Loading...
Planning Commission - 07/18/1972 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1972 7:30 P.M., EDEN PRAIRIE VILLAGE HALL INVOCATION -- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL CONwMISSION MEMBERS: Roger 'Boerger, Norma Schee, Ralph Nesbitt, Herb Fosnocht, Don Sorenson, Wayne Brown, Patrick Casey, Mike Manning, Jammie Mikelson. COMMISSION STAFF: George Hite, Village Manager; Dick .putnam, Planning Assistant. I. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN TO REPLACE MANE LAGROW. 11. MINUTES OF JUNE 20 MEETING AND JULY 5, 1972. III. PETITIONS, REgUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS. A. Kemrich, Inc. - request. for zoning to R1 13;r5 for single family subdtiv s� ion located on Duck Lake frail. B. Perkle and Arndt Baywood. Single family subdivision request R1 13.5 zoning loca� teaat�o:"Rd. 4 and Duck Lake Trail. C. Elliason Construction. Request RI 13.5 zoning of 50 acres for single a iy development west and south of Round Lake, IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. A. Edenvale Concept Plan Revision dated June 1972. Requesting approval o•F the 19/ plan to rep f ace the Ju iy-1970 Land Use Plan. Staff re- port and recommendation. B. Edenvale Industrial Park Second Addition Rezoning and Renlat. Proposed 'co u�:�i�ze!'f anned n-1 Ueve i opment�s i'ndustr a 1 park development rezoning from I-6 Industrial to I-2 Park. Staff report and recommendation. C. Minnesota Highway Department's proposal for a main a' inance facilit�l..._ between Hi2htvay G9 and I-terstate 212 north of Major Center area.. Staff Report and Recommendation. D. Hi psi Mitchell Hei hts 'P.U.D. Phase 1 - request preliminary plat approval•. Staff Recommendation. E. New Town Develo ment. Atherton townhouse development request preliminary plat approval on phase 1 located east of Mitchell Road near Scenic Heights Road. Staff Report: and Recommendation. EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1972 7:30 P. M. EDEN PRAIRIE VILLAGE HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Pro-Tem Fosnocht, Schee, Casey Sorenson, Brown, Mikelson, Nesbitt. Also present, Dick Putnam, Planner. I. Election of chairman to replace Mary LaGrow. Brown moved, seconded by Forenson, to nominate Norma Schee as chairman of the Planning Commission. No further nominations were made. Casey moved, Brown seconded to close nominations. Schee was elected unanimously as chairman and assumed chairmanship of the meeting from chairman pro-tem Fosnocht who remained as chairman pro-tem. II. Minutes of June 20 and July 5 meetings were reviewed. Fosnocht moved and Casey seconded to approve the June 20 minutes. Motion carried and Sorenson moved and Brown seconded to approve the July 5 minutes. Motion carried unanimously. III. Petitions, Requests, and Communications. • A. Kemrich, Inc. in request for zoning change from rural to RI 13.5 for a single family division, approximately 13 acres located north of ."xok Lake Trail and east of Bellhurst addition. Harold Olson of Caswell and Assoc. , engineers- and site planners on the project presented the single family plot for 27 number of single family 13 .5 lots. The proposed plot connects to Ginavale Lane and also to Duck Ltne and also to Duck Lake Trail and ends in a cul-de-sac overlooking the large marsh to the north. The lateral systems will run down the streets as well as storm sewer and water. The property directly to the east owned by Mrs. L.C. Marks is narrow, being only 135 feet in width and extending back six to seven hundred feet along the easterly property line and is a critical element of this proposal. From a suggestion by the staff, the developers have asked Mrs. Marks if she would participate in a joint development with them for single family units on the back portion of her property or in selling parts of or all of her property to the developers. At this time, she will not cooperate and so they have developed two alternative plans. One was submitted this evening without her property included and they have another that does include her property. The Commission was concerned that she be fully aware of the situation; that her land would be extremely difficult to develop without developing in conjunction with these people. To the east of her property is the church site that' will not have any residential use. Mr. Fosnocht asked that the planning Staff contact Mrs. Marks and advise her of this situation. and ask her to attend the next Planning Commission meeting, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DULY 18, 1972 PAGE TWO The land to the north is located in the lo-w1and area, and has been dedicated or will be dedicated to Eden Prairie for parkland. This is approximately an acre and a half. There is also an ease- ment connection between the proposed street and that park site between lots 12 and 13 indicated. Casey moved, Sorenson seconded to referthe Kemrich plat to the Park and Recreation Commission and to the staff for a report and recommendation. Motion carried. B. Elliason Construction. Request R1 13 .5 zoning per 50 acres, single family development, west and south of Round Lake and north of Highway Five. Mr. Olson fror Caswell and Assoc, presented the proposed plat which indicates 113 ,500 sq. ft. single family lots clustered in small cul-de-sacs using Heritage Road and the proposed Round Lake Parkway as access points. The proposed plat connects to Atherton Way and the Heritage Park addition and the Parkway. The lots are