Loading...
Planning Commission - 07/27/1981 r w July 24, 1981 Mayor Wolfgang Penzel Eden Prairie City Hall 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Mr. William Bearman Chairman, Planning Commission Eden Prairie City Hall 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Mr. Chris Enger Director of Planning Eden Prairie City Hall 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Gentlemen: it is with deep regret that I must resign from the • Eden Prairie Planning Commission. My wife, Sharon, and I searched for several months for a larger house for our growing family. However, we were unable to find a house in Eden Prairie that met our needs and our budget. Therefore, with great reluctance, we pur- chased a house outside the City. I want to thank the Mayor and the City Council for the opportunity given me to serve on the Planning Commission and to participate in the City' s planning process. I want especially to thank Mr. Enger and each member of the Planning Commission whose judgment, dedication and thoughtfulness contributed to a satisfying and enriching experience for me. Sharon and I shall continue to follow events in Eden Prairie with keen interest. I am certain that with the high degree and quality of citizen participation and leader- ship found in Eden Prairie, the City' s future is secure. Yours truly, Mat IhZ;�ftevitt MLL:mkh AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, July 27, 1981 7:30 PM, City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Matthew Levitt, Grant Sutliff, Virginia Gartner, Hakon Toriesen, Robert Halldtt STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance —Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF JUNE 22, 1981 MINUTES III. APPROVAL OF JULY 13, 1981 MINUTES IV. MEMBERS REPORTS V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. SMETANA'S CREEKSIDE ADDITION, by Frank J. Smetana Jr. Request to preliminary plat 3.6 acres from approximately 16 acres zoned Rural . Located west of 7722 Smetana Lane. A public hearing. B. CREEK RIDGE-ESTATES, by Brian Gensmer. Request to preliminary plat 31 acres zoned Rural into 5 lots for single family homes. Located in the northwest quadrant of Co. Rd. 18 and Riverview - Road. A public hearing. C. COR PUD AMENDMENT, by Karl F. Peterson. Request for a revised PUD Concept approval to utilize 4.21 acres for office use with variances for parking side yard setback and a lot with no public road frontage. Located in the southwest corner of Co. Rd. 4 and TH 5 behind Superamerica. A public hearing. D. BRYANT LAKE CONDOMINIUMS, by Metram Properties Co. Request for PUD Concept approval on 65 acres for residential attached and detached units with possible variances and approval of an Environ- mental Assessment Worksheet. Located east of 494 and Beach Road and south of proposed Crosstown 62. A public hearing. E. SMETANA LAKE TRAFFIC STUDY. Review of the Smetana Lake Traffic Study prepared for the City of Eden Prairie by Bennett, °Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc. A public meeting. VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT IX. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved Monday, July 27, 1981 7:30 PM, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Grant Sutliff, Hakon Torjesen, Virginia Gartner MEMBERS ABSENT: Liz Retterath, Robert Hallett STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Gartner moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0. II. APPROVAL OF JUNE 22, 1981 MINUTES Sutliff moved to approve the June 22, 1981 minutes as submitted. Gartner seconded, motion carried 4-0. III. APPROVAL OF JULY 13, 1981 MINUTES Torjesen moved to approve the July 13, 1981 minutes with the following additions and/or corrections. P. 4, 10th para. , the word parcek should be 'parcel ' P. 5, 1st para. , should read 'Retterath withdrew her second on the amended motion because the public hearing had already been closed, but retained the original motion. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 3-0-1. (Gartner abstained) IV. MEMBERS REPORTS Bearman stated that he has received a letter of resignation from Matthew Levitt and stated that he would like this to be made part of the minutes. Torjesen stated that he would miss Commissioner Levitt and stated that he felt that he had donee -a good job and had been an asset to the Commission. V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. SMETANA'S CREEKSIDE ADDITION, by Frank J. Smetana Jr. Request to preliminary plat 3.6 acres from approximately 16 acres zoned Rural . Located west of 7722 Smetana Lane. A public hearing. Bearman asked if the variance regarding lot size have been granted from the Board of Appeals. The Planner replied ves and further expj�ai.ned that this divisi_en_is for nronerty tax purposes. He also reviewed the staff report dated 7/23/81 and introduced Mr. Frank Smetana Jr. Smetana reviewed the location of the plat and surrounding land uses. MOTION 1 Gartner moved to close the public hearing on Smetana's Creekside Addition. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0. approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 27, 1981 MOTION 2 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated June 1, 1981 as per the July 23, 1981 staff report. