Planning Commission - 06/22/1981 June 18, 1981
•
Mayor Wolfgang Penzel
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Mn. 55343
Dear Mayor Penzel:
The Homeowner Associations of Fairway Wood, I and II, have reviewed the final
plans of the amended Fairway Woods development plan as approved by -the city
council. We note a requirement in the approval calling for a S' wide concrete
sidewalk within the right-of-way of proposed Fairway Drive extending from
Mitchell Road to Valley View.
The original Fairway �bod plan set forth Fairway Drive as a private road. That
portion of Fairway Drive, constructed when the original first phase was developed,
is and has been privately owned and maintained. The amended plan, one that our
associations concur with, calls for the existing road to be rebuilt to public
standards and dedicated to the city simultaneous with the development of the
first phase of the amended plan. The sidewalk requirement apparently is part
of that consideration.
Our associations have considered this requirement and have concluded that we
would prefer not to have the sidewalk constructed. We feel that the sidewalk
• is unnecessary and that its inclusion would encourage outside pedestrian through
traffic between Valley View and Mitchell Road. We further concluded that any
additional hard surface material would only detract from our serene setting.
We have discussed this matter with Mr. Laukka, Laukka & Associates, and he
suggested that we write to you regarding our concerns. We are willing to
appear at the city council when Mr. Laukka comes before you with his final
plan to further advance our position.
We look forward to the continuation of this development and would appreciate
your consideration of this request.
FAIRWAY WOOD HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION
By A , -7;�/., -e-�,'
Ifs ,
FAIRWAY WOODS CONDOMINIUM I ASSOCIATION
By
Its -�-�
FAIRWAY WOODS CONDOMINIUM II ASSOCIATION
Its
AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, June 22, 1981
7:30 PM, City Hall
MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Matthew
Levitt, Grant Sutliff, Virginia Gartner, Hakon
Torjesen, Robert Hallett
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF JUNE 8, 1981 MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. FAIRWAY WOODS 3 ,by Laukka & Associates. Request to preliminary
plat 15 acres zoned RM 2.5 for 120 condominiums. Located
northwest of existing Fairway Woods Condos. A public hearing.
B. TIMBER CREEK, by B-T Land Co. Request for PUD Development
stage approval , rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 and R1-13.5
and preliminary platting of 94 single family lots, 120 town-
houses, and 108 quadraminiums. Located north of Duck Lake
!frail and south of 62nd Street. A public hearing.
C. THORN CREEK PLAT, by Meat Cutters Pension Fund. Request for
preliminary plat approval of 8 lots on 61 acres for commercial
and office uses. Located east and adjacent to US 169-212 and
north of Valley View Road, A public hearing.
D. BLUFFS EAST, by Hustad Development Corporation. Request for
PUD Development stage approval , rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5,
and preliminary platting of 106 townhouses. Located in the
southwest corner of Co. Rd. 1 and Franlo Road. A public hearing.
E. EDENVALE 14th, by Equitable Life Assurance Society of the US
and Equitable Life Mortgage and Realty Investors. Request
for revised PUD Development stage approval ,, rezoning from
R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 for approximately 15 of the 24 acres, dnd
preliminary plat approval of 30 single family lots and 56
duplex lots. Located NW of Edenvale Blvd. , southeast of
railraod, and north and west of Woodhill Trail . A public
hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
}
4
MINUTES
EDEN PRIAIRI€ PLANNING COMMISSION
:approved
Monday, June 22, 1981 7:30 PM, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: William Bearman, Matthew Levitt, Grant
Sutliff, Virginia Gartner, Hakon Torj-
esen, Robert Hallett
MEMBERS ABSENT: Liz Retterath
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Levitt moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Sutliff seconded,
motion carried 6-0.
II. APPROVAL OF JUNE 8, 1981 MINUTES
Levitt moved to approve the 'June 8, 1981 minutes with the following
additions and/or changes:
p. 4 5th para7 , delete .the word ' legally' and insert 'desireability'
7th para. , dhange the words starting with 'could` to the rest
of the sentance to: had less reservations concerning lots 1 and
2, but had more about lots 5 and 6.
p. 5 last para. , add 'possibility of 'seeing a working model . '
p. 6 1st para. , change wording ofo�'topogrophy of the site' to:
topographic relationship of the land to other land around the
site'
Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0-2. (Gartner and Hallett abstained)
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
None
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. FAIRWAY WOODS 3RD, by Laukka & Associates. Request to pre-
liminary plat 15 acres zondd RM 2.5 for 120 condominiums.