primarily clustered in small groupings on short cul- de-sac streets. This, Mr. Olson pointed out is the prime type of single family home location. They try to integrate the new building with the existing Heritage Park addition by using similar frontages and lots adjacent to Heritage Road. A strong point here is the considerable amount of public open space land dedicated within this 50-acre project. Noted on the plat are the two areas of public access and space. One is running south along the easterly property line to Highway 5 and then along Highlavay 5 as a buffer, and one runs west from Round Lake through the development connecting with the marsh adjacent to Mitchell Lake . The northerly public space runs through a heavily wooded area and attempts to preserve this wooded character. The developers feel that the land on the east side that runs north-- south to Round Lake Park should be duplicated on the adjacent property to provide an extensive public pathway system running to Highway Five and at some point under to Mitchell Lake. Then to supplement this public space there is quasi-public or easement space indicated. These provide each lot with pedestrian access and also small play spaces within the project itself. Mr. Eliason proposes to handle these spaces through an easement arrangement, with each lot owner to maintain his own lot. • Mr. Olson noted a possibility to use smaller lots of possibly 6,000 to 8,000 sq. ft. each, to develop lower cost single family housing on one of the cul-de-sacs. This would be worked out with the Village later as an experiment to provide the amenities and life style of single family living at a cost of under a30,000. Currently this devPlonmPn1,',c nrnr-N-PA nrie— —nrr" d- ... ', , PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 1972 PAGE THREE $60, 000 per unit. The planner noted that this idea might be a way for the Village to implement its policies of providing good quality housing at a lower price for families, and that is something Elliason's are willing to agree to. The Commission suggested that the Elliason's and Mr. Olson investigate the possibility of approaching this from a P.U.D. stivindpoint. The Commission felt the information presented in this plat form was not sufficient for a project of this scale and magnitude. They also felt that the provision for public open space and semi-public open space was suitable to the flexibilities and design that the PUD approach provides and they urged the developer and the staff to investigate further. Casey moved and Brown seconded that the Elliason Construction Round Lake Estates proposal be referred to thri Human Rights Commission for consideration of the lower cost housing units and to the Park and Recreation for review and recommendation and to the staff for a report. Motion carried. • C. Perkle and Arndt Baywood single family subdivision request R 1 13 .5 zoning. Project located west of Co. Rd. 4 and to the south of Duck Lake Trail adjacent to Duck Lake. Larry Hanson from Schoell and Madson presented the Baywood single family plat for 27 lots located adjacent to Duck Lake. After outlining the engineering aspects of the project, drainage and selxer and streets, Mr. Hanson explained the concept of providing single family lots with private lake shore access to Duck Lake on a cul-de-sac arrangement. The street noted as Baywood Terrace would stub to the property line and could provide access to the north at a later date. It was desired to extend this street to Duck Lake Trail through Mr. Stodola and Mr. Deaver's property. Also, indi- cated was the street Bay Drive , which would provide access for a future development by the adjacent owners of that property. It would work in conjunction with this proposed project. Mr. Hanson noted the areas designated as Outlot B inOicated in green as the quasi-public open space areas for this 13 acre pro- ject. The functions of these would be a small tot lot type space for children's play area located on the northerly central part: It would also serve as a drainage way. The pathway leads from that children's play space to the lake and would be screened by a • small fence type barrier just to define the pathway. At the lake is an area, approximately 120 feet in width that is intended for a small marina facility; dockage for canoe or small sailboat and small picnicking area for the lots in this subdivision. This space would be maintained through covenants or deed restriction by owners of this subdivision. This space would be maintained through covenants PLANNING COMMISE ION MINUTES JULY 18, 1972 PAGE FOUR • or deed restriction by owners of this subdivision and would be useable by that group. To supplement this space, as indicated on the plat, a portion of the adjacent land could be added to Outlot B to enlarge it if the owners of the adjacent land desire to develop their land at a future date. A question was raised about the access on to County Road 4 that Bay Lane has. As proposed it would join approximately where the driveway currently is for the properties to the south. This entrance would be modified to make a perpendicular to existing County Road 4. Because of the grades from the bridge over the railroad tracks and also the distance from Duck Lake Trail. This may not be feasible , and so a study will be needed. The planner noted that these plans will have to be submitted to the Hennepin County Highway Department since County Road 4 is under their jurisdiction for approval and