Planning Commission - 07/24/1978 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, July 24, 1978
7:30 PM, City Hall
COMlMKSION MEMBERS: Chairman Rod Sundstrom, Liz Retteratiittatthew Levitt,
Richard Lynch, William Bearman, Paul Redpath, Oke
Martinson
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Planning Director; Jean Johnson, Planning
Assistant; Jim Jensen, Planning Assistant ; Donna Stanley,
Planning Secretary
Estimated Invocation Pledge of Allegiance - Rol-1, Call
Times
7:30FM I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
7:35 II . MINUTES OF THE JULY 10, 1978 MEETING
7:40 III. MEMBERS REPORTS
7:45 IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Briarfield Estates , requested by Pride Maintenance Building for
ND concept approval for residential multiple an .open space, re-
zoning of Phase I from Rural to kM 6. 5 from appreximatelf-29 duplex
lots on 15 acres , and prel imine-o' plat approval of 27 acre MUD. A
continued public hearing.
7:5S B. Str er Va l u Sh2p i ng Center at Co. Rd. 18/Anderson Lakes
Parkway, request to preliminary plat- and rezone from Rural to
Coniunity rvmrcial 10 acres located in the Southwest intersection
of Co. Rd. 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway for a supermarket, hardware
and drug store. continued June 26. 1978.
^:25 C . Bluffs West 2nd Addition, by Hustads and Dr. Bfandt and Browning
eras Industries . equest for rezoning from Rural to R1 -13.5 and
preliminary plat approval of approximately 207 lots on 112 acres .
the site is located north of Riverview Road and West of Homeward
Hills Road. A continued public hearing ,
8:45 ,'i, U.S. 109 Shopping Center request by Eden Prairie Real EstatE
Investment CS;-vany for rezorrl ng from Rural to Community Commercial for
10 acres located in the southeast corner of US 169 and Anderson Lakes
Parkway. Continued from July 70, 1978.
E. Centex Kow.s Inc. . request for PUD approval , rezoning from Rural
to - or approximately 205 single family homes on 88 acres
located cast of Mitchell Road and north of Research Road._ h public
.Bearing.
r. PETITIONS AID RESTS
s. A. Public Haring on transprrtstioo alternatives for northwest
corner of Tax* N1gla+ay 5 and County Road 4. (Luther Kay,
forltage Road. West 72nd_ St. , proposed Valley View Read) .
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
approved
Monday, Jt1ly 24, 1978 7:30 PM City hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rod Sundstrom, Bill Bearman, Liz Retterath.,
Richard Lynch, Matthew Levitt, Oke Martinson,
and Paul Redpath
STAFF PRESEW Chris Enger, Planning Director; Donna Stanley,
Planning Secretary
Invocation - Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Cali
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Bluffs West Addition items and Public Hearing on Transportation Alternatives
for the northwest corner of T.H. 5 and Co . Rd. 4 item were interchanged on
the agenda .
MOTION: Redpath moved to approve revised Agenda. Retterath seconded ,
motion carried unanimously.
II . MINUTES OF THE JULY 109 1978 MEETING
MOTION: Lynch moved to approve Minutes of the July 10, 1978 meeting as
published. Retterath seconded , motion carried 5-0-1 , with Redpath abstaining.
MEMBERS REPORTS
City Planner Enger spoke to copies of PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARIK" AND
MEETINGS available in the back of the room used as guidelines by the
Planning Commission.
IV . REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Bri?rfield Estates , requested by Pride Maintenance Building for PUO
concept approval for residential multiple and open space, rezoning
of Phase I from Rural to RM 6.5 from approximately 29 duplex lots on
15 acres , and preliminary plat approval of 27 acre PUD. A continued
public hearing.
Enger spoke to previous review of the item by the Parks , Recreation
and Natural Resources Commission and the revisions suggested in the
plat because of the 40% encroachment into the flood plain, insufficient
play space, and the need for a sidewalk in the area . Proponent is
considering removal of entire cui - de - sac in order to provide more
nnei eliminating olaltinq into the flood plain. Proponent
has requested that this itertbe continued to the August 14 meeting.
