, 1986, with the
following additions: Under #1. add C. Amend the plans to reflect an future
road connection to the north/northwest toward Homeward Hills Road as
extended, or Sunnybrook Road; D. Amend the plans to reflect the addition of
sidewalks along one side of the Olympia Drive and Bennett Place connections
and along one side of the loop road through the development; E. Provide for
an alternative access to the property for purposes of construction traffic
in order to avoid the need to for construction vehicles to go through the
existing residential neighborhood to the north; and F. Amend the plans to
reflect dedication of the flood plain area to the City.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked whether requiring dedication of the flood
plain would guarantee the City that there would be no difficulty in having a
trail built in this area. Planner Enger stated that it would guarantee the
City's ability to use the property, but that a situation could arise just as
• in the neighborhoods mentioned earlier where neighbors would be against the
trail if it were not built at this time. He added that he was unaware of
any funds currently available for construction of the trail along Purgatory
Creek. Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he felt it would be important
for the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission to understand
that the Planning Commission recommendation on this would be that the trail
• Planning Commission Minutes 9 November 10, 1986
be dedicated at this time and that some form of designation of a future
trail, like signage used for temporary cul-de-sacs, be installed to avoid
the problems of the neighborhood being against it in the future when it came
time to build. Other Commissioners concurred.
Mr,. Ostenson stated that he was not certain that he would be able to obtain
an easement for construction traffic from the land owner, but he added that
he would try to work this out prior to Council review.
Motion carried--4-1-1 (Acting Chairman Hallett against; Ruebling abstained)
Acting Chairman Hallett voted against stating that he felt the issues should
be worked out with the Staff, not become a part of the requirement for
approval of the proposed development.
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Crow/Chasewood for Preliminary Plat of
52.4 acres for Welter's Purgatory Acres, based on plans and written
materials dated October 20, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated October 24, 1986, with the following additions: Under
• #1. add C. Amend the plans to reflect an future road connection to the
north/northwest toward Homeward Hills Road as extended, or Sunnybrook Road;
D. Amend the plans to reflect the addition of sidewalks along one side of
the Olympia Drive and Bennett Place connections and along one side of the
loop road through the development; E. Provide for an alternative access to
the property for purposes of construction traffic in order to avoid the need
to for construction vehicles to go through the existing residential
neighborhood to the north; and F. Amend the plans to reflect dedication of
the flood plain area to the City.
Motion carried--4-1-1 (Acting Chairman Hallett against; Ruebling
abstained)
Acting Chairman Hallett voted against stating that he felt the issues should
be worked out with the Staff, not become a part of the requirement for
approval of the proposed development.
C. PRAIRIE ACRES, by Michael N. Sutton. Request for Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 6.24 acres into
13 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: Southwest
quadrant of County Road #1 and Bennett Place. A public hearing.
Planner Uram reviewed the proposed development with the Commission. He
noted that the property had already been graded according to a grading plan
approved by the City Council earlier in the year. Planner Uram explained
that the County was requiring adequate right-of-way dedication from the
developer to construct a trail along the south side of County Road #1. It
had also been suggested that the trail be graded as a ten foot wide strip in
order to provide some visual identification of the fact that a trail would
be located at the back yards of the lots backing up to County Road #1.
Planner Uram stated that the proponent was planning to connect the
development to Purgatory Road to the west.
• Planning Commission Minutes , 10 November 10, 1986
Gartner asked if any of this property was in a designated flood plain.
Planner Uram stated that a portion of the property was within the flood
plain, but he added that the development was not negatively impacted by
this.
Ms. Sue Boutin, 11407 Creekridge Drive, asked about traffic in the area and
the proposed turn lane on Bennett Place for a right turn onto County Road
R. Planner Uram explained that there was a feasibility report in progress
to determine the needs for turn lanes in this area onto County Road #1.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, 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 Michael Sutton for Zoning District Change
from Rural to R1-13.5 for the Prairie Acres Addition, based on plans dated
• October 10, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
October 24, 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 Michael Sutton for Preliminary Plat of
6.24 acres into 13 single family lots and road right-of-way for the Prairie
Acres Addition, based on plans dated October 10, 1986, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 24, 1986.
Motion carried--6-0-0
D. MEADOW PARK 3RD ADDITION, by J B & D, Inc. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Public Open Space to Low
Density Residential on approximately 13.5 acres, Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5, and Preliminary Plat of 31.5 acres
into 29 single family lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way.
Location: Northwest quadrant of Homeward Hills Road and Sunnybrook
Road. A public hearing.
Planner Enger explained that the development was proposed on property which
was "high and dry" and not within a designated wetland area. He added that
• the proponents had requested that the City install utilities for the
property.
Mr. Harold Peterson, Jim Hill and Associates, representing proponent,
reviewed the site characteristics, indicating that the southern 13.5 acres
was the "high and dry" area and the location of the proposed development.
