Loading...
Planning Commission - 06/14/1976 wW :wEw��t+1�..s, j':-'�1C9�C Si3G�T�.L�►.�C', �.:..w�.,:'rt'+7C�.�` i^..�4�����.. .!./ +y,..•,f.. L. ° 1.. ..✓°1a.' -.iW, .b ., - 9�+Y�.:Y'j�i�f'a'2�1'!6r!,�T�.:�.R, E�M y.. A G E N D A ' CONTINUED TO DUNE 21 , 1976, i Monday, at Votech School , 9200 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie Planning Commission 7 :00 PM to 10 :00 Room 118 �. l•rvi:uay , JW1C l.4 ly/O 7 :30 PM, City Hall Invocation --- Pledge of Allegiance --- Roll Call r. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Don Sorensen, Norma Sr_hee, William Bearman, Rod Sundstrom, Her') Fosnocht, Ri,:hard Lynch, Sidney Pauly STAFF MEMBERS : Dick Putnam, .jean Johnson i. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II . MINUTES OF THE MAY 249 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING .- III . MEMBERS REPORTS A. Chairman. Don Sorensen B. Council Representative Sidney Pauly : C. Others A:. IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Minnesota Protective Life Company, review of revised site/building development plan. B. Crosstown Extension, from Shady Oak Road to I-494 . Consideration of access to Beach /Cooley Road. Discussion of staff report and Hennepin County response. C. 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. D. Condon/Naege'.e Development PIan, discussion of revised site plan. fi E. Area H, The Preserve, continued public hearing. Request to preliminary plat Area H into 2 lots a::d to rezone one lot to C-Regional Service. The site is located in the southwest quadrant of Schooner Boulevard and US 169. F. Eden Prairie Family Recreational Signage Program. G. Homeowner' s Association, consiierativn of process to be used for HOA. V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS A. Consideration of Planned Study areas in Southwestern Eden Prairie. VI. OLD BUSINESS VII . NEW BUSINESS V111. PLANNER'S REPORT IX. ADJOURNMENT in MINUTES EDEA' PRA.iRIE PLANNING COIrMISSIOM -approved Monday, June :4, 1976 /:SO PM City Hall W.-MMERS PRESENT: Chairman Don Sorensen, William Bearman, Rod Sundstrom, Sidney Pauly, Herb Fosnocht, Norma Schee MFMBF.RS ARSFVr: Ri chari Lynch STAFF PRESENT: Dick Putnam, Jean Johnson I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Bearman moved, Sundstrom seconded, to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES OF THE MAY 241, 1976 PLANNING C041MISSION MEETING P.3,3F, should read-t-1r. Sundstrom asked Mr. Hess his definition of buffering or what are the criteria for the barrier. Mr. Hess replied visual . :'chee moved , Sundstrom seconded, to approve the minutes as written and corrected. The motion carried 4 :0:2 ( Pauly and Schee abstained ) . 1II . MEMBERS REPORTS A Don Sorensen, Chairman. 1. Sorensen announced he would like to discuss the question of agendas, but due to the large crowd :resent for following items he sugge-sted moving such discussion to Old Business, The Commission members agreed. B. council Representative Pauly,. 1 . Posting Rezoning Signs . Pauly reported the Council at their last meeting decided to post signs in some instances on a trial basis and the commission should decide which areas and/or project should have rezoning signs posted . Sorensen stated he is in favor of the signs , but questioned the time restraint of determining if sie.is should be posted after the projects are already on the agenda. Rearman believed all projects have impact and importance and it would be difficult tc• determine which ones should be posted. 2. Municipal Liquor. Pauly reported the issue of municipal liquor will be coming to the Planning Como i s =on scon. C. Others. 1 . Rearman restated Surdstrom's previous suggestion that the minutes for approval be distributed as soon as possible instrLd of in .he packet on Thursdays . - a: .....:�....s.... ..4r tua ministate wnatid he he comic ssion agreev L1id7 S"): ea ,y �. -- bel pfu I . The staff agreed to try to distribut.c the minutes early in the mail . iY. IQ Pi7RTs ,t%n A. Minn{ -nt f'rntccf Svc tiff Comr:�n rev Iev of revised site/building development Mr. lwm l.;,*cnc Jr. , architect , statcJ the rcvisiona to thy site anJ holding were prmpl ell h , thf, cpnc rtt!� c%prc,,. -d in thr ,,tuff report and by the residents , and the cha"prf ►n tbC hui lding's rRinan,; iPsi from vertical to horizontals lie ,fated the 1nsi lding , with the tcdc­-ic*n , F•cwtld have 19.0r.^ exposure to the freewayr. , the screening II Y f approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 14, 1976 B. Crosstown Extension from Shad Oak Road to I-4 4 Consideration y 9 of access to Beach/Cooley Road. Discussion of staff report and H-ennepin County response. Air. Klossner, District Engineer Hennepin County Public Works, said he felt the staff report was excellent, but did not agree with all the points raised. Mr. Klossner believed the revised plan met the 4 criteria included in the City Councils action, Aug. 27, 1974, relative to the Crosstown Extension: 1. Subject to City Managerls memo of Aug. 9, 1974. 