MOTION: Retterath moved to continue the Briarfield Estates unti ' the
August 14 meeting. Redpath seconded, motion carried unanimously.
r Planning Commission Minutes 0-3- July 24, 1978
B. Super Valu Shopping Center at Co. Rd,. 1_8/Anderon Lakes Parkway (cont'd)
MOTION #3: Redpath moved to recommend to the Council approval of the
Preliminary Plat of the 9 acres in the southwest corner of Anderson Lakes
and Co. Rd. 18 as per Staff reports of June 9, 1978 and July 21 , 1978, sub-
3ect to road improvements made prior to opening of the Center. Retterath
seconded, motion carried 5-1-0. Levitt voted "nay" .
O i vN: Redpa th moved to rev i sv Age^ua and i�v v e up to item u. U.S. 169
Shopping Center. request by Eden Prairie Real B tate Investment Company for
rezoning from Rural to Community Commercial for 10 acres located in the
southeast corner of US 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway, continued from
July 10, 1S"8.
The Planner spoke to formal request by Eden Prairie Real investment Comnarv.
to withdraw their proposal in order to adequately review the Staff Report,
and plan to re-submit their proposal . He then reviewed - the Staff recom. enda-
Lion of denial and asked for Planning Commission input on this corner, and
commented that he felt it was important that the proponent understands as
well as possible what is intended for this location. He explained that the
proposal was for a total gross leasable floor area of 53,000 square feet
mmi
and that the 1977 Guide Plan recoended a neighborhood scale commercial
center of 309000 square feet, not allowing for major type or regional over
all City use as proposed. He asked for input frorel the Commission
8earman favored the types of uses such as a Tom Thumb tvoe store , d ry cleaners
or inayhe a boutique that would not bring in a high volume of people and
traffic. He suggested a courtyard type approach in the middle, with shops
alle around. not to exceed 25,000 sq. feet.
The Planner asked how the Commission looks at free standing buildings .
such as ;:hose located in Edenvale, on Mitchell Rd . and Valley View Rd. .
Sundstrom expressed favor for more integrated building for this type of unit.
Martinson spoke to opposition from residents the+ nh;ac-ted to a "strip"
type mall , and stated that he would oppose any of this type. He suggested
bringing in a road and providing a buffer along that road .
Sundstrom expressed support for the .staff recommendations .
Lynch commented that a Toth Thum type store was genera+ly- the -scope- in mind.
V. PE TITI N4 AND REQUESTS
A. Public Hearing Qnt transportation alternatives for northwest
corner of Trunk Hi hway 5 andountaad Luther Way, Heritage Road,
�,s t 72nd St. . proposed VallpZ View Road) .
The Planner spoke to feasibility study by the Councii on the Heritage Hills
And Round Lake areas for sewer and water, and that no further plan. would
work without an alternate access from the site. NeiChbors were concerned
about ire}pAct of sewer and water nn their neighborhood ai far as what types
of roads, it might entice. He spoke to thirteen alternate roads developed
by the Engineering Department showing different types of cul -de-sacs and
road alignments. Council has directed the Planning Commission to hold
this public hearing, and will then be considered at a . City Council Public
Bearing.
,..�q-c',:y,rt .S'., -_o u\::,'�r�.aL-•Y x.7aw+irri-....,e.-.,M..�.sn....- �. ...
approved
Planning Commission Miautes - 5 - July 249 1978
Pavelka spoke in favor of a service road , noting also that Eden Prairie
needs an east/west road and that people on Luther Way are concerned that
Luther Way will become that major east/west road. Enger responded that
a service road could not serve the same functions as the alternate road
plans studied, because it would not provide an access out of the area
except to the Prairie Village Mali . He did not believe that Luther Way
would be used as an east/way connection.
Mr. Steve Longman, 17230 Park Circle, spoke to the need in Heritage Hills area
for an access , pointing out that their area has 120 houses, while the
Luther Way area has only 20 houses.
