Planning Commission - 05/24/1976 A G E N D A
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, May 24, 1976
7:30 PM City Hall
Invocation --- Pledge of Allegiance --- Roll Call
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Don Sorensen, Norma Schee, William Bearman,
Rod Sundstrom, Herb Fosnocht ,Richard Lyn-.h, Sidney Pauly
STAFF MEMBERS: Dick Putnam, Jean Johnson
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
II . MINUTES OF THE MAY 102 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEE ING.
III. MEMBERS REPORTS.
A. Chairman Don Sorensen.
1 . Selection of representative for Sign Committee.
B. Council Representative Sidney Pauly.
C. Others.
IV. REPORTS AND RECONMENDATIONS.
A. Crosstown Extension. from Shady Oak Road to 1-494. Revised plan
illustrating access to Beach Road and Minnetonka Industrial Park.
B. Neill Lake Apartments,in The Preserve, request for pud development
plan approval for 84 units. The site is located on Neill Lake Road
across from the High Point single family area.
C. Area H of The Preserve Commercial Plan, continued public tearing.
Requast to preliminary plat Area H into 2 lots and to rezone one lot
to C-Regional Service. The site is located in the southwest quadrant
of Schooner Boulevard and U. S. 169.
V. "ETITIONS AND RE UEIS.S.
--_ . EAgt West arcway A`r*ments , in The Preserve. Request to rezone an
approxim7te 9 acre site to RM 2.5 for 129 rental apartments. The site
iy Kest of the Preserve Center on the East/Nest Parkway.
VI . OLD BUSINESS.
VII . NEW [BUSINESS.
VIII . PLANNER'S REPORT. -
A. Homeowner's Associations.
IX. ADJOURNMENT.
„�,..�.,o�:___-._:�.�,-� ».•��-_d.���.-.gin--m�y:.<,.�-�.�..,_,���,�„s,,,. �....�..�..n...:,..._._:_,..-.�.,.,.._�,.,.«�..,a_�,.__...�._.._ ..._. ____ _-�.
MINUTES :
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMISSION
approved
Monday, May 24, 1976 7:30 PM City Hall
K MBERS PRESENT: Chairman Don Sorensen, Willi*am Bexrman: Rod Sundstrom,
Richard Lynch, Norma Schee, Herb Fosnocht
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sidney Pauly
STAFF Pkr::ENI': Dick Putnam
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The Commission approved the zgenda aF written .
II. MINUTES OF THE MAY 109 1976 PLANNING COWISSION MEETING.
P. 2,B. ,4F, should read--"Sorensen questioned the validity of the various
criteria used in the formulas to measure or estimate users of
park fac411ities.11
Dearman moved, Fosnocht seconded, to approve the minutes as written and corrected.
The motion carried 4 :0:2 ( Schee $ Fosnocht abstained ) .
III. MEMBERS REPORTS.
•
A. ' Cha irman Don Sorensen.
1 . Selection of representative for Sign Committee
Schee moved, Bearman seconded, to appoint Dick L;,nch as the Planning Comission 's
representative to the Sign Committee and instruct the staff to notify the Planning
Commission members of the meetings and results. The motion carried unanimously.
2. Board of Appeals Report. 1
Sorensen informed thT Commission of the two administrative subdivisions considered.
He expressed a concern relative to the administrative subdivision process the ;
City is presently using and felt it was important that the Commission and Council
have a better understanding of what the procedures are and whAt has been done
over the past years.
Moved, 9earman seconded, to request the City staff to prepare a sucmary
report of all land divisions approved from 1970 to 1976 The motion carried
-- S :l
B. Council pepresentative Pauly. Absent
C. Others.
-- -- -- Rearman - -- - - -
Mr. Rearwan inquired what would be the date for the Condon/Naegele considera-
tion by tte Council . The planning director responded it is expected to be
• on the Counc i I Is nopwdA e4rly i rs. ,i�.:n!,•
REPORTS AND RECO IFNDATIONS
r
A. Crosstown Extension. from Shady Oak Road to 1-494 Revised plan illusirrting
access o Beach Road and Minnetonka Industrial Park.
