Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 04/15/1974 AGENDA MONDAY, APRIL 15, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION " 7:3 0 P.M. CITY HALL INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairwoman Norma Schee, Wayne Brown, Don Sorensen, Richard Lynch, loan Meyers, M. E. Lane, Herb Fosnocht. STAFF PRESENT: Richard Putnam, City Planner I, MINUTES OF APRIL 2 , 1974 : 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Sears Department Store, request site and building plan approval for the. construction of a 30,000 sq. ft. store on the southwest end of the Homart Center. Presentation and Discussion. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 13. Smetana Lake Sector Plan: discussion of revised consultant report and planner's recommendations. Resident and land owner suggestions would be welcome to aid the Commission in considerations of alternatives. Action: Request continuation to May 7, 1974 Meeting to allow for land owner input. C .Amendment to Set-Back Requirements of Zoning Ordinance # 135: The Council referred the.proposed. amendment to the Commission for study and recommendations. Suggested modifications by Planning and Building Departments concerning administrative procedures and standards. Action:'Recommend to Council continuation, approval, or denial. Public Hearings Continued from March 19, 1974: D. Suncrest Townhouse Development., by Suncrest Homes of Minnesota. Requesting approval for the construction of 134 cluster townhouses on the 30.7 acre-site The project is located in Edenvalds Northwest area south of the C.M. ST. P &P railroad and north of the 8 acre public park. Outlots E &F of Edenvale's 3rd Addition. Action: Approve • , reject, or continue.to the May 7, 1974 Meeting. �1Cu PETITIONS AND REQUESTS: 1,6- A L3-S A. Hustad Develomant Corporation,request RM t.5 zoning for the construction of single family homes on lots less than 13,500 sq. ft. The site is located in the PUD 73-07 of Prairie East just to the east of the platted single family home sites. Developers presentation. Action: Continue to the May 7, 1974 Meeting. REPORTS: Planning Commission Chairwoman-Norma Schee : 1 . MPA Conference 2 . General Comments Planner's Report: 1 .. Up-coming Projects 3. Commercial Needs Study 2 . Staffing 4. MCA Progress V ADTOURNMENT _ MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 15, 1974 7:30 PM CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Norma Schee, M.E. Lane, Herb Fosnocht, Donald Sorensen, Joan Meyers, Richard Lynch. MEMBERS ,kBSENT: Wayen Brown STAFFPRESENT, Dick Putnam, Planner Carl Jullie, City Engineer Chris Enger, Landscape Architect I. MINUTES OF APRIL 2 , 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING . The following changes were made to the April 2, 1974 Planning Commission Minutes; Page I Sp. of families Page 2 B. Ist P, # 2 , should read, The industrial area would be south of . Valley View Road. #^3, should read, Condon Na egele property. . Page 3 # 25, spelling of Laukka's name, and add -, and a question as-to the basis of the overzoning comments made in MacCulan's report. # 34 , # 4, should suggest staggered work hours, because they would be impossible to enforce, also,. . . Page 4 3rd F, should read, . . . as of yet there has been no explicit direction of ordinance 135 revision from the Council. . Page 5 I st P should read,, Said outlots would be . & , that the preliminary plat would be affectuated. Lane moved, Lynch seconded, to make the changes to the April 2, 1974 Planning Commission Minutes. The motion was unaninously approved. II. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. A. Sears Department Store, request site and building plan approval for the construction of a' 215,000 sq. ft. store on the southwest end of the Homart Center. The Planner informed the Commission that the Sears and Powers representatives would be presenting their proposals and seeking building permit approvals . Mr. Shimer, Architect for Sears, said that they have decided to change to a lighter brick, (light tan) , then what was originally presented to the City, and that the building roof would be semi-mansard. Both ttores plan on beginning construction this summer and foresee a completion date of August 1, 1975. The Sears store will be approximately 215, 000 sq. ft. and Powers 135, 000 sq.ft. Mr. Sorensen asked Mr. Shimer if it would be possible to further screen the loading dock areas . Mr. Shimer said that a 8' wall at the truck dock is possible but that he did not feel that it would be an objectionable area to view_ Mrs. Schee asked if the Maplewood stores were screened. He replied that the Maplewood Powers store docks are screened and bermed. Mr. Fosnocht • felt that models would be helpful in judging the objectionab.ilityof the dock areas . He askel Mr. Shinier how many loading dock doors there would be. Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1974 F. page 2 Mr.Shirror responded that Sears would have 4 dock doors, (cajith unloading mostly in the early morning) , and Powers would have 1 dock door. -Mr. Sorenslo asked'if the wall at the-dock area could be higher? Mr. Shimer did not think that it would be necessary since only the top of the trucks would be visable once in a while. Mr. Shimer said that a massing model could be prepared in about 2 weeks but they would like a footing permit now in order to begin construction. Mrs. Meyers asked why the building styles had not been better coordinated, and suggested that the drastic contrast of building design be resolved. Shimer replied that each store has its own architectural staff and identity. Mrs. Schee asked if there had been a pooling of minds to acheive the architectural coordination that Eden Prairie desired. Mr. Shimer said that he did not think Homart would tell the stores how to design their buildings . Because of the constrasting designs Mrs. Meyers felt that one-or the other_of_the stores appeared as an after thought. Mr. Fosnecht said that knowing what type of . building would unite the Sears and Powers stores together would be helpful in determining whether or not the buildings could be coordinated. Schee and Sorensen both agreed that the stores could retain individual identity-but at the same time be coordinated. Mrs. Meyers questioned why the Sears sign was red if earth toros were to be stressed_ in the building. Shiner responded that it is Sear's policy'to have red signs. 0 Mr. Halverson, Powers representative, presented the Powers store, of bermuda brick with white arches , and stated that they feel that the Eden Prairie store will be their.best looking store and that they do mt want to be like the Sears store. He said that the dock area would have an angled entrance and be screened. One or two trucks a day would be expected excluding holidays, or sales. He felt that it would be a better shopping,center if everything was - not coordinated . Mr. Sorensen told Mr. Halverson that they were not against individual identity brt they do want complementary _architerttre Mr. Halverson said that perhaps some of the City's residents would netwant the same architecture in- each of the stores. The Planner-felt that future stores would suffer - in trying to assemble the stores' varied architecture. Mr. Shimer said he would begin the massing inodel,rand contact Sears &Homart as to what could be done regarding the store designf before the foofi.ngs could begin because the design might change the footings. ' Both Mr. Shimer and Mr. Halverson requested to be placed on the following agenda for building permit approval for the Sears and Powers stores, No action was necessary. Planning Commission Minutes Apirl 15, •1974 page 3 B. Smetana Lake Sector Plan: discussion of revised consultant report and planner's recommendations. Resident and land owner suggestions would be welcomed to aid the Commission in consideration of alternatives . The Planner briefly outlined the need for the study and informed the Commission that some landowners had recpested more time to prepare" their opinions and submissions, so therefore the item would be placed cn the May 7, 1974 agenda for recommendations. Mr. Sorensen asked the Planner if his evaluation of the study had been completed. The Planner replied that it would be best to wait until after the public hearing so that the proposals of the landowners were known. A presentation of Mr. Bill Pearson's proposal was presented by his attorney, Mr. Don Bundlie Mr.Bundlie informed the Commission that Mr. .. Helle, Krahl, McCartney, (all landowners), were in agreement with Mr. Pearson's proposal, The proposal basically placed industrial between Valley View Road and 76th Street with a vertical multi-residential zone buffering the .industrial from the residences and lowlands to the west. Referring to the question, 'What benefit is