Mr. Charles stills , 7640 AthtertonWay, said the safety factor was the prime concern
of the residents in his area, and he* feels additional building in that area
r should not be allowed until they have an alternate access.
6earman suggested a road behind Luther Way and suggested moving :woad to the back
of the lots.
[fir. Longman asked what the Staff recows s. Enger responded that they recowxmd
alternate road plan 11 or IA.
5undstrom felt the east/west link should be Valley View Road and should not
encroach on Tres i defrts.
Mr. Pearson, 7760 Meadow Lane, spoke to additional haves that will ho
built, and suggested that if the Valley View Road were in place, this dis-
agreement would not be present.
Mr. Cliff Wei ss , 16600 Luther Way, requested a traffic count at the Luther !gay
exit so the residents know where they stand.
AOTION: Bearman moved to close the Public fearing. lynch seconded, motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION: Searman moved to reccmrend to the City Council the approval of the
Road Ai t•�rnate IA as proposed road network of 15-eC t ion R; in mWition re W-st
City Council to consider placing a sidewalk or path along T .H. 5 through the
City property in Heritage Hills and the unbuilt parcel west of Prairie Village
Mall to provide access to the Mall . The Planning Cuwr!ission also felt that
Valley View Road be given high priority, and upgrading of Luther Way be
given priority when warranted. Lynch seconded, motion carried 6-1 -0, with
Lynch voting "nay". .
Levitt asked what the status of Valley flew Road was presently, Enger res-
ponded that the Engineer Department is-directed to prepare a feasibility
Study to construct the conwtion on Valley View.
T`! !!4. X}.�VR7r" ^y�t� `":lRt`:Qt', IT "'Ss41_ : 1.'p, , ,
Agenda - Planning Commission page 2
Monday, July 24, 1978
10:20 VII . NEW BUSINESS
10:25 VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT
10:30 IX. ADJOURNMENT
(ITEMS AND TIMES SHOWN ON THE PRELIMINARY AGENDA ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
AND/OR CHANGE BY THE PLANNING COKIISSION
t ,
-approved
Planning Commission Minutes -?- July 24, 1978
B. Super Valu Shopping Center at Co. Rd. 18/Anderson Lakes parkway, request
to Dreliminary plat and rezone from Rural to Community Commercial 10 acres
located in the Southwest intersection of Co. Rd . 18 and Anderson Lakes
Parkway for a supermarket, hardware and drug store. Continued June 26, 1978 .
Enger spoke to Memo of July 21 , 1978 and to the Planning Commission concerns
at Co. Rd. 18 and An�::�rso^ lakes °arkway. He discussed the intersection
study by Hennepin County indicating that an improvement is warrantee which
will most likely include a signal .
Mr. Jim Ryan, Ryan Construction , spoke to basic agreement with the recommenda-
tionj of Zhe Staff but had two concerns , one of timing and now much they were
expected to pay toward signalization and other costs involved . He spoke :o
$40,000 to $50,000 as their share of the expenses which they feel are sig-
nificant.
Lynch inquired whether the communication from Hennepin County indicated that
they plan to pay for the improvements in the study. The Planner replied that
once the study determines the improvements are warranted , Hennepin'CJunty ,will
implement them,
There was discussion on h ;�: :.1%4 o{ the cys is SurC0 :'.l 1 would assume, taking
into consideratie- that traffic would be generated by their development.
Ryan requested approval of their proposal based on an agreement that will be
acceptable to parties concerned.
Mr. Don Pennie, 9155 Neill Lake Road , questioned whether the City has talked
Wilt Bloomington officials on their plans for this area and if Eden PraihTe' s
plans ara ,consisL - with that of Bloomington. Enger responded this plan is
not col-l:>istent with Bloomington' s plans , and that they are the only govern-
ment agency supporting a freeway design for Co. Rd. 18.