The planner distributed thT staff report , dated May 20th, and discussed the various
implications of the CrosAtwn extension as listed in the report .
- k t
�r.
approved _
Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 24, 1976
The major issue discussed concerned the safety of the at-grade intersection with the
freeway and its location relative to 494 /Crosstown intersection and the bridge
spanning Nine M1:e Creek. Secondly, the impact of such access to the Crosstown
upon land uses within Eden Pririe and Minnetonka. Impact of such an access upon
1%; '2r.,4 „co a al ri6 ac ee,vnnIPrri al iml»ctrial 11i oh doncitV mtlltinle
and its compatibility with existing character of the area were discussed.
The planner discussed the alternative road designs , the need for the road connec-
tion and emphasized the importance of City consideration of the safety considera-
tions and potential land uses of the finalized Crosst-Dwn design.
There was considerable discussion from residents and Planning Commission members
as to the points raised in the May 24th staff report.
Mrs. Harrison, 6941 Beach Road, saw the need for an extension across 494 with a
safe route for children going to school and community areas.
Mr. Saxe, 6761 Beach Road, said that Alternative B which provides more access to
the City would also slow down the traffic and hence reduce the safety hazard of
the one signal at Beach Road.
W. Franzen, 6851 Beach Road, questioned the need of extending the ro d to 494.
Mr. Sorensen expressed the fact that there are other decisions that were made prior
to now that had approved of a crosstown extension He further noted that an
an alternative that still exists is to do ivt.4:A.9
s
Mrs. Harrison felt that the extension to Shady Oak seemed to dictate a need to connect
some type of road to 494.
Mrs. Haynes, 6425 Beach Road, questioned whether the property at Beach Road and
Crosstown intersection was commercial today. The planner responded that the pro-
perty is no. zoned commercial today. .
Mr. Sate said the Crosstown extension has been around for a long time and Mr. Kaefer
who lives on Baker and the Crosstown has been experiencing problems with such an.
expansion for the last 15 years.
Motion:
Fosnocht moved, Schee seconded, to continue consideration of the Crosstown extension
to the June 14th meeting and to notify Hennepin County of the meeting for their
comments. The motion carried unanimcssly.
Bearman was excused from the meeting.
B. Neill Lake Apartments , The Preserve, request for pud development plan
approval for 84 units. The site is located on Neill Lake Road across from
the High Point single family area.
Mr. Hess, Mr. Moe and Mr. Sawhill presented the site plan and site modifications,
moving the building further away fTum Neill Lake Road and realigning the parking
and access roads as suggested at the previous meeting. Mr. Moe then discussed the
extensive landscaping and berming that is proposed along Neill Lake Road to buffer
the project from the single family homes.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 24, 1976
i;
&rhe planning staff report of May 20th was discussed with questions from the
Planning Commission and developer.
W. ^f ?,/rc D-*I11%F ( C.I-UM. 4-4. A • �
relative to the previous commitments from Preferred Developers for owner occupancy
rather than rental units .
Mr. Sundstrom asked Mr. Eess his definition of buffering or what are the criteria for
the barrier. Hess replied visual .
Mr. Fosnocht asked the planner if the plan was an ideal situation for mixing single
family and multiple land uses due to the close proximity. The planner responded
that the site is not the ideal situation in which . o mix land uses, however,
because of previous zonings and construction , this project is a vast improvement,
in his opinion, over the previous p-rojcct .
Mr. Retterath asked if there would be any brick on the exterior of the building.
Mr. Moe responded there would not be any brick, rather the exterior would be of
wood construction.
Mr. Carlson, 9024 Neill Lake Road, questioned whether recreational vehicles could
be kept out of the parking area. Mr. Sawhill , representing Land Tech Manage-
ment , said t!iey could effectively control recreational vehicles as they have been
successful in other projects.
�►Mr. Putnam asked the proponents what the provisions of the 221 D 4 program are for
veryone' s clarification. Mr. Sawhill responded that there would be no tax reetac-
tion , that it was not a subsidized low or moderate rent project, it would not be
eligible for Section 8 funding rnder the current livits,aad the mortgage is at
71j% just as GI or FHA loans are made to homes.