• Planning Commission Minutes 11 November 10, 1986
The remaining acres acted as a stormwater holding area and would be
dedicated to the City for that purpose. Mr. Peterson stated that there was
a trunk sanitary sewer line running through the property. In addition, the
Northern States Power (NSP) power line was located over the property.
Access to the property would be from Sunnybrook Road and Homeward Hills
Road. Mr. Peterson pointed out that access would be provided for the
property to the west, as well, in order to prevent it from becoming
landlocked by development and dedication of this property.
Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
of November 7, 1986, with the Commission. He pointed out that proponents
would be requesting several variances for the project as designed; however,
Staff was recommending that the plat be redesigned to meet all minimum
zoning district requirements for the R1-13.5 District. The Staff
recommendations also included a five-foot wide, five-inch thick concrete
sidewalk be installed along Sunnybrook Road up to "Street V. Other than
the standard recommendations regarding utilities, grading, and park
dedication, the following conditions were also recommended as part of the
approval of the development were the submission of a petition for the
utility and street improvements for the property and submission of soils
information for the property, specifically for several of the perimeter lots
to the north and northwest.
• Ruebling asked about the discrepancy between the Comprehensive Guide Plan
and the proposed development with respect to the amount of property within
the area referred to as a storm water holding area. Planner Enger explained
that, at the time of the hearings for the Comprehensive Guide Plan, the
information for this property was known in a general format, as was true of
many properties. In the case of this property, specific soils and
topographic information indicated that the Comprehensive Guide Plan
designation for so much of the area to be Public Open Space was too broad,
and could, indeed, be pulled back to allow for development of the property
to its highest and best use. Based on the general information available at
the time, the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation included more property
than necessary within the Public Open Space area. Specific information as
presented by the proponent was adequate to allow for the amendment.
Anderson stated that at a previous public hearing for development of the
Fire Station site in this area, one of the neighbors had raised a question
with respect to drainage in the area. He asked if this matter had been
cleared up. Planner Enger stated that Staff had referred the issue to the
Public Works Department for review. Also, it would be considered as part of
the design of utilities for this, and future adjacent, property. Mr.
Peterson explained the drainage for the general vicinity in greater detail .
He noted that the final details on this would be worked out with the City
engineers prior to construction.
Ruebling asked about the cutting and filling shown as part of the grading
• plan for the property. Mr. Peterson stated that the soils information
requested by the Staff would provide more specific information about the the
needs for replacement of some of the poor soils in the northwest area of the
proposed development. He pointed out that the cut and fill was the minimum
necessary for streets and house pads, with the exception of replacement of
the poor soils. Planner Uram stated that it was Staff's opinion that the
• Planning Commission Minutes 12 November 10, 1986
soils information was necessary in order to determine how much of the poor
soil was within the area to be developed and how much would require
replacement because of it.
Ruebling asked what would happen if the determination was made that a
portion of the property were unbuildable because of poor soils. Mr.
Peterson stated that the soils were not anticipated to be that bad in this
area; however, it may be necessary in a "worst case" situation to eliminate
one, or more, lots from the development if the soils could not be corrected.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked if the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources had reviewed the proposed development. Mr. Peterson stated that
they had been sent a copy of the proposed plat. Planner Uram stated that
the north portion of the property was not a designated wetland, nor a
classified public water.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked if it would be necessary to eliminate a lot in
order to meet the minimum City Code requirements for the zoning district
proposed. Mr. Peterson stated that this should not be necessary. Staff
concurred. Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he agreed with the Staff
recommendation that the proponent meet all Code requirements for the
district.
• Mr. Steve Birke, 9059 Larkspur Lane, asked about the price of the proposed
lots. Proponents responded that the lots would be between $40-50,000. Mr.
Birke stated that he did not feel this would be true based on the location
of the lots under the power line, next to the fire station and on a through
road. Mr. Birke asked about the completion of improvements to Homeward
Hills Road, such as the curb and gutter that had not been installed since
the road was first installed three years ago. He noted that portions of the
road flooded now during heavy rain and snow melt. Mr. Birke asked if the
lowland area to the north would ever be developed if it were dedicated to
the City.
Planner Uram explained that the City needed the area at the north end of the
property for purposes of a storm water holding area. He stated that even if
the City no longer needed it at some point in the future, the soils in this
area would likely be too poor to develop. Planner Uram also explained that
the access to the fire station was not directly across from the access road
to Homeward Hills Road from this property, but that the two points were
offset approximately 150-200 ft. With respect to the final upgrading of
Homeward Hills Road and the installation of curb and gutter along the
bituminous area already installed, Planner Uram stated that he was unaware
of the schedule for completion of this work. He stated that he would find
out and inform Mr. Birke as soon as possible.