they would be reviewing the site limitations to that intersection. Fosnocht moved and Nesbitt seconded to refer the Baywood sub- division proposed plat to the Park and Recreation Commission and • to the staff for review and report. Motion carried. IV. Reports and Recommendations. A. Edenvale concept plan revision dated June, 1972 . Requests approval of the 1972 plan to amend the July 1970 land use plan. The planner briefly reviewed the staff report dated July 5 , which reviews the differences between the 1970 and 1972 concept plan for Edenvale. In comparing the two, the differences are very minor. Primarily, the total number of units and the residential acreage have decreased,and the dwelling units per residential acre remains approximately the same. He outlined the two major areas of difference. The first being the replanning of the golf course has suggested some modifications to certain residential partials and secondly the provision of the community shopping center at the new intersection of Baker and the move to Valley View Road. He discussed certain parcels that will have particular problems in design bordering on the fairways and the greens of the proposed golf course. This is a very desirable residential environment but will require great care and placement of structures • and screening to insure that conflicts between golfers and residents will not occur in the future. The major change from the original concept plan is the inclusion of a 160, 000 sq. ft. community shopping center at Baker and Valley View. In reviewing this, the staff believes it to be a valid location for such a center, for the automobile access to this site is excellent and it is something that Eden Prairie currently needs. In' addition there is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 1972 PAGE FIVE • no development currently around this center and it will have a minimum impact upon any existing development. The staff was concerned with limiting the development around that intersection so as not to end up with typical strip development common to suburban areas. In looking as the plan submitted by Edenvale, it appears that the types of development proposed on the corners of the intersection will be of a very high quality and complimen- tary type to insure that the corner will be designed in a sensible traffic pattern and appeal. Recommendation. Casey moved and Fosnocht seconded to recommend to the Eden Prairie Council that the 1972 concept plan for Edenvale PUD be approved to replace the 1970 concept plan and to recommend that this plan be used as a guide subject to amendment upon detailed design and subject to amendment upon detailed design and subject to planning and zoning commission review and approval. Motion passed with Sorenson the only objection. B. Edenvale Industrial Park. Second Addition. Rezoning and replat • of a proposed industrial park development of approximately 6.8 acres. The planner reviewed the staff report dated July 3, 1972, discussing the Reimen proposal for Edenvale Industrial Park. He noted the positive features which offered flexibility to the normal industrial development and provided for a unique and different industrial type useage within Eden Prairie and the metro area. He also discussed the potential problems that may develop with this project. One , being the .current zoning of the project 1-general, which permits outside storage and is .generally conceived as a more larger industrial use than the 16 ,000 sq. ft. lots proposed. Therefore, rezoning would be necessary. The problems that may arise from a change of ownership at a later date was also noted. Also problems of parking, if the use changes, could cause problems in the future. Mr. Hite suggested that the matter be handled using a PUD concept plan as the first stage, thereby establishing a contractual relation- ship between the developer and the Village that would allow for flexibility and expedite the planning and design of the proposed use. Secondly, that rezoning must be accomplished on the parcel of land from I-general to industrial park in a two acre minimum category. Thirdly, that replatting of Outlot A in Block 2 into • smaller lots could be accomplished with the stipulation that if development did not occur in the prescribed matter under the con- cept plan that the replatting would be null and void and revert back to two acre minimum lots size. This suggestion by Mr. Hite seemed acceptable to Mr. Reimen and Mr. Peterson from Edenvale and to the Commission Members present. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 12, 1972 PAGE SIX • Mr. Reimen and Edenvale will put together the proper material to supplement their request in accord with the PUD procedures and also a letter to the Village discussing the PUD proposed. Recommendation. 