Located northwest of existing Fairway Woods Condos. A public
hearing.
Bearman stated that the Fairway Woods Homeowners Associations for Fairway Woods I
and II have submitted a petition whic— should_ be made part of the minutes. '
The Planner `reviewed the request, and stated that Mr. Frank Burg, BRW,
and Mr. Larry Laukka were present to give the presentation.
,japproved
Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1981
Burg reviewed the location and surrounding land uses. He stated that they are
• proposing to develop the land in four phases. He reviewed the sanitary -sewer
system, water system and the final connection for the watermain, and stated
that the grading conforms to City requirements made at the time the site plan
was approved.
The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 6/18/81 and stated that the City
Staff suggests there be a §idewalk installed along one side of the through road
because of the amount of traffic generated in this dense of an area.
Levitt asked the amount of parking. The Planner replied that the ordinance
requires Y ext6riorandI interior parking space per unit. He further stated that
the proponent has provided 1 garage space/unit and one exterior space directly
behind the garage. Since the ordinance requires that spaces be unobstructed,
additional guest parking is provided off the street at the rate of .5/unit.
Torjesen asked the reasoning for a continuous sidewalk, uninterrupted by the
blacktop -.cross driveways. The Planner replied that smooth continuity of the
sidewalk was important, and that the driveways were more able to match the
sidewalk grade with bituminous than vice versa.
Torjesen questioned the recommendation for curbing of the parking areas in the
staff report. The Planner stated that 1) it is contiguous to public road with
curbing; ' 2) it provides a clean break between parking and the lawn; 3) curbing
prevents asphalt from flowing and therefore will prolong its life; acid 4) curbing
is part of the storm sewer system.
Torjesen expressed his concern for the amount of concrete on the site. The Planner
replied that these were engineering requirements necessary for the proper main-
tenance and service of the site.
Bearman asked why there will only be 1 tennis court. Laukka replied because of
fldodplain requirements and the amount of fill needed for two.
Laukka stated that they will install the sidewalk but stated that the neighbors
do not want it constructed. He stated that he felt that a sidewalk will encourage
pedestrian traffic to(,get from Mitchell Road to Valley View Road.
Don Anderson, 14312 Fairway Woods Drive, representing the Homeowners Association,
stated that they oppose the sidewalk because it will eliminate 2 of the knoll
which is presently used as a--buffer. He also asked the status of the hikeway/
bikeway trail that is being constructed by the City. The Planner replied that the
trail will link with Valley View Road and Mitchell Road.
Levitt stated the he felt that people would use the sidewalk if constructed instead
of the street.
Levitt asked the width of the street now. Anderson replied 20' but 8 more will be
added. The Planner stated that 28' will include the curb with 6' of boulevard and
a 5' sidewalk.
Hallett asked if the sidewalk could be reduced in width, The Planner replied he
would talk to the City Engineer regarding that issue and about the parking along
the ROW.
Steve Cherne, 6931 Raven Court asked if congestion would be caused on the streets
by Edenvale 14th Add. The Planner stated that Mitchell Road will be able to
handle the traffic, while Valley View Road is planned as a 4 lane road in the
future.,
approved
Planning 'Commission Minutes -3�. June 22, 1981
Joe Moran, 15820 So. Eden Drive asked if the sidewalk will be paved, and compli-
mented the work done in the Purgatory Creek Valley in the Minnetonka area which
is made of fine gravel . The Planner replied the sidewalk would be concrete,
because it would be within the road ROW in a heavy use area.
Sutliff asked how the road will be finished. Burg replied that it will be built
to the end of the 1st phase with a temporary turn-around, and with the second
phase would be completed all the way north to Valley View Road.
MOTION 1
Gartner moved to close the public hearing on Fairway Woods 3vd prel-iminar pfiat.
Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0.