2. ' Signalization of Beach Road. 3. Proceed with discussions- with property owners regarding right-of-way acquisition along Baker Road. 4. Provide hikeway/bikeway access. Mr. Klossner, referring to page S. relative to the safety of signal intervals, stated a safe stopping distance, at 60 mph is 300 feet, so the 900 foot intervals between sigrals should be sufficient. The Comnission felt the signal intervals may cause safety hazards when bad weather Exists, Suring peak hours forcing cZrs to stack between signals, and because of the obstructed line of view over the bridge. (year 2060) , Mr. Klossner stated 22,000 vehicle trips/day are expected, tthe highest 15 ;minute peak) , and such traffic would only incur 300 feet of stacking which is approxi- mately 12. . 5 cars. Fosnocht questioned why signalization is being considered on the Crosstown, and requested information on ashy no better alternative exists. Klossner responded signalization was recommended by the City Council in 1974 . The planner felt signalization of the intersections along Crosstown 62 would increae the development pressures for commercial land uses along the route. Klossner informed the commission that the City of ;4innetonka had approved the revised extension. Bearman inquired as to the cost of the revised plan. Klossner responded that as of 1974,the cost was estimated to be 3-4 million dollars , one million of which iq the cost" uf the bridge to span I-494 . Schee stated she ig not in favor of Rn at-grade intersectiun with Beech Road, and would prefer a limited access freeway. Sorensen inquired if the staff had received any further comments from residents. The staff responded negative. Mot i on : - Sch ee oved, Sundstrom seconded , to continue the item to after V.A. on the agenda. The motion carried unanimously. _ _ Iy • i Planning Commission tiinutes -S- June 14, 1976 K i Sundstrom questioned if further berming could be used to screen the single family a from the building. Hess felt higher berms on the apartment site would look ridic- ulous, but suggested additional plantings on the berms and on the single family lots would help. Sundstrom asked if the garage entrance could be relocated to -the rear of t1le building. Hess thought it might be possible. Mr. Anderson believed traffic using Old Franio Poad would' invade the privacy of the units facing the back and the users of the pedestrian path. Mrs. Anderson, 10561 Lake Fall Drive, stated the existing- Ridgewood units are not favorable , the proposed apartment project is not an improvement, and the approval of ownership condominiums for the site should remain in force. Mr. Bach, 9051 Neill Lake Road, stated he did not feel the aesthetics of the building were the issue, but the reliance of the residents on The Nreservt that the site would be owner occupied units. He felt the rental structure would lower the values of the single family homes , and increase traffic and lake pollution. Mr. Carlson, 9061 Neill Lake Road, expressed concern that a number of unrelated persons may rent a unit . He felt the commission and council has a responsibility to the residents whether the reliance on ownership units is civil or not. Mr. Mars, 10700 Lake Fall Drive, raid not feel looking at the roof of the apartment was an improvement over looking at the face cf the building. He then expressed the a concern that the berming may be a traffic hazard. Mr. Retterath,9011 High Point Circle, did not feel an in/out should be allowed at the south entrance because of the drop, and that the children of the project may prefer totlots across the street and unsafely cross the street. Mr. Bergan, 870 ; Bentwood Drives asked if the project will be subsidized. The planner replied negative. Bergan then. suggested the project remain ownership condominiims unless access is provided other than Neill Lake Road. ------ MEETING WAS ADJOURNED BY THE CHAIRMAN DUE TO 10:15 PM SEVERE WEATHER AND ON THE RECOAWNDATION OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT THAT PERSONS ----------- SHOULD TAKE COVER. - MEETING RESOIIU )ULJl 1) FOR MONDAY, .iuriE -is!- o, 'ai `vvii�i SCHOOL, 9200 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, 7:00-10:00 PM :'aRC�'— " '°�'''+n",`•!R.t , �: ..'"�''":rC.+";:;�' M _,,err'•�' :�."�_�"'y�}ft'f�R'.—.......¢�,'� �+`-!SS*.+t .. `i..r ,MG•-.,y. 'sae - ti.. -` " t } • approvPd Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 14, 1976 and berming would be more effective, the window contact with the einale family would be minimizes:, and the bank . drive-in would be off of 169 ( in-only) , instead of from Leona Road . He believed the construction could start in .July and be completed in February, 19?7, if prompt approval is received. Bearman inquired about the height and caliber of the trees to be planted. Mr. Lakens responded they would be 3-12 feet. in hPiet ar.d 131-3" in diameter. Sorensen relayed .the following concerns submitted by Mr. Lynch ; The .revised plan is an improvement over. the previous plan , but believe a revised staff report should be submitted relative to the wdrquac:y of proposed parking, the neea of a parking ramp, . and the Total land coverage. Mr. Koehler, 11518 Leona Road, stated the revised plan puts the building closer to his home, and asked what type of fence is proposed and how the horizontal expansion ' - '- �,c,: would be w1 13 -In to construct. a ro,.A h would be accomplished. Mr. �,:.....