Sorensen asked about the overall size of the building and if any relief of the
massiveness of 400 feet could be achieved. Screening and landscaping as well as
possibly breaking the building at the center would be possible according to Mr. Moe.
Mr. Carlson raised the following four points of concern:
1. That the Preserve developers had broken faith with his personal
assurances that the project would be owner occupied.
2. That the ownership vs. rental questions was the primary reason for
him opposing the project .
3. That the traffic would increase on Neill Lake Road and be potentially
dangerous.
4. That representatives of The Preserve had told him that single family
development would be built on this site and that this project is in
direct opposition to that .
Mr. Sorensen thanked Mr. Carlson for his opinions, but felt personal comments to
Carlson by other persons are not grounds for the Planning Commission ' s consideration
Bract Thorson, attorney representing a Preserve resident, requested the Planning
•Commission take no action at this meetings rather allow time for the property owners
to discuss with the developer their concerns about the project .
Planning Commission Minutes -5- Erg�ed1976
P Planning Commission 'Or. Putnam explained to the 1 g provisions of the 221 D 3
as follows :
1 . A reduced interest rate to 7-L2o sponsered by HUD to the developer.
L. M LVbL1*4A;L1U11 V11 LIM W11VUJIl, V1 PIUAIL LJIC dcvclu-pt fall 11101hC pur
year on the project .
3. That the units would fall within a rent guideline established
for Minneapolis and St . Paul for Section 8 units.
4. That the developer must sign a regulatory agreement with FrUO for
the program.
S. That the City of Eden Prairie School Districr and Hennepin County
would reduce '. axes to the project by 1/2 identical to Briarnill 236 )
and Windslope ( Section S ) .
nie planner fclt that under the 221 D 3 program, because it was a program for low
and moderate income families , HUD would prefer low and moderate income
families The planner noted that Eden Prairie has
approved 2 projects for low and moderate income families one of which is built
( Briarhill , 126 units ) and one approved but not yet built ( Windslopeo168 units) .
He stated both projects are approved for market rate low and moderate anc; rent
supplement units, therefore, the total units available for low and moderate income
families would be around 300 units or 10% of the City' s housing stock. In Eden
Prairie' s Housing Assistance Plan submitted in the Hennepin County Community
Development Grant applicatior approved by the Metro Council , Eden Prairie listed
its housing goals for the next three years as follows :
• "The city lists no first-year goals for federally :. .11sidized housing.
It has listed as its three-year goal its pro-rats share based upon
the Allocation Plan's guide percentage. However, this city now
has greater than 10 percent of its units as subsidized housing. Under
HUD's guidelines, the county is bcund to prevent overconcentration
of subsidized housing. Eden Prairie ' s three -year "pro-rata--share"
goals are listed. But, it is the strong feeling of both the city and
county that the current amount of subsidized housing available in
the city represents already an over concentration of federally-
subsidized housing. During the upcoming program year, the county
will look at the problem of overconccntration closely. It is quite;
possible that the county will support further temporary elimination
of federally sub-sidized housing beyond .the current years. Thus, the
city's plan and program are adequate and realistic, given its peculiar
situation. " 1
The n1anner then further stated tha,. -he Metropolitan Council Human Resource
Committee at their May llth review (.& the Housing Assistance Plan for Hennepin
County and the City of Eden Prairie,commerted as follows :
"The following communities should be commended for meeting or making
meaningful efforts towards fulfilling their 1975 Hobsing Assistance
Flan goals Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie . . . . "
lHousing Assistance Plan Community Development Block Grant Program Urban
Hennepin County, 1976.
-
spproved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 24, 1976 '
n
Mr. Retterath expressed a concern that putting an apartment: building across
from single family is not appropriate and that the !Tanning Advisory
Service, which he read, seemed to say that protection of the integrity of the
single family neighborhood was of prime importance in community development.
ale CLAZU ci►Y:c��c.. a.u% �.OilC,viiis L L, 0_11c isyoa L.luL;il#.J Vioulu not ur au--4Ua1.4Vly iusi11%a►i1ic%..,
that there is no use of brick as in other buildings in the area that a gong number
of school children are picked up on Neill Lake Road and that the apartment traffic
would be dangerous to those children.