1. To recommend to the Council that the PUD concept plan approval for the Reimen Industrial Park within the Edenvale Industrial Area be approved. Secondly, the rezoning from I-general to I-2 Par]< be granted and thirdly that replatting of the lots as indicated on the PUD submission be granted with a stipulation that if a devel- opment is not carried out as anticipated that the platting is null and void and the lots revert back to the standard I-2 Park re- strictions and fourthly that development must conform with tha PUD concept plan. 2. The Planning Commission requests that the Council grant approval of this project contingent upon review of additional submission which should include further definition of parking requirements, distance between buildings, specific deviations from the I-2 zoning and the phasing of the development. • Casey moved and Sorenson seconded that these two recommendations be forwarded to the Council. The motio:, carried unanimously. C. Hipp's Mitchell Heights PUD Phase I request preliminary plat approval. The preliminary plat has 14 townhouse units and 10 single family home sites on the first phase located adjacent to Hiawatha and Scenic Heights Road. Planner briefly reviewed background of this plat and noted that it has been reviewed and found to be in con- formance with the Village requirements and the initial concept plan submission by Mr. Hipps. Action Taken. Fosnocht moved and Brown seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council the approval of the preliminary plat for Hipp's Mitchell Heights PUD Phase I in accordance with the recom- mendations in the staff report dated July 16, 1972. Motion was passed unanimously. D. New Town Development. Athertown Townhouse Development. Requesting preliminary plat approval on Phase I located east of Mitchell Road near Scenic Heights Road. The planner presented • the preliminary plat for the Atherton Townhouse Project approved approximately three months ago by the Council. In discussing the proposal for 89 units on the 13 .3 acre site, a question was raised by the Planning Commission concerning the center court area of the project which had units protruding into it from one of the clusters. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 1972 PAGE SEVEN it was understood by the many Planning Commission Members that these units had been removed. When they approved a project that was for 86 units, they understood those units were deleted when the project was reduced from 96 to 86 units. Mr. Fosnocht and Sorenson felt that the developer was adding on units to what was approved in the initial concept plan and this was inconsistent with what was approved, which indicated no units in the center of the development. The planner said that in his interpretation the units were never removed completely from the center court, but only the second row, and the number was lessened. He brought this up as a matter of discussion between New Town Development and, the Village. The Village Staff report indicated that ideally those units in our feeling should be removed but from conversations with New Town development and its site planner. It- was felt by the developer that those units were beneficial to the project in the center and that they wish to have them remain to create a court that would be private to the townhouse development. Also, the exceptional view e£forted to those units that extend into the court space. • Another question raised was that this project falls into the 6.5 category, but was approved at 86 units, which is not at the maximum allowable under 6.5 category. ' It was the understanding of New Town development that they were building to the maximum allowable under 6.5 since they had initially submitted rezoning for R 2.5 and was suggested by the staff th-it the 6.5 category was the one that their project should fall under as it is a town- house sale project. The Commission understood that the zoning categories are only brought in as an after thought in that in PUD proceedings or procedures; the important part is the plan and not the zoning category. Therefore, the Commission feels that the RM' 6.5 category and the number of units acceptable under the category Is not as important as the plan itself. At this juncture in the meeting, Sorenson moved and Fosnocht seconded to continue action until the next meeting on the Atherton Townhouse Project, and until plans are reviewed further by the staff and another staff report is written dealing with the 86-89.: unit difference. Discussion on this motion was brought forvnrard indicating the time span this project has been before the Village, and the developer • felt he would be severely handicapped if there are further delays at this point. Also the developer was under the assumption that the plans as submitted were those approved by the Village. A question was called and a roll call vote was taken. Sorenson and Fosnocht voted in favor of the motion and Brown, Casey, and Nesbitt voted no to the motion. The motion did not pass. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 1972 • PAGE EIGHT Brown moved and Nesbitt seconded that the recommendations in the Planning Report dated July 16, 1972, be recommended to the Council and that an addition #5 be added stating that the 89 units proposed in the preliminary plat be approved rather than the 86 as previously approved noting that: this increase in units does not exceed the 6.5 zoning category. Discussion of this 'notion was centered around the fact that the Village has made a committment and the developers have proceeded in good faith with the committment as understood by the staff to develop the units in conformance with the concept plan and that to delay action at this point would seriously handicap the developer, Also the fact that the plan itself has been greatly improved by numerous changes made by the developer at the request of the Village. Action Taken. Motion carried 3-2 with Brown, Mikelson, Nesbitt voting in favor of the motion. Fosnocht and Sorenson voting no. Schee and Casey obstaining. • Meeting was adjourned at 11:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Wayne Brown, Secretary •