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.