Loading...
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.