Pennie requested further detailed study of the location of the signal , express-
ing oppositicn to the proposed location of the signalization. Chairman Sundstrom
assured Mr. Pennie that the City Council ' s decision would be based on such de-
tailed study of the question.
MOTION #1 : Rcdpath moved to close the Public Hearing on the Super Yalu Shopping
Center at Co. Rd. 18/Anderson Lakes Parkway. Martinson seconded , motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION #2: Redpath moved to recommend to the Council re-zoning from Rural to
Community Commercial , of 9 acres in the southwest corner of Anderson Lakes
and Co. Rd. 18 as per Staff reports of June 9, 1978, and July 21 , 1978, sub-
ject to road improvements made prior to opening of the Center. Retterath
seconded, motion carried 4-1-1 , with Martinson ' ahstainin+q,
. i
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes - 4 July 24, 1978
The Planner presented various road aiternatives and answered questions on
details of the plans. He spoke to the Planning Staff and Engineering
Departments recommmendation of locating many access points out of the
area to divide traffic as even as possible , and consideratinn of making
Luther Way a one-way street so traffic will have to come back on one of
additional accesses.
bearman questioned the safety factor of only two accesses out to Highway 5.
Enger resoonded that access is anticipated further west, from Dell Road .
Searman favored alternate #3 because it was a more disjointed route, therefore
eliminating the possibility of people using shortcuts through their neigh-
borhood..
Mr. Kenneth Geason, 7621 Atherton Way, spoke in favor of alternate road
plan 1A, speaking for residentons in his area.
Mr. Pa4gl Mart ;ti . 7r%q1 AthertQn_ liav, spoke to the safety of the chi 1 dren yning
to the Prairie Village Mall , and felt this should be addressed . The Planner ,
spoke to re--zoning of Lake Trail Estates subject to providing a sidewalk in
additional right-of-way.
Mr. David Pavelka , 17625 Luther Way, favored alternate road plan 10, ex-
plaining that Luther Way was built to serve 13 unitsand would not be able
to handle additional traffic without extensive improvements . He said the
access to T. H. 5 was inadequate and consideration of a plan with a "straight
shot" through would encourage high speeds . He asked that the problem in
Atherton Way not be transferred to LuthC r Way and Co. Rd . 4, and that the
Commission consider those people living the closest to the area .
Mrs.Lawrence Russell , 12101 Sunnybrook Rd. , favored an inner frontage !•oad
to alleviate traffic on Co. Rd. 4 and T. H. 5 because of safety factor.
Mr. Geason felt that alternate road plan 10 did not give the people in
Heritage Hills a way out and it offered the pc-uple cn Atherton Way nothing.
Lynch suggested moving Valley View Road below Round Lake and tieing all of
these deveiopments together. Enger responded that this was considered , but
would tend to divide the area into less usuable sizes and would have a sig-
nificant effect on the park.
Mr. Irian Kundel , 17491 Ki lmar Ave. , spoke to Heritage Rd. and Kilmar Avenues
as the same as Luther Way and felt additional traffic on these streets was
just as undesireable as on Luther Way and spoke in favor of frontage Road
along TH. 5 and felt traffic patterns should be opened up in all directions .
Redpath question assessment, for a service road on the no;-tn side of T.H. 5
and asked whether the cost could be split among the developments . Enger
responded that a frontage road made it more attractive to an miner for
commercial use and generate more traffic.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - July 24, 1978
Lynch favored that Luther Way be convertea back to cul-de-sac
position upon completion of Valley View Road. Enger responded
he did not feel this would solve the problem of giving the residents
a way out, and in addition, you would cut off another access at that
time and cut those people off.
MOTION: Redpath moved to recommend to the Council that the Luther
Way traffic be limited one-way east bound for three hours daily from
7:00 A.M. to 10:00 A .M. , and that this limitation be put on area
from western boundary at Kirk Meadows . Levitt seconded, motion carried
4:2: 1 . Bearman and Levitt voted "nay'. .. Lynch abstained .
