Planning Commission - 10/28/1991 AGENDA
EDEN PRA-1-RIEE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, October 28, 1991
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Charles Ruebling, Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett,
Karen Norman, Doug Sandstad, James Hawkins and
Katherine Kardell
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen,
Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund,
Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
M. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. GOLF POINTE(91-24-Z-P)by Associated Investments, Inc. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to
Low Density Residential on 2.24 acres; Zoning District Change from
• Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.24 acres with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals; Preliminary Plat of 2.24 acres into 5 single family lots
to be known as Golf Pointe. Location: South of Valley View Road and
east of the abandoned Chicago & Northwestern Railway.
B. TACO BELL (91-27-SPR) by Taco Bell Corporation. Request for Site
Plan Review within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 0.56 acres with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for construction of a
restaurant to be known as Taco Bell. Location: Joiner Way, south of
Goodyear Tire.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Trash Enclosure Discussion
B. Public Hearing Notice Discussion
W. ADJOURNMENT
VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COND41SSION
APPROVED NIINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1991 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COM VHSSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, James Hawkins, Katherine
Kardell, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad.
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary
ROLL CALL: Hallett, Kardell, and Sandstad absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to approve the Agenda as published. Motion
carried 4-0-0.
• H. MEMBERS REPORTS
M. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. GOLF POINTE(91-24-Z-P)by Associated Investments,Inc. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to
Low Density Residential on 2.24 acres; Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.24 acres with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals; Preliminary Plat of 2.24 acres into 5 single family lots
to be known as Golf Pointe. Location: South of Valley View Road and
east of the abandoned Chicago & Northwestern Railway.
Franzen reported that this item had been continued due to concern raised
at the last meeting regarding storm drainage and sanitary sewer
connections. He noted there had been a question as to whether the culvert
had increased in size and he reported that the culvert had remained the
same size and the amount of water going into the culvert had remained the
same. Another issue of concern had been the amount of fill going into the
flood plain area. Franzen reported that the amount of fill would be
insignificant and would not cause a problem. Franzen noted there would
actually 2 sanitary sewer lines serving this area. This particular project
would go into a 10" line which would run along the railroad tracks and
Planning Commission
October 28, 1991 Page 2
would not affect the Fairway Woods development. Franzen stated that the
City Attorney Pauly had stated that the liability issue would be the
responsibility of the homeowner.
Hawkins.noted that the homeowner being responsible was consistent with
what the proponent had stated at the last meeting.
Robert Larson, representing the golf course, stated a concern about
potential water problems. He noted that the golf course had seen some
stress in the last few days from the rain and questioned if this would
increase with further development in the area and what he could look
forward to in the future. Larson questioned the need for berming on the
Valley View Road side of the project and added that he would like to see
the berms on the golf course side. He did not believe the berm would
have any benefit on the north side of the project. Larson noted that the
golfer was liable; however, they were sometimes hard to pin down. He
• added that the golf course was not liable. Larson was concerned about the
amount of asphalt in the area and where the water would be coming from
and where it would be going to. He noted that he did not have a problem
with the project, but he didn't want further water problems.
Tom Robertson, representing the proponent, stated that this project had
been approved in 1988 for a more intense use. He noted the homes would
be set much further back from the golf course than the original proposal
and the overall affects of development would be less than the original.
Robertson stated that the berming had been planned to stay with the
natural lay of the land.
Larson stated that he was pleased to see 5 homes in lieu of 15. He said
that the golf course had done extensive reconstruction to handle the water
more effectively and was concerned about this development and future
developments affecting that reconstruction.
Norman stated that she believed that Larson's issues were more with the
City itself than with this particular development.
Larson stated that he wanted to see the water stay on the course. He
• added that the present system could handle up to 4" of rain without any
problems.
Planning Commission
• October 28, 1991 Page 3
Franzen stated that he would have to contact the City Engineering
Department for answers to what if anything was done during the road
construction that would affect water run-off.
Larson noted that the liability issue had been turned over to the golfer.
Norman believed that homeowners on adjacent to a golf course were aware
of potential problems. Larson added that since the golf course had gone
private there had been fewer problems.
Bauer believed that whenever the soil conditions were known to be bad
better information on the integrity of the structure should be required.
Ruebling asked if Bauer wanted to see soil tests. Ruebling believed that
this information was required at building permit time.