Mrs. Retterath expressed the concern that with the construction of Windslope, the
East/West Parkway Apartments , 'and the Neill Lake Apartments, th . Preserve would be
overburdened with multiple family units and this is not consistent with the Preserve's
plan.
Mr. Hess stated The Preserve has always anticipated approximately 50% multiple
25% townhouse and 25% single family.
Thorson believed the personal concerns of residents regarding misrepresentation of
facts by the developer should be considered in the commission' s deliberation .
Motion l :
Schee moved, Fosnocht seconded, to continue consideration of the development plan
_ to the June 14th meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
Motion 2 :
Lynch moved, Fosnocht seconded, to ask the Council to consider the Neill Lake Apart-
sent project at their June 22nd meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
C. Area H of The Preserve Commercial Plan, continued public hearing. Request tc
preliminary plat Area H into 2 lots and to rezone one lot to C-Regional Service.
The site is located in the southwest quadrant of Schooner Boulevard and US 169.
The planner stated the Parks , Recreation and Natural Resources Commission had not
taken action on the item and that the staff has not completed their review of
the plan or the impacts upon City ordinances and assessment policies.
Mr. Hess did not object to a continuation of the item pending Park & Recreation and
staff review.
Motion : .
Schee moved, Lynch seconded, to continue the public hearing on Area H to the June
14th meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS.
A. East/west Parkway Apartments The Preserve Request to rezone an approximate
9 acre site to RM 2 . 5 for 129 rental apartments. The site is west of the Preserve
Center on the East/West Parkway .
;iir. Sawhill representing Land Tech:sporsers of the project, .said the project was
a 221 D 3 FHA project authorized under the amended National Housing Act.
Mr. Putnam asked Mr. Sawhill if the project was a subsidized project for low and
moderate income families. Mr. Sawhill responded that the name of the HUD program
HUD is the Program for Low and Moderate and Elderly Incomes, but Land Tech is
not requesting Section 8 funding for subsidized rents.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 241 1976
is
The Planning Commission questioned why the low and moderate income project was
proposed across the street from Windslope. Mr. Sawhill responded that they did
not intend to rent the project ender the low and moderate income provisions
and that it would be a cut above the Windslope project and slightly below the
Neill Lake Apartment project.
!►fir. Carlson said that t;.is was another indication of how the developers of The
Preserve have broken faith with the residents by proposing subsidized housing _
directly across the street from an existing subsidized project.
Notion :
Schee moved, Lynch seconded, to recommend to the City Council denial of the
rezoning application from Rural to RM 2 . 5 for the East/West Parkway Apartments
proposed by The Preserve and Land Tech for the following reasons :
1. That the East j West Parkway Apartments of 129 rental units
financed under the 221 D 3 HUD program requires rental to low
and moderate -income families and elderly.
2. That the site is located across the street from the previously
approved Windslope 256 project for :68 units and currently is being
considered for Section 8 funding.
3. That the construction of the East;West Parkway Apartments and the
Windslope project would lead to an over concentration of low and
moderate income units within 1 planning sector of Eden Prairie.
4. That the 129 unit proposal is inconsistent with the City Council
approved Housing Assistance Plan submitted with the Community
Development Act Grant with Hennepin County for 1976pand is incon-
sistent with the Metropolitan Council ' s Regional Housing Goals.
The motion carried unanimously.
VI . OLD BUSINESS. none
VII . NEW BUSINESS. none
VIII . PLANNER'S REPORT.
A. Homeowner Associations.
The planner indicated that a report out3ining the areas of concerns would be
prepared for the next meeting.
IX. ADJOUkNMENT.
Lynch moved, Fosnocht seconded, to adjourn at 11. :45 PM. The motion carried
unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted:
Richard Putnan,Planning Director
Acting Secretary