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 4-0. B. CREEK RIDGE ESTATES, by Brian Gensmer. Request to preliminary plat 31 acres zoned Rural into 5 lots for single family homes. Located in the northwest quadrant of Co. Rd. 18 and Riverview Road. A public hearing. The Planner introduced Mr. Gene Ernst, of Ernst Associates and Mr. Brian Gensmer. Ernst gave a slide presentation and stated that the re-subdivision plans are shown for possible future uses. He went on to review the access, topography of the site, vegetation, and elevations. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 7/23/81. Sutliff asked if the location of the roadways fall within ordinance requirements. The Planner replied yes. Torjesen stated that he liked the future plans of the re-subdivision. The Planner stated that the southern area could develop into smaller lots for example, and there would be no major problems; but went on to say that the northern area would have a great impact on the slopes. Sutliff asked if the road will be a private road. The Planner replied that it would be a public road. Bearman asked if the greenway easement is a normal requirement. The Planner stated that this would be done because it is a unique part of the creek. Bearman also asked the length of the cul-de-sac. Gensmer replied 850 to 880' . MOTION 1 Torjesen moved to close the public hearing on Creek Ridge Estates. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0. MOTION 2 Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the 5 acre plat as per the report dated 7/23/81, and the Hennepin County Department of Transportation letter dated 7/14/81 stating that the re-subdivision plan was submitted for infor- mation only and amending item #8 of the staff report to read as follows: 'Any future subdivision of the property must be submitted for review and approval and shall be in accordance with City Ordinance requirements at such time. Gartner seconded. DISCUSSION • Sutliff asked if the proponent will have to return for rezoning and/or future platting. The Planner replied yes. Motion carried 4-0. approved Planning Commission Minutes -3R July 27, 1981 C. COR PUD AMENDMENT, by Karl F. Peterson. Request for a revised PUD Concept approval to utilize 4.21 acres for office use with variances for parking side yard setbacks and a lot with no public frontage. Located in the southwest corner of Co. Rd. 4 and TH 5 behind Superamerica. A public hearing. The Planner stated that this proposal is part of the original 1978 PUD which called for a 48 unit apartment building. He also stated that this was amended in 1979 to a 25,000 sq. ft. office building and a 64 unit elderly housing project and that a 2nd reading had never been requested. He also introduced Mr. Paul Blais, of Howard Dahlgren & Assoc. representing the proponent. Blais reviewed surrounding land uses, access_ , parking, property lines and variance requests. _ - The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 7/24/81. Torjesen stated that the proposal is not in conformance with the Guide Plan. The Planner stated that the last approved project on this site was for elderly housing and offices. He also stated that the traffic generation from the approved project and this project is almost identical . He then went on to explain that the building height is lower now and that lighting is a concern. He also stated that the parking must be buffered from the residential area. Blais stated that' he agreed with The Planner. Torjesen expressed his concern that the City has less residential zoned property versus office and commercial ; this was zoned for residential . Sutliff asked where the storm sewer is located. The Planner replied in Terrey Pine Drive. Beaman stated that he would like to hear from Superamerica and asked if anyone was present to represent them. No one was present. Sutliff asked if the proponent has worked with Superamerica regarding the relocated accesses. Blais replied yes and stated that the proponent is now in the process with Superamerica to_ have a written agreement drawn up. Beaman stressed the importance of having- Superamerica's opinion. Beaman stated that he was concerned that there is no public frontage for one of the proposed, lots. Beaman asked if the proponent had considered one large building. Blais replied yes, but went on to explain that usually with one building there is one owner and separate tenants. In this development, there would be one owner owning each building which the land goes with. Torjesen expressed his concern that there will be no access on the inner road for the veterinary office. Blais replied that they would get an easement from Dr. • Bonnet. Gerald Anderson, 16506 Terrey Pine Drive, stated that he was concerned with the road coming on the eastern portion of the project next to his property. He asked if his taxes would go up because of it, and who would pay for this. He also stated approved Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 27, 1981 that he was concerned with the noise from the animals, the traffic on the road, and the width of the road. Blais replied that the proponent would pay for the road, and introduced Dr. Bonnet of the veterinary office. Dr. Bonnet stated that he has had no problems with his other offices regarding noise. He further stated that