MOTION 2
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Fairway Woods 3rd
preliminary plat dated 5/29/81 as per the 6/18/81 staff report eliminating para-
graph #2 of background, and #1 of the recommendations. Levitt seconded.
DISCUSSION
Sutliff asked that a temporary turn-around be done as phases are completed. Gartner
agreed. The Planner stated that there has been talk with the engineering department
and that it has been decided that a temporary turn-around will be put in, but when
phase II is finished, the road will continue to Valley View Road,
Torjesen stated that he felt that that would add to the asphalt problem.
Hallett stated that he would like to see a sidewalk but further stated that it
should be reduced. Bearman stated he agreed.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION
Torjesen moved to amend the motion adding the provision that staff be instructed
to work with the developer to work out the sidewalk problems. Hallett seconded,
motion carried 3-1-2. (Bearman, Torjesen, and Hallett voted 'aye' , Levitt voted
no, and Sutliff and Gartner abstained)
Original motion as amended, carried 6-0.
B. TIMBER CREEK, by B-T Land Co. Request for PUD Development stage
approval , rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 and R1-13:5 and prelim- ,
inary platting of 94 single family lots, 120 townhouses, and 108
quadraminiums. Located north of Duck Lake Trail and south of
62nd Street. A public hearing.
The Planner stated that Mr. Jack Lynch, BRW, and Rick Murray of B-T Land Co. were
present to give the presentation.
Lynch reviewed the concept plan that was approved in 1980, the current plan,
and stated that it is basically the same plan.
The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 6/18/81.and asked that no action be
taken on phase IV because of needed revisions. -
• Sutliff asked if single family will be a part of phase III. The Planner replied yes,
Levitt asked if the park located in the southwest corner of the site is active open
space. The Planner replied yes.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 22, 1981
Levitt stated that he was concerned with the density of the project, and asked if
Townline Road needs to be improved. The Planner stated that Townline Road has been
surfaced, but further stated that the profile has not been approved.
Levitt asked if more floodplain area is being preserved. The Planner replied yes.
Levitt asked the acreage of phase IV. Lynch replied 25 acres with 112 units. The
Planner stated that when phases I-III have been completed, there will be 50 acres
left-over.
Sutliff asked the acreage in the floodplain. The Planner replied 32 acres.
Torjesen stated that he was concerned about the density transfers. The Planner
recommended that the project be continued to work out the problems with phase IV.
Murray stated that if setbacks would become a problem in phase IV, they will
move the buildings back.
The Planner explained density transfer.
Bearman asked how far the cul-de-sac in Block 4 will be moved. The Planner replied
80-100 feet. Bearman then asked if that will eliminate 2 lots. The Planner stated
that he felt that'i:f the area would be redesigned that the woods could be preserved.
Paul Choiniere, 15819 No. Eden Drive explained that he felt that the location is
wrong for this project, the plan is incomplete, and stated his understanding that
• when this project was before the City Council , it was to be considered as one project
rather than phases or sections. He also stated that he felt that the street
going through Chatham Woods will end up a traffic jam which would be a serious
problem. He also stated his concern for the floodplain, and felt that there should
not be massive grading.
Joe Morin, 15820 So. Eden Drive, stated that he would like to see a complete plan
before this proposal is approved.
Bill Sonasal , 16689 Honeysuckle Lane, was concerned with the amount of traffic
that will be at the Co. Rd.. 4 and Duck Lake Road intersection, The Planner stated
that there will be a 90° intersection there in the future, but felt that mbre
traffic would go to Valley View Road.
Levitt asked the number of units proposed on the north and south half of the site
if the creek were used as a divider. Morin replied 222 on the north half and
200 on the south half.
Levitt asked about recommendation #3 in the staff report. The Planner replied
that there would be a mass grade of phase I and then be restored before any
grading would occur on phases II, III, or IV.
Torjesen asked if the land allocation allows for waiting for definite plans for
phase IV. The Planner stated that it would be most equitable for each phase to
have land with it.
Torjesen asked if the City Council stated that the site should be approved at
once. , The Planner stated that he recalled that the open space should be dedicated
to the City.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 22, 1981
• MOTION
Gartner moved to continue the public hearing to July 13, 1981. Torjesen seconded;
motion carried 6-0.