Lynch couviented that his belief was that tlsi s solution does not
deal with the problem and that the real solution of the re- location
of Valley View Road south of thel lake or from re-location of Valley
View Road or south of street running north of Luther Way and connect-
ing perhaps with Westgate. He did not believe peo -.would travel
north to exit east.
D.E. Centex Homes Inc. , request for PUD approval , rezu. = from rural
to R1 -13. 5 for approximately 205 single family hoit-i-s on 88 acres
located east of Mitchell Road and north of Research Road. A public
hearing.
Mr. M.Gair, architect for Centex Homes Inc. , presented proposal and •
noted that Riley/Purgatory Crrck Watershed District will review the
plan.
Enger spoke to..Staff report of July 21 197.8l. .explaining that this
area is affectea by a minor collector road that comes through the
development and it is recommended that no lots front on to this
center. road. He reiterated the Staff recommendation that a
scenic easement be conveyed so no building would occur in the cor-
serva racy area of Purgatory Creek. Centex is asking for density trade-
off or cash in lieu of land in this proposal .
Bearman, noting that people living the farthest away, would be -11 to
U of a mile from the park, and asked about changing the park acreage
to the center of the proposal . Eager responded that would take the
prime area for development for this proposal .
Bearman asked how this proposal was affected by the 'Shoreline Manage-
ment Act. Enger responded that presently the Act is being used as a
guide line and that it is not applicable except for single family
tomes, and this property does not have any shoreline frontage.
Bearman asked how many lots were less than 13,500. Gair responded that
the average was 14,500 and that 35% are larger than the 13,500 soze.
Levitt asked what the trade-off was in terms of a park. Enger responded
it was 4.8 acres , and that in the past the Staff has recaaaiended against
smaller parks because of mainta"ance. However, in this case the 4.8
acres would be direcCy act•oss Mitchell Road froma proposed neigRbo-tKNd
Dark so should not constitute a maintainance burden.
Approved
Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - July 24, 1978
Levitt questioned what the P.U.D. trade-off would consist of. The Pinner responded
that according to our ordinance , 220 lots would require 112 acres and Centex has
only 87 acres. Fo'r a true density trade-off they would ow us 22 acres . Centex pro-
poses to dedicate 5 acres , develop it with open game field , tot lot and tennis
cuurts ana pay the cash park fee of $275/unit.
Levitt asked whether EAW had any impact or. Staring Lake: Enger responded
negative. .
Mr. L. J. Fletcher, 14000 Research Road , explained that he has been a resident
for sixteen years and has twenty acres , requested that the traffic be taken
into consideration , pointing out that until we have the Anderson Lakes Park-
way, there is no place for these residents to go. He felt the drainage plan
was totally inadequate and was opposed to a park on both sides of the property,
because he felt it was additional burden on the tax payers to have more tax
ree property.
Mr. and Mrs. John Jenkins , 1380OResearchRiwere opposed to the drainage plan ,
expressing concern that it would affect his property adversely.
Mr. Fran Hagen , engineer for the Centex Homes , Inc. spoke to drainage
plans , explaining their procedure for flow release, and that they are trying
to foresee nutrient growth and plan for it.
Mr. Jenkins expressed their main oh"Iection to the density , explaining that
they are 50' off Research Road and they have been washed out. He does not
feel the storm sewer would do any good for this high of a CJrce.. of
houses.
hair spoke to the .,ed Rock Study and Guide Plan update where a higher density
has been proposed. He said they were limiting develupa*nt to the tree line
on Pt,ry-story Creek.
Mr. Donald Bergstrom,8203 Mitchell Road , spoke to his north boundary on
this land, and asked wherher there were any assessments. Enger resppilded
that the proponent requested to put in utilities at their ocpense.
Bergs t om stated t io t his drive-way was or Centex property and he has no
way in or out as they are constructing. Gair responded that he would not
be cut off, but would be provided with a gravel road.
WTION: Lynch moved to close the Public Hearing, Bea m n seconded. Motion
carried unanimously.