►... � ..,. - -. g g cedar opaque fence as requested by the reesiden ts , and the expansion would be accom- plished by additional land purchase. 8 : 10 PM The following weather report was delivered by the Public Safety Department and read by Nor. Sorensen, "ln approximately 40 minutes possible high winds, hail , etc . , fui hits area . Will advise further if weather comes any sooner." Sorensen asked what was the basic reason for changing to a horizontal expansion. Mr. Laken.- stated that the structure Parking and vertical expansion was found ::e be infeasible. Sorensen asked if the planting plan had been discussed with the City Landscape Architect. Mr. Don Soppes stated they will be presenting the plan to the Landscape Architect for approval and it has already been discussed with the building department . M:, . Putnam sated preliminary review of the plan has found the plantings adequate. Sorensen asked if shared parking would be used between MPL and the church. Mr. Lakens said it is MPL' s intent to work with the church regarding shared parking. Sorensen asked if the MPL site -would have a MTC transit stop. The planner stated the possibility and location of a stop would be determined by the WC, the ) icy! ay Depart- ment and the City, not the developer. Sorensen asked if a transit stop is determined to be necessary on the MPI. site, would MPL donates reasonable amount of land for that purpose. MP1, responded affirma- tive. Notion : Sch me oved, Sundstrom seconded, to recommend approval of the revised site development plan for the MPL building as submitted in the June 10, 1976 MP1. brochure,as the revised plan seems to have satisfied the rop.-erns of this body ' , the staff reput-it. , aiiu surrounds gag, residents . Discussion : Pauly gsis:stioned if the planner thought a revised staff report would be necessary. T're planner felt an additional staff re!+*+rt wnsild he duplication of the first, and' believed MPL will work further wi:.i :cch;er's specific concerns. Vote: The motion carried unanimously. : v+' .1tvt+yieT'•CS �.•.,- r'°,�c �,., �►- . *le' 1�"fLT+ '#T2►a'6 � - x•rri'is .+lr._ �r _ apprcved T Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 14; 1976 C. Neill Lake Apartments, The Preserve, request for rud development plan approval f for 84 units . The site is located on Neill Lake (toad across from the High Point single ' fanily :area . _ i The planner reviewea the background of the project and The Preserve ' s request . ' He then asked The Preserve the states of the Ridge».Jod project . Mr. Gertz, � The Preserve, stated the First National Bank controls the project and some individuals are occupying the building with tentative purchase agreements. i The planner said he feels the revised plan is a better plan than the previous approval which could be built with the acquisition of a building permit . Sorensen directed the secretaryto make rs art of the record the following P g 3 letters received regarding Neill Lake Apartments : ' June 8 , 1976 Mary Ann Anderson June 8, 1976 Bertram J . Hudson "undated" Mr. & Mrs . Robert J . Carlson June 8 , 1976 Tom Bach June 1 , 3976 John Retterath (plus an article,Mon . ,May 10, 1976 Mpls. Tribune) z The other commission members remarked that they had not received all of the letters. { F` Mr. Don Hess reviewed the site plan a.;d building location , and handed out informa- tion on the project' s approximate rental range. He stated the first area of Ridgewood was approved for 90 units and 35 were built , and the remaining part was i! approved for 105 units and 84 are being proposed as the Neill Lake Apartments . .f Gerald Anderson, Moe Architects, outlined the location of the 8 foot berms to screen the parking lot - snd part of the structure, the change in location of the entrances, and the line of sight of the single family and road to the building coiirained in the revised plan dated June, 1976. Pauly inquired how many people are expected ti occupy the apartment . Mr. Anderson estimated 3-3 . 5 persons/iii t Pauly questioned if the 3-3 .S persons/unit would be greater than expected if the project remained owner condominiums . Mr. Hess felt the two would be close. s Pauly then a::pressed concern about the 4nn foot length of the building. The planner agreed, but felt the revised plan of a 400 foot btiildinje is an > improvement over the visual impact that the original plan would have on the single t family. Mr. Hess agreed with the planner, and said the original plan placed � the units much closer to the sirgle family. Fosnocht asked how longthe clusters were in the original a royal . Mr. Hess ?P � -estimated they ranged from 131 feet to 219 feet. posnocht then asked if thr Lui idino civild lw' h�rnkrn and if materials in addition to the all wood exterior construction could he used. Mr. Hess stated it would # be difficult to break the building duty to the tmderground parking, and they are investigating the possibility of using some -brick on the exterior. Mr. ,�osnocht asked who presently owns the project . Larry Peterson, The Preserve, said it is unknown at this time.