at the most, 30 animals would be present and that this would not be primarily a boarding kennel . Bearman asked Dr. Bonnet if any of his other offices are located as close to a residential area as this would be. Dr. Bonnet replied no. Don Sorenson, 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated he was concerned about the possibility of new ownership of the buildings and the access. He also stated that he felt the parking in the southwestern corner is dense. The Planner replied that the road is at its existing location because of plans discussed prior to this proposal and stated that they have studied the traffic; the results would be the same as an apartment building. Bearman asked if any negociations have been made regarding the medical building. Blais replied yes and further stated that they have looked at other access points, but none worked out as well . MOTION 11. Gartner moved to close the public hearing on the COR PUD Amendment. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0. MOTION 2 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Concept of office use but that the site plan be revised so that variances were not required and an access road that did not immediately border residential be worked out. Sutliff seconded. DISCUSSION Sutliff stated that he felt there was a need to have an agreement in written form from Superamerica. Bearman agreed and stated that he felt the land use is correct, but had problems with the road, Superamerica, and the site plan. He further stated that he had no problems with the land use plan but feels that the plan should be looked at very closely. Gartner stated that she felt the plan is better suited for this site than apart- ments but stated that she felt the traffic for Superamerica would be increased past the residential area. Bearman stated that presently Superamerica does not have a food license, and stated that when they would acquire one, traffic would increase greatly. He further stated that substantial work is- needed and when the proponent returns for rezoning, he would like to see a revised site plan. Bearman then asked .that, alternate roads be investigated and information from Superamerica; (if they are planning to be open 24 hours a day with a food license) , be added to the staff report. Gartner and Sutliff agreed. Motion carried 3-1. (Torjesen voted nay) approved Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 27, 1981 i D. BRYANT LAKE CONDOMINIUMS, by Metram Properties Co. Request for PUD Concept approval on 65 acres for residential attached and detached units with possible variances and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located east of 494 and Beach Road and south of proposed Crosstown 62. A public hearing. The Planner introduced Mr. John Uban, of Howard Dahlgren & Assoc. and Dale Ahlquist of Metram Properties Co. Uban reviewed an aerial,, the land uses around Bryant Lake, soils, slopes, grading plan, elevations, and stated that Metram is willing to work out any problems. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 7/23/81. He also stated that Marlene Egerdahl was present representing Hennepin County Park Preserve. He stated that there were two concerns; 1) land use and '2) '.the planned park. _ He stated that the units would be clustered and the Comprehensive Guide Plan is designated for low density residential . Bearman asked if Hennepin County has 90 days to make a decision regarding the land. The Planner replied that they will have 90 days after this proposal is before the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. Bearman asked Ms. Egerdahl to give a summary for the Hennepin County Park Preserve. Egerdahl stated that the Park Preserve District took over Bryant Lake Park 1 year ago, stated that the Metropolitan Council is currently allocating the money for park expansion, which they expect to have available in October. She further stated that the District has every intention to go ahead with the park acquisition nego- tiations immediately. Uban stated that the proponent is open tp negociations with the Park Preserve District and stated that the proponent felt that this is a good project and they could give the property needed for a park and still have property to build upon. Egerdahl replied that they have met with the City Council and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and stated that they feel that the District should have the needed time to acquire the property. Torjesen stated that he agrees with the cluster concept and asked about access through the Thelma Haynes property. The Planner stated that this had been platted in large 1-2 acre lots and stated that there has been discussion regarding the Haynes property. Torjesen stated that he felt the access through the Haynes property could not be sold because many different parties had used it over the years and acquired rights in it. Bearman stated that he felt that the density should not be increased above 2 u/acre and that he agrees with the clustered housing. He then asked if the S-horeland Management Ordinance effects this project. The Planner replied yes and that the project is in conformance. Bearman asked the length of the cul-de-sac off of Crosstown 62. The Planner replied 2000' and that the Ordinance allows 500' -.as