P07104: lynch moved tc deny tn.^_ PUi1 on the belief for that denial being
we do not feel the trade-offs justify the approval of the plan. Retterath
secarWed ,
015CUSSVI: Cnger asked for point of clari ficat inn on whether the direc-
tion of t:w "t ir)n was are.. land as the de►isity :rode-off. lynch responded
that 6j varianrm is not acceptaN e. ano lot sizes should be larger.
VOTE : Motion can-:ed . 6: 1 :0 with Suvrdstram. voting "nay" . Sundstrom commented that
as it afire tws with past PIM cosuept of 13. 5 and fnr the same reasons on proposals
that, are ruoV desist, he 4ould hate to see tie re-zoning denied.
TJ •r- L O Ri
{.� c: R, ro
U c > C.
0 c)•) -C 4 • r' •r
Ca0 r- ;07 -0 4) as N C O �e
m O P. •r- b •r CO
i. L C71 a O L
r O .0 r- 4, 4•J CM 00 " O 3 �
w ix: 41 'J d � 4J O 4- ,
C N E� N (V i-� •CA G C1 Mr-- •r 4J 4•J ao
L. L H Q) O
CZ O 4-) r^ CZ 41 rp .c N --•• � 4J 4J
b ' C'1 O L p C:] •r• 4j �
.,.. _ 4-;
C: CT.w- •� �! w � N O O O � d)
N •r O go d)
c
(V 4J +> > C "0Ol 04-) +� L Q)
in
S. c0 L. L. •r- G Cl 00 > I- U E {h to
C O CU O r— L 0) 4-) to Q t� •'"• LZ N w 4-) CU 'D 0 L. �
G FE W Cr- O p m L to S- r- •a
.- •.- C1 O O 43 LV Z7
C .C
O > � L V r V O
S. Co m• to O i. L O C C 3
C.CT •a N O 0) d•E 4 •O (D •r N •r +•� C)
p
L. 4J C1•r- N E �
S. t O 4) b r- r_ 4J � ••
4i C O � >f r"
'0 w W 4-► CMG •gyp •r = O � r-
OiN CJQ- •� C " L +JN O N � 4-�
s- O C) ^ Ci) L- 0. 0 .0 t L
>''v Aw CA a c E L. � >
o
L. .-• -v au 4) 4n C z' 4J 00
I+- � C O 4J .. I
C O V C 4J 3 N C C > V 7 > N /A v
O 41 O C D O R7 C N L > a) r r
C +J 4J ]L L 41 !� w dJ "0 4) 4 3 4J
C d O r 4J 0.•r > 4J K) 47 4J•L Z i >
03
> CZ+� e6 O > '
4) O CL — 41 a
OC C d C � v. 1+1 O U C: 4J 4A
_ • > r- 4, . w -&J 41 fO to 0--
'^ ` *-- roL c4J M L M b C M rr- I-- c ,
•^ � L � XJA r- 4' C � _
4J -o EE •v a
� h y o c E a. us � � •E +J b 'o ate.
0) L A C a Q1 to O •r- 4 t�7 �O v� LA W Q •
C" CO L io 4- p 4) W L .0 r- E N i� t� t�� V) CC I.- Q) >1%
CO -04- 4J Q) 4-) %A O ep W W Z Cc
a) C 4- •*- y.. O w p •r- C ; Z X V) W N
C M C71 o 4- N 4- 4-) Io to 000 C L 6-40. -
•'� Z •N > 4J i - '' O dO 40 W 4J Ci) f- N V)
N 9Vl CSC
G Z 4J C > 4J •O E CQ 41 > > W .LZ
c •� Vf O N C) V) C:f•r V C C r0 Ll- = CO m Z Cf C^ .r-
... v- O d •r O C •r• Cil 4s Co •-- C
F-• a U a O O o U L CT U 4.) ,a > M Cl C X C I-j r- a
G. � � i° L4Jy E �.� � � ia/1 a s J q Q Z Z� Z a Q CC9
} ar .r a•1