it to Eden Prairie to bear a disportionate • load in the supply of sand and gravel , in MacCulans report; Mr. Bundlie read frorreMr. Pearson's report to the effect that--why should Eden Prairie not share their commodities as other communitiies share commodities with Eden,Prairie.,-_ As to the impact of mining; Mr,BLrdlle responded that it is better to take advantage of available resources before they are covered with buildings. He suggested continuation of industrial after the valuable materials are removed, Mr. Putnam asked Mr. Pearson to please submit what-Mr. BL dlie had read and the boring reports so that it would be on file. Mr. Lynch inquired as to the elevation of the proposed mulit-residential area: Mr. Pearson said that it would be approximately 837' by the lake with banks of approximately 850' . Mr. Sorensen asked the number of acres in the proposed industrial area. Mr. Pearson responded that it would be about 150 acres. Gary Kopesky, 10805 Valley View Road, asked what the alignment and width of Valley View Road might be if it is up-graded . The Planner answered that the alignment would follow the Smetana Road alignment with a width of probably 32-42' and a 60' right-of-way. The up-grading in Pearson`s proposal might require a 60-80' right -of-way. Mr, Sherman Malkerson, of Eberhardt in Edina, said that they have an interest iin purchasing and developing the .Swendseen property as industrial. This may require rezoning from industrial to industrial park. They requested Planning Commission Minutes April, 15, 74 page 4 that the area have an industrial park zoning. Eleanor Klesh, Rt. 1 Rockford, asked when the zoning in the Smetana Lake Sector would be decided. The Planner. responded that actual zoning categories would be based upon projects. She also asked about the corresponding water/ sewer assessments. She was told that there would be deferment on a set limit of land upon which there is a homestead, and further information could be received from the Engineering Department. Mr. Frank Smetana, 7722 Smetana Lane, asked when Smetana Road would be up-graded, adding that most people are against a throughfare but do want the road widened. The Planner said it would be up-graded as it is needed. Mrs. Pat Kopesky, owner of 6 acres, asked the Commission when the water and sewer would be brought in. Mr. Heinrich, City Manager, said that the Council will be receiving an updating of the utility project nextTuesday,,after which time the Council ' will decide on ordering projects. Mr. Heinrich added that the Council would welcome their feelings. 'regarding water and sewer. MrAopesky told the Commission that he- has no objection to .. mining but desires that mining areas be dressed after their use and not left_ in a strewed mess as on the Helle property located off Valley View Road. Bill Bearman, -9955 Valley View Road, said he would like to see other families around the already existing single family residences and questioned the increase in traffic volume under Pearson Industrial proposal.- Bob Naegele, Naegele=Concon Co. , informed the Commission that they are preparing a presentation for the Commission. No action was necessary-and the Smetana Lake Public Hea7mg will be continued to the May 7, 1974 Planning Commission Meeting. r 1 11d111Allil, V VLIIAiI!,....,1Vll lvllilU.c:_ , .Pj,11 I J , l J page 5 ' C. Amendment to Set-Back Requirements of Zoning Ordinance # 135: The Council referred the proposed amendment to the Commission for study and recommendations . Suggested modifications by Planning and Building • Departments concerning administrative procedures and standards. The Planner referred the Commission to the April 8, 1974 memo from Ed Sherman, and the Planner's April 9, 1974 memo, stating that a requirement of 20' setback for a 3 story house had been added. After discussion of how to measure story height and relating set-backs the Planner suggested adding to the set-backs; 15 feet house, 1 z to 2 a story 20 feet house, 22 to 3 story A ma ximum FAR (Floor Area Ratio ) of .15 is being suggested, which if applied to a 7, 000 sq. ft. lot would allow a house of approximately 1,000 sq.ft. and a 1 ,800 sq.ft. house on a 12,000 sq.ft. lot. Mr. Sorensen asked why the matters of allowing only a certain percentage of variances in 1 subdivision, or if variances should be granted on contiquous lots, were not dealt with within.the memos. Mr. Putnam felt that