a maximum. approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 27, 1981 • Don Sorenson, 7121 Willow Creek Road stated that he felt that great stress was being put on the northern area of the site along Minnetonka. He also stated that he felt the density should not be increased, and that the property could be developed at considerably less than 2 units/acre. Diane Waterberry, 6681 Beach Road stated that she was concerned with the number of sailboats and canoes that would be expected from 243 units. Alfred Harrison, 6941 Beach Road stated that he was concerned with the amount of activity on the lake and felt that it will increase more. He also stated that he would like the site to be a park. Uban stated that at the neighborhood meeting, it was decided to remove the common dock. John Wilkie, 7221 Willow Creek Road asked what steps the Commission takes to inform the City Council . Bearman replied that they make recommendations. Bearman stated that he felt that clustered housing is good and stated that if the proponent used 1 unit/acre they could have 65 additional homes on the site, and as a comparison, even this would probably have an adverse impact on the steeply rolling site. Don Sorenson, 7121 Willow Creek Road stated that he felt clustered housing has its advantages, but also stated that he felt single family could be done also. Torjesen asked the proponent if they would prefer returning to the Commission with a revised plan or a decision now. Uban replied that they would like to return and stated that they will work with the City Staff. MOTION Torjesen moved to continue Bryant Lake Condo plat to the September 14, 1981 meeting for recommended modifications outlined in the 7/23/81 staff report and encouraging the proponent, staff, and Hennepin County Park Preserve to work together, and _make this available to the Park, .Recreation and Natural Resources Commission should they wish to take this up before action is taken by the Planning Commission. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0. E. SMETANA LAKE TRAFFIC STUDY. Review of the Smetana Lake Traffic Study prepared for the City of Eden Prairie by Bennett, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc. A public meeting. The Planner introduced Dick Wdlsfeld- of BRW. Wolsfeld reviewed the Smetana Lake Traffic Study and went over each syttem_alternate. Sutliff asked if a bridge across 494 to Schooner Blvd. was considered. Wolsfeld repliedythat the City is looking at the ring road now. Sutliff also asked if US 169 will become part of the ring road if the Schooner Blvd. underpass were not built. Wolsfeld replied yes. Torjesen asked if the location of the bridge proposed in the study was based on • the assumption that another bridge would be located at Schooner Blvd. Wolsfeld replied yes. Sutliff asked if the northern frontage road would be 1-way goi,nng west. Wolsfeld replied that it would be a 2-way frontage road: approved Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 27, 1981 Mr. Pearson, 8680 W. 158th St. , Prior Lake, MN stated that he talked with the State Highway Department regarding the possibility of an off-ramp from I-494 but felt that a bridge would be better. Don Sorenson, 7121 Willow Creek Road stated that he felt that traffic on 169-212 would increase greatly. He then asked the traffic count on 169-212. The Planner replied south of the Center, approximately 19,000. Bearman asked the cost to build a bridge. Wolsfeld replied $60/sq. ft. Herleiv Helle, 6138 Arctic Way, Edina, MN stated that he felt that the crossing of 494 by Co. Rd. 18 is very bad. Bearman asked when 18/I-494 would be upgraded to a clover-leaf. The Planner replied in the future but is currently being upgraded as a full diamond. Don Brauer, The Brauer Group, stated that the biggest single problem for the "Golden Triangle" is access. Sutliff asked the current status of Tax Increment Financing. The Planner replied that he would check. MOTION Torjesen moved to continue the Smetana Lake Traffic Study to the August 10, 1981 meeting. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0. • VI. OLD BUSINESS None VII. NEW BUSINESS Bearman stated that he would like a recommendation made to the City Council to have a new member for the Planning Commission be appointed as soon as possible. He also stated that he felt Mr. Levitt'.s term was very commendable. The Commission Members agreed. Bearman also stated that he felt that a road Capital Improvement Program should be studied. Bearman stated that since development is now becoming the connection of neighborhoods and items are more controversial , he felt that a limit of 3 new development proposals should be placed on the agendas. He further stated that with the limit, more time would be available for more detailed study. MOTION Gartner moved to limit the agendas to 3 new development proposals per meeting stating that if The Planner felt more could be placed on the agenda they would. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 4-0. VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT The Planner reviewed the upcoming projects for the August 10, 1981 meeting. IX. ADJOURNMENT Torjesen moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:12, AM. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0.