Jeff Lentsch, 9017 Larkspur Lane, asked if the City controlled the value of
homes. Acting Chairman Hallett stated that this was not something the City
• could do, except with respect to such things as lot size. Generally, the
smaller the lot, the smaller the price for the property. Planner Enger
explained that the R1-9.5 Zoning District, for example, was designed more
for use by starter homes, which were usually lower in price than homes on
larger lots.
• Planning Commission Minutes 13 November 10, 1986
Mr. Birke stated that he was concerned that the value of the homes within
this proposed development would be less due to their location and that the
lesser value of those future homes may devalue his home in the adjacent
neighborhood.
Anderson stated that he lived within the Preserve, which had many
requirements for homes built within the Association boundaries, but that it
was difficult for the Preserve Association to control the housing cost, even
as strict as the covenants and restrictions were for the properties
involved.
Mr. Lentsch stated that his greatest concern was for traffic. He asked when
traffic would be dealt with in this general area and pointed out that there
was alot of development taking place on several parcels in the area. He
expressed concern, in particular, for children crossing Anderson Lakes
Parkway to access the elementary school located on the north side of the
road. Acting Chairman Hallett stated that it .would likely require the use
of adult supervisors in order to provide for safe crossing of the street by
the children during school hours. He noted that this method was implemented
at several schools at this time.
Mr. Lentsch asked if some sort of bridge, or underpass was possible.
Planner Enger explained that a portion of an underpass had been installed in
this area, but was never completed. Since that time, there were many
concerns from the Public Safety community across the country regarding the
potential for crimes to take place in such underpasses. They had been
determined unsafe. Therefore, the use of such underpasses was not pursued
further.
Gartner stated that it was likely that children would be bussed in the
future.
Dodge stated that this type of problem existed in many parts of Eden
Prairie. She stated that, in her neighborhood, the stop lights and stop
signs were often ignored by automobile drivers, as well .
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Gartner, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of J B & D, Inc., for Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment from Public Open Space to Low Density Residential for
approximately 13.5 acres for Meadow Park 3rd Addition, based on plans dated
• October 31, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
November 7, 1986, with the added condition that should the results of the
soil tests indicate substantial change to the plat, the proponent shall
return to the Planning Commission for review.
Motion carried--6-0-0
• Planning Commission Minutes 14 November 10, 1986
MOTION 3•
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of J B & D, Inc. for Zoning District Change
from Rural to R1-13.5 for 29 single family lots known as Meadow Park 3rd
Addition, based on plans dated October 31, 1986, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 7, 1986, with the added
condition that should the soil tests indicate substantial change to the
plat, the proponent shall return to the Planning Commission for review.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of J B & D, Inc., for Preliminary Plat of
31.5 acres into 29 single family lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way for
the Meadow Park 3rd Addition, based on plans dated October 31, 1986, subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 7, 1986, with the
added condition that should the soil tests indicate substantial change to
the plat, the proponent shall return to the Planning Commission for review.
Motion carried--6-0-0
• E. WILLIAMS MINI-STORAGE, by Finn Daniels, Inc. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 2.67 acres and Preliminary
Plat of 2.67 acres into one lot for construction of a storage
copmplex. Location: East of Highway #169, south of Modern Tire
complex. A public hearing.
Mr. Dan Finneman, Finn Daniels, Inc., representing proponent, reviewed the
characteristics of the property with the Commission. He noted that the
Minnesota Department of Transportation had already granted proponents
approval of an access to Highway #169. Mr. Finneman stated that each of the
individual structures was 2,000 sq. ft., or smaller. Fire truck access had
been provided for as requested by the City's Fire Marshal . Also, each two-
story element was to be sprinkled for fire safety purposes.
Mr. Finneman explained the screening on the property. He noted that there
would be adequate landscaping to screen the use from views at the perimeter
of the property. He added that the proponents would work with Staff to
mitigate the concerns regarding floor area ratio for the property.
Planner Franzen discussed the concerns of the Staff Report regarding this
project. He stated that one of the issues of importance was that of a
street connection to the east to Meadow Park 3rd Addition. He added that
another issue of concern was that of transition between the proposed
development and the single family uses to the east. He stated that Staff
• was not convinced that multiple family was a correct use of the property
between the I-2 Park zoning proposed and the existing and single family uses
proposed. Planner Franzen stated that it was possible that a plan with
multiple residential units may work as a transition, but added that there
would be many factors to consider.
• Planning Commission Minutes 15 November 10, 1986
Dodge asked about the proposed chain link fence. Mr. Finneman stated that
it was being proposed for purposes of screening. He stated that the type of
vinyl strips suggested use with the fence would provide for a 90% opaque
condition, which would provide more than adequate screening of the uses from
the adjacent properties. Mr. Finneman explained how the vinyl strips would
be woven into the chain fencing.
Bye asked Staff for more explanation of the fencing materials proposed.