such restrictions would favor the initial owners and be unequal treatment of owners. Mrs. Meyers questioned what a person would do if they wanted to build an addition on a house which already had .15 lot coverage. The Planner responded • that, they could ask for a variance from the Board of Appeals. : Mr. Lee Johnson, of The Preserve, asked if the .15 FARwould apply to existing development. Mrs. Schee answered that it would not. Mr. Johnson felt that the .15 FAR might discourage the incentive for green way systems. Lane was concerned that the .15 coverage would discourage I story homes from beinc built. Both Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Bonner desired more time to document their individual situations and to : analyze the proposed requirements. Mr. Johnson asked if credit would be given for open space; and the planner said that it would be determined at the time of submission. Mr. Putnam believed that there might - be a need to revise the PUD ordinance. Motion: Schee moved, Lynch seconded, to recommend to the Council considering the changes to the set-back requirements for Ordinance 135 that appear on the April 8, 1974 memo from Ed Sherman,and the intent of the field variance in the Planner's memo. 5 feet garage side Building to side lot line 10 feet house, single story 15 feet house, 12 and 2 story 20 feet house, 3 story Building -to front lot-line 25 feet on cul-de-sac (goose only garage 30 feet) 50 feet on PIMA, County, or State Highways. 30 feet all other areas Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 1974 page 6 ` Building to rear lot line 20 feet . 10 feet- accessory building Side yard (street side for any 20 feet but not conflicting wiih • building on corner lots) other from yard set backs or adjacent lots. A field variance may be given with the authorization of the Chief Building Inspec- tor to deviate from the prescribed side-yards, rear lot-line, front set-back, and set-backs related to corner lots, if in the opinion of the Chief Building Inspector one or more of these criteria are met :. 1 . The variance would protect significant natural features such as; major trees, shurbs, etc. 2 . A variance may be granted if the site is influenced by unbuildable soils; bedrock or wetlands, or slopes greater thm 20% , and that by granting the variance those features may be protected. 3 . A variance may be granted for the protection of significant vistas or views which would not otherwise be possible under strict interpretation of the Ordinance. • The Chief Building Inspector may authorize a variance for the placement of a home if it meets one or'more of these criteria providing that the variance will not require changing the requirement by more than 50 %. For example, if the set-back is required to be 10' a variance could not be granted for more than 5' from the lot-line. The Chief Building Inspector shall complete a brief report outlining the reason for th• variance and the variances granted, and submit that report on a monthly basis to the Board of Zoning Appeals for their review. If the Chief Building Official does not :bel-that a variance should be granted based upon the three allowable criteria then the petitioner, may request a variance which will be considered by the Board of Appeals. Likewise, if an abutting property owner objects to the granting' of a variance that. request shall be automatically forewarded to the Board of Appeals by the Chief Building Official.'f -end of motion- Mrs. Schee also asked that the language of 'Building Inspector' be changed to ` Chief Building I nspector in the memos. Mr. Lane called question on the motion voting. The motion voting carried by 5 ayes, (Schee, Meyers, Lane, Lynch, Fosnocht), and 1 nay, (Sorensen) . Mrs. Schee's motion carried by 4 ayes, (Schee, Meyers, Lynch, Lane), and 2 nays, ( Fosnocht, Sorensen) . page 7 PUBLIC HEARI.NGS COt\TINUED FROM MARCH 19 , 1974_: D. Suncrest Toy7nhouse.Development, by Suncrest Homes*of Minnesota. Requesting approval for constructing 134 cluster townhouses on a 30.7 acre site. Chris Enger, City Landscape Architect, outlined the April l 5 ,1974, staff report concerning the Suncrest' Devebpment and the changes that have not yet been resolved. The unresolved matters are: sites graded to fit units, (4-15' of fill) , vegetation should be redistribted, lighting on the primary trail, the easement for the property on the west should be 60' not 