Robertson stated this area had been created by glacier pushes. He noted
that the Building Inspection Department required special requirements.
• Franzen noted that the City did have information about the soils for Valley
View Road, which was adjacent to this site.
Robertson stated that the original creek bed was further south of this
development. Robertson noted that the cost between block and poured
foundations was insignificant and was not a factor in determining which
would be used.
Bauer stated that he did not believe that special test should be done on
every site, only those where soils were known to be in question.
Larson stated that the area at the west end of the property was
questionable; however, the site where the construction would take place
had always been dry.
Hawkins asked what type of care would be taken during development to
assure the restriction of silt deposits in the creek area. Franzen replied
that the Watershed District had very strict requirements which had to be
adhered to by the developer.
Planning Commission
• October 28, 1991 Page 4
MOTION 1:
Hawkins move, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City-Council
approval of the request of Associated Investments, Inc., for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to
Low Density Residential on 2.24 acres for development of five single
family lots to be known as Golf Pointe, based on plans dated September
13, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated
October 4, and 25, 1991. Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 3:
• Hawkins moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Associated Investments, Inc., for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.24 acres, with variances to
be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, to be developed as five single
family lots and known as Golf Pointe, based on plans dated September 13,
1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated October
4, and 25, 1991. Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 4:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Associated Investments, Inc., for Preliminary
Plat of 2.24 acres into five single family lots to be known as Golf Pointe,
based on plans dated September 13, 1991, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Reports dated October 4, and 25, 1991. Motion carried 4-0-0.
B. TACO BELL (91-27-SPR) By Taco Bell Corporation.
Request for Site Plan Review within the C-Reg-Ser District on 0.56 acre,
with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for construction
of a restaurant. Location: West of Joiner Way, East of Highway #169,
north of Prairie Center Drive. (A public hearing)
Planning Commission
October 28, 1991 Page 5
Franzen reported that the developer had requested a continuance to the
November 25, 1991 Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION 1•
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to continue this item to the November
25, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS
A. Trash Enclosure Discussion
Franzen reported that this issue had come about as the result of a
continuing problem with Ciatti's trash area. Ciatti's had
constructed the trash area as per City Code requirements; however,
• the trash was more than the containers could handle. The City
Council had directed Staff to investigate what type of trash
containers and areas would work. Staff contacted some of the
trash haulers and discovered that part of the problem was that the
containers were inaccessible. Franzen stated that the ordinance
suggested ways to develop the locations and sizes to work better.
for everyone. Staff had contacted trash haulers, tenants, and
project owners. The exact language of the ordinance would need
to be developed by City Attorney Pauly.
Hawkins recommended that the wording be changed to reflect both
trash and recycling enclosures and that mandatory recycling space
be provided.
Franzen stated that many of the tenants had said that they would
recycle if required. Franzen noted that some variances might be
necessary for the older projects for setback or parking for the
expansion of the trash enclosure areas.
Norman believed that Staff had done a commendable job on this
project. She added that it was evident that Staff had done a lot of
research.
Planning Commission
October 28, 1991 Page 6
Bauer believed that it was a good idea to put this in an ordinance
form.
Hawkins concurred with the concept of the ordinance, but
questioned who would actually write it. Franzen replied that Staff
would write a draft form which would be reviewed by the City
Attorney.
Ruebling believed that recycling issues would increase'the need for
an ordinance.
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to recommend concept
approval of the Trash Enclosure memo. Motion carried 4-0-0.
B. Public Hearing Notice Discussion
• Franzen reported that Staff had tried to develop a notice which was
easy to read and to explain exactly what takes place at the
meetings.
Bauer stated that he was amazed that this had not been done before
and added that the maps needed to be improved. He said that
sometimes it was difficult for him to determine exactly where the
development was located. Franzen replied that Staff had looked at
putting a small map on the front and a larger one on the back of
the notice. Bauer recommended that the sites themselves should be
marked.
Norman believed that it was important for residents to understand
the different responsibilities of the various commission and the
development process itself. Franzen replied that Staff could
develop a one page attachment to explain these items to be
included with each notice. Bauer concurred with that
recommendation. Ruebling recommended that short definitions be
included for important terms so that the residents had a better
understanding.
Planning Commission
October 28, 1991 Page 7
VII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Norman moved, seconded by Bauer to adjourn the meeting at 8:45
PM. Motion carried 4-0-0.