Loading...
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