45' , staggering of units for ease of public safety patrol, and cul-de-sacs widened another 5' . In the report recommendations Mr. Enger questioned the creditability of the development's use of elevation and site, but feels that the development will be marketable. Jim Gillespie, of Eden Land Corporation, responded that the street problems will be worked out and that they propose to have the paths in crushed limestone and do not intend to light them because. of the expense of installation, up-keep, and public objections to energy use. He did not feel that staggering the units would make a significant difference since- they would in any case still be viewing another unit. He said that trees that were avialable, and abled . to be moved, would be moved. r Mr. Sorensen asked if the low area in the southern part of the development 'had been resolved. Mr. Enger said that Edenvale proposes to build on unbuildable soils there. He added that there will be considerable cutting to build in the NE corner and that he feels that a different bulding type should _ occur in order to preserve more cf the land's character. Mr. Gillespie agreed that areas could be saved if other- bulldings were built but they feel that there is a stronger market for this type of development. Mr. Lane questioned the adequacy of street width to accomodate emergency vehicles. Mr. Gillespie said that some cul-de-sacs are 80 ' in width and that would be adequate. Bill Bonner, of Hustad Development, said that from talking to Bob Engstrom,on similar problems,he was told that the largest Minneapolis emergency vehicle could be turned in a 70' diameter . Motion: Fosnocht moved, Lane seconded, to refer back to the staff to resolve the differences and to place it on the following agenda, Discussion: Sorensen felt that a decision was necessary since both positions were at a head. He suggested amending the motion to read that it would be continued 3 weeks from tonight if further information was available. Vote: Fosnocht's motion lacked a majority- 3 ayes, (Lynch, Lane, Fosnocht), and 3 nays, (Schee , Meyers, Sorensen) , Motion: Sorensen moved, Lynch seconded, to continue the matter, until the May 7,1974 meeting at which time more information would be submitted if it was available. Discussion: Mrs. Meyers asked for the purpose of the motion . Mr. Sorensen responded that it would allow members to further evaluate all of the material. Planning Commission T:/Iinutes April 15, 1974- page 8 Vote: The motion carried Nvith a. vote of 3 ayes, (Sorensen, Fosrocht, Lynch) , 2 days , (Meva s, Schee) , and ? abstain, (Lane) . III. PETITIONS_A1I7 REQUESTS: A. Austad Devulopment•Corporcition, request RM 2 .5 zoning for the construction of single family homes cn lots less than 13500 sq. ft. The site is located in the Prairie East P UD, (73-PUD-07) , just to the east of the platted single family home sites. Bill Bonner briefly presented the new single family proposal located within Prairie East. It will be comprised of small single family lots, (approx. 7,500 s q.ft.) , with 4 different models , (split levels, and drive-unders) , .ranging from 1 ,0 0 0-1 ,2 0 0 sq. ft. , and priced in the forty thousand dollar bracket. The street leading in from the east is proposed as public and there will be parkways ending in cul-de-sacs, with planting strips in the middle. Mrs. Meyers expressed concern about the possible overloading of existing roads with cul-de-sacs .as proposed. Motinn: Lynch moved, Fosnocht seconded, to refer the proposal to the staff and to continue it to the May 7, 1974, meeting. The niotion was unanimously approved. IV. REPORTS: A. Plannina Commission Chair-N17oman-Norma Schee: 1 . MPA Conference-A report will be given at a later date. 2 . General Comments-A tour of C;edar Riverside, "New Town In Town" will be taken April 30, 1974, at 11:30 A.M.. B. Planner's Report: 1 . Up-coming Projects -Westwind, in The Preserve, will be a future project. 2. Staffing The Council has -requested additional information on this matter. 3. Commercial Needs.StudY- The Planner welcomed the Commission members involvement in the interviewing of prospective consultants. 4. MCA Progress- The report will be cping to the printer within a couple of days. V. A-DI'OURNMENT Fosnocht moved, Meyers seconded, adjourn the meeting at 12:30 A.M. The motion carried unanimously. MAY 7, 1974 WILL BE THE NEXT PLANNING- COMMISSION MEETING .