Planner Enger stated that Staff was uncomfortable with the use of such
materials as they were often found broken, damaged, or destroyed over a
short period of time. He stated that the materials used for weaving between
the chain links could be broken by being "bumped," therefore leaving an
unsightly appearance, instead of a good screen.
Mr. Finneman stated that new and better materials were available for weaving
into the chain links. Bye asked if the material could be submitted to the
Staff and City Council for review prior to final approval of the
development. Mr. Finneman stated that he was willing to cooperate and that
he would provide the materials to the Staff.
Dodge asked about alternative methods of screening. Planner Enger stated
that the use could be screened with a berm and plantings, a wing wall, or
• structure materials of other types.
Ruebling asked for explanation of the proposed "buffer zone." Planner
Franzen stated that the original concept of a buffer zone in this area had
been initiated for purposes of providing a transition to the residential
areas to the east. He noted that the existence of a buffer along the east
side of other properties facing Highway #169 had more, or less, set a
precedent that this continue along the remaining frontage. Planner Franzen
stated that it was Staff's opinion that the buffer should be built as part
of this project and that plans for the buffer should be presented prior to
City Council review of the proposed development.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked how wide the buffer area would be. Mr.
Finneman responded that it was approximately 100 ft. wide.
Ruebling stated that he concurred with the Staff's comments about the chain
link fencing with respect to the vinyl slats which were proposed to be
weaved into the fencing. He stated that he did not want this to become an
unsightly screen when other methods were available.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked proponent if they felt this matter could be
worked out with the Staff. Mr. Finneman stated that he was willing to work
with Staff to mitigate this issue.
Mr. Dan Stromquist, 8984 Darnel, presented the Commission with a letter
regarding his concerns. He stated that he would like to see conditions
• placed on the development of the remainder of the property so that residents
would know what would be developed in that area. He stated that he did not
want to see the I-2 Park Zoning District expanded any closer to the existing
residential area than shown at this time.
Mr. Everett Gonzalez, 8522 Darnel Road, stated that he liked the buildings.
A
• Planning Commission Minutes 16 November 10, 1986
He expressed concern about the impact of the proposed development upon the
storm water retention for the area. He also stated that he concurred with
the concern of his neighbor regarding further encroachment into the existing
residential neighborhood by any I-2 Park uses. Mr. Bob Williams, proponent,
stated that there would be homes built between the proposed mini-storage
facility and the existing single family neighborhood.
Gartner asked if the 100 ft. wide buffer zone was part of this proposed
development. Planner Enger responded that it was.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked about the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation
for the remainder of the property owned by Mr. Williams to the east of the
proposed mini-storage site. Planner Enger responded that the property was
guided for Low Density Residential development and that a Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment would be required for construction of multiple family
residential units, or for construction of I-2 Park uses.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, 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 Finn Daniels, Inc., for Zoning District
Change from Rural to I-2 Park for 2.67 acres for Williams Mini-storage,
based on revised plans dated November 6, 1986, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 7, 1986, with the
addition of item le., That a masonry wall be built between the buildings on
the south side of the structure for screening purposes.
Ruebling expressed concern about the aesthetics of the durability of the
proposed fencing. Dodge and Bye stated that they would prefer the use of a
brick wing wall to the vinyl weave in the chain link fencing. Planner Enger
stated that it would not be unreasonable to require brick in this location
due to the amount of brick being used on the remainder of the structure.
Mr. Finneman stated that he had recommended the vinyl weave to the
proponent. He stated that the materials were much better now than in the
past and offered to bring samples to the Staff and to the City Council
meeting.
Motion carried--5-1-0 (Acting Chairman Hallett against)
Acting Chairman Hallett stated he voted against the motion as he felt it
would be more appropriate for Staff to review the proposed materials for the
vinyl weave in the chain link fencing before such a firm recommendation for
an alternative method of screening were made to the Council.
• Planning Commission Minutes 17 November 10, 1986
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Finn Daniels, Inc., for Preliminary Plat
for Williams Mini-storage for 2.67 acres into one lot, based on revised
plans dated November 6, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated November 7, 1986, with the addition of item le., That a masonry
wall be built between the buildings on the south side of the structure for
screening purposes.
Motion carried--5-1-0 (Acting Chairman Hallett against)
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Wendell A. Phillippi--Grading in Shoreland Area
Planner Enger reviewed the proposal of the proponent to excavate fish ponds
on his property. He noted that the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, the Watershed District, and the Parks, Recreation, and Natural
Resources Commission of the City had already reviewed the proposed
excavation and had recommended approval .
There were no questions, or comments, from members of the audience.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Wendell A. Phillippi for grading in the
shoreland area based on plans and written materials reviewed by the
Commission on November 10, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the
appropriate state agencies.
Motion carried--6-0-0
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson.
Acting Chairman Hallett adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m.