Planning Commission - 04/28/1980 MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMrlISSION
approved
Monday, April 28, 1980 7:30 PM,City Hall
COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman William Beaman, George Bentley, Matthew Levitt,
Virginia Gartner, Liz Retterathq Brant Sutliff9,
COMMISSION ABSENT: Hakon Torjesen on leave of absence.
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Jeanie Ohnsorg, Planning Secretary
I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairman Bearman stated it has been brought to his attention that the notice
of public hearing for Northmark West , sent by the City, 'listed May 249 13s0
as the public hearing date. Beamman inquired if this notice was in error.
The Planner replied affirmative. _
Motion
Rett th moved,Gartner seconded, to set a new public searing for Monday,
May 129 1980, to be republished %nd corrected notices sent to property
owners. Motion carried 6-0.
Motion
eent'Tey moved, Gartner seconded, to approv: the agenda as corrected. Motion
carried 6-0.
i. APPROVAL MINUTES OF APRIL 141 1980
P. 1,A.2P, correct spelling of Ringrose.
P.2,2p, change ' vegetation there is' to "endangered species there are"
11P,2nd sentence should read- Because of very round-about road systems, only
the central onethird of the subdivision will have direct access to the
northern park.
13R, should read- haul Choiniere, 15819 North Eden Drive, stated that it
was his understanding that the park area would be designed so that it could
be used for Winter as well as Summer activities. He also stated that he
does not feel the lots should encroach into the flood plain.
P.3,14ot{on stwuld include- "dedication of triang-0ar shaped area with northern
park as recommended by staff, and; the Hennepin County Transportation letter
should be included" .
P.3,strike- 6earman reassumed the chair:
P,5,D,2P, correct spelling of Chmiel (also in ?s 2,4 A 7, and page 6) .
P.6,2nd Motion, change 'stated' to "states", and add " concern regarding
overall drainage.
P.6,7►?- change address from 1300 to 13000.
Motion
rtner moved, Rettera th seconded, to approve the minutes as corrected.
Motion carried 6-0. -
III . HEWERS REPORTS _
one
,approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 28, 1980
I DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BRAUN'S FASHIONS INC. , by Rauenhorst Corporation. Request to rezone from
Rural to I-2 arc an preliminary plat 9.95 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot.
A continued public hearing.
Bearnman relinquished the chair to Vice-chairperson Retterath---
Bob Worthington, Rauenhorst Corp. , illustrated the changes to the plan as: land-
scaping, commitment to maintain Valley View Road during slippery conditions,and
agreement with LeParc to the north for possible future access.
Levitt expressed concern about 'creeping' industrial within the Smetana Uke
PUD which is designated for both industrial and multiple residential uses.
The Planner responded that residential is still planned to the west of Braun's
and that more residential in the Smetana Lake Sector can be expected.
Sutliff inquired if there would be a bypass lane for east bound traffic.
Mr. Worthington felt Braun' s commitment to maintain the road during slippery
conditions would keep traffic moving up the hill and a bypass would not 5e
needed at this time.
Vice-chairperson Retterath asked if anyone in the audience had questions or
comments. None were raised.
hoti on 1
lent ey moved, Sutliff seconded= to close the public hearing on the Braun's
preliminary plat. Motion carried 5-0-1. ( Bearmman abstained )
Motion
entley moved, Sutliff seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of the
rezoning from Rural to I-2 as per the revised plans dated 4-23-80, the staff
report of 4-11-80, including the analysis by g:R.M. , the Braun's agreement
with LeParc for access, Braun' s commitment for supplementary maintenance of Valley
View Road,, and that Outlot A be developed as residential . Motion carried 5-0-1.
( Bearman abstained j
Motion 3
Bentley mr+oved, Gartner seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of
the Braun' s preliminary plat as per the conditions listed in motion 2. Motion
carried 5-0-1. ( Bearman abstained
Beermman reassumed the chair.
J
8. PRAIRIE CORPORATION ADDITION, by Feeder' s Inc. , Request to rezone from Rural �
_ t0 - ar a ipre .miners r�ls* S t���S L''�! wi:1vt. Lora" south of
West 78th Street and east of Purgatory Creek. A public hear-IM.
Rick. Sathre, McCombs-Knutson, presented the plat and rezoning request to the '
commission.
The Planner reviewed the staff report of April 23, 19809 sormuMmrizin9 its major y
points as placement and screening of the Lavair building, intended use of the
. lots, access points, etc.
Levitt inquired how large the Feeder's site is The planner replied the
site is 38 acres in site iwcludihq ipprox%ately 40 acres of now puin,
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 28, 1980
Levitt asked what type of use wouic be constructed on Lot 1 , Black 3.
Mr. Hyue, Feeder' s Inc. , replied Lavair b Company, a spec builder, would be
constructing an industrial building.
Dearman inctrisrtal tho ctaff to malrA tho RArmpl 1pttor- 4a+aA Ar+r41 9C loon
• - - - - •• - - , ..MGM ..r. . . r.., .. ...,
a part of the minutes.
Bentley expressed the following concerns: the Guide Plan designation of industrial
could be intended to protect existing industrial , and the City' s review of the
approval request is premature because action on the lowering of the flood plain
should occur first.
Bearman inquired if there was adequat = land available in the City for this type
of industrial . The Planner replied yes.
Bentley inquired if the E.A.W. is considered a public or private action. The Planner
replied it is a public action.
Levitt aske.i if the E.A.W. is considered a major action. The Planner replied it is
not a major action and the E.A.W. would by likewise corrected.
Don Brauer, representing Tudor Oaks, stated his objection to this type of industrial
in the M.C.A. ,sta*ing that the Guide Plan was meant to represent a small amount of
supportive industrial around Rosemount Engineering. He felt that no proposal in
this quadrant of the M.C.A. should be acted on until a detailed study of the
flood plain is conducted.
Motion 1
Levitt moved, Sutliff seconded, to close the public hearing on the Feeder' s Inc.
Prairie Corporation Addition plat. Motion carried 6-0.
Motion 2
Levifi moved, Gartner seconded, to recommend to the City Council denial of the
rezoning of Lot 1, Block 3, from Rural to I-5 Motion carried 6-0.
Motion 3
Levitt moved, Gartner seconded, to recommend to the City Council denial of the
preliminary plat dated April 10, 1980. Motion carried 6-0.
Moti;n 4
evitt roved, Gartner seconded, to table action on the Environmental Assessment
Worksheef. Motion carried 6-0.
---Commission member Bentley was excused from the meeting---
C. NORTHMARK EAST, by Ban-Con,lnc. Request to rezone 5.2 acres from Rural to
RM 6.5 and preliminary plat the property for construction of 32 units,
(8 buildings of 4 units each) . Located west of Center Way and North of
Lanewood Circle. A public hearing.
Mr. Hans Hagen, Ban-