C. THORN CREEK PLAT, by Meat Cutters Pension Fund. Request for
preliminary plat approval of 8 lots on 61 acres for commercial
and office uses. Located west and adjacent to US 169-212 and
north of Valley View Road. A public hearing.
The Planner stated that this was approved as a CRUD Concept in 1980 and further
stated that rezoning would come in the future. He introduced Mr. David Kirscht
and Mr. Rick Sathre representing the Meat Cutters.
Kirscht gave a brief slide presentation which oovered the location, drainage,
the approved plan, the modified plan, roads, grading plan, slopes, access points,
and vegetation.
Sathre reviewed the elevations, and stated that the proponent will comply' to the
recommendations of the staff report but have concerns regarding the retaining
wall , the sidewalk, and the additional 17` of ROW to be added to Co. Rd. 39.
The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 6/19/81 and explained his concerns for
the retaining wall ; 1) the liability problem, and 2) that the details have not been
done. He also stated that he would talk with Hennepin County about the 17' of ROW.
• Levitt asked the uses that are approved. The Planner replied office, restaurant and
office/residential .
Hallett stated that he felt that a sidewalk was unnecessary for this project.
He also asked the cost of the sidewalk to the developer. The Planner replied .approx.
$8-10 per lineal foot.
Leo Utecht, Administrator for the Meat Cutters, stated that he felt that a sidewalk
is not practical .
Paul Enblom, 10610 Valley View Road, stated that he favors the revised plan and that
he likes the preservation of the trees.
Sutliff asked if the office/residential buildings would be high-rise buildings.
Utecht replied they would be 10-20,000 sq. ft. . 1 or ".2 story buildings where
people could live.
Kirscht stated that the proponent is working on the boulder retaining wall problem.
Torjesen stated that he was concerned about the two access points onto Valley View
Road and asked if the northern access has been aligned with Michelangelo Gardens. Kirscht
replied that the proponent will be coming back for signage so people will know
which road is the main entrance, and that the northern road does align.
MOTION 1
• Torjesen moved to close the public hearing on the Thorn Creek Plat. Gartner seconded,
motion carried 6-0.
-approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 22, 1981
MOTION 2
Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat
dated 5/18/80 as per the staff report dated 6/19/81 with the following changes:
1. Delete #8 of the staff recommendations and insert 'ask City
Staff to work with the Highway Department concerning the
right-of-way to be dedicated along Co. -.Rd. 139.
ADD:
10. Ask Staff to work with the developer to come up with a
solution for a pedestrian circulation concept.
11. Ask Staff and developer to work on access, saving trees,
add that if structures are to be in the ROW, that -they. be
approved- by the City Engineer.
Sutliff seconded.
DISCUSSION
Hallett stated that if the proponent would come back requesting condominiums, he
would like to see a sidewalk, but did not feel it was necessary in this project.
Motion carried 6-0.
D. BLUFFS EAST, by Hustad Development Corporation. Request for
PUD Development stage approval , rezoning from Rural to RM 6:5,
and preliminary platting of 106 townhouses. Located in the
southwest corner of Co. Rd. 1 and Franlo Road. A public hearing.
The Planner introduced Mr. Dick Putnam and Rick Sathre of Hustad Development
Corp.
Putnam introduced Mr. Wally Hustad of Hustad Development Corp.
Hustad reviewed the original proposal which was before the Planning Commission in
1977, and stated that the majority of the land along the creek will be extremely
expensive single family, but also stated that they are trying to mix the price range.
Putnam went over the location, grading plan, and showed a model of Orrin Thompson
Homes.
Sathre further reviewed grading and access points.
The Planner reviewed the staff report dated June 19, 1981 and stated that the grading
plan is difficult to read because of the contours of the land and because of the size
of the site. He also stated that the private lanes should be made according to City
standards.
Sutliff asked how much space is provided between the housing and the garages. Putnam
replied 15 - 22' .
• Sutliff also asked if there would be four owners. Putnam replies yes.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 22, 1981
• Levitt asked if there is shoreland to this site. The Planner replied it is 300' in
excess of it.
Levitt stated that he would like Franlo Road improved.
Torjesen asked the plans for the land to the west of the site and the Reichow
property. Putnam replied the western portion is owned by Mr. McDonald who is un-
decided, and stated that the Reichows would like to live there, relocate Mr.
Reichow's shop, and further stated that the proponent would like rezoning for the
Reichow property in case the Reichows decide to sell .in the future.
Gary Branson, 9931 Cromwell Drive, stated that he was opposed, and asked what can be
done to let his opposition known. Bearman replied he could put a petition together
and write letters. He further stated that the City Council is the deciding body.
Dan Foley, 9850 Franlo Road, asked how many children would live in the multiple units.
Putnam replied .8 child per unit.
Bill Peters, 10490 Buckingham Drive, stated that he was concerned- with the drainage
pond.
Ted Finholg, 10010 Pioneer Trail , stated that he was concerned with traffic.
Bill Peters stated that there is no place for bicyclers to ride because of the traffic.
The Planner replied that the City has a bike trail going through on Co. Rd. 1.
• Glen Johnson, 9810 Cromwell Drive, asked if there will be an average of 8 trips/day.
The Planner replied yes. Johnson then asked what percentage of the traffic is
expected to travel on Co. Rd. 1. The Planner stated that most of the traffic will
go to a signal light on Co. Rd. 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway intersection.
Bill Peters asked if the trees along Co. Rd. 1 would be sheered off. Putnam replied
the trees in front of the Reichow property would remain.
Glen Johnson asked if a storm sewer is part of this plan, and if so, where do the
assessments come for that. The Planner replied that yes, it is part of the plan, and
stated that the assessments would come from Olympic Hills 3rd Corporation and Hustads.
Glen Johnson asked if this proposal is consistent with the plans for Eden Prairie.
Hustad replied yes.
Rosanne Richgruber, 9890 Cromwell Drive, stated that she was concerned for the
property values of the proposed housing as compared to the values of the existing
housing in this area.
Dan Foley stated that he was concerned with the amount of traffic on Franlo Road.
The Planner replied that there will be a sidewalk along the road, and stated that
the improvements to be made on the intersection of Co. Rd. 18 and 1 will help.
MOTION 1
Gartner moved to close the public hearing on Bluffs East. Levitt seconded, motion
carried 6-0.
•approved
Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 22, 1981
MOTION 2
Gartner moved to recommend approval of the PUD Development stage approval and re-
zoning from Rural to RM 6.5 as per the 5128/81 plans and the 6/19/81 staff report
adding the storm sewer overflow pipe. Hallett seconded.
DISCUSSION
Torjesen asked if item lc was necessary as listed in the staff report. Gartner
replied it should remain for the City Council .
Torjesen stated he was concerned that the Reichow property will stand alone.
Hallett asked if the Reichows are informed of this project. Putnam replied that
they know and are in Europe now.
Bearman stated that he does not want to see a new access point on Pioneer Trail .
The Planner stated that the recommendation was for everything but excluding the zoning
for the Reichow property. The Commission stated that they realized this.
Hallett asked that paragraph #2 of the staff report be made #8 of the recommendations.
Gartner agreed.
Motion carried 5-1. Sutliff voted no.
E. EDENVALE 14TH, by Equitable Life Assurance Society of the
• US and Equitable Lffe Mortgage and Realty Investors. Request
for revised PUD Development stage approval, rezoning from R1-13.5
to RM 6.5 for approximately 15 of the 24 acres, and preliminary
prat approval of 30 single family lots and 56 duplex lots.
Located NW of Edenvale Blvd. , southeast of railroad, and north
and west of Woodhill Trail . A public hearing.
The Planner replied that Mr. Dick Krier was present and requests a continuance to
work out problems.
MOTION
Levitt moved to continue the public hearing to Jdly'13, 1981 on Edenvale 14th.
Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
None
VI . NEW BUSINESS
None
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
The Planner went over the projects to be on the agenda for July 13, 1981.
Torjesen expressed his concern over the construction going on without
permits at City West.
. approved
Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 22, 1981
The Commission agreed that a motion should be made to ask the City
Council to pursue any sanctions for the City West project.
MOTION
Torjesen moved to ask the City Council to pursue any and all avenues
of recourses against ADI. Levitt seconded, motion carried 6-0.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Levitt moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:50 PM. Sutliff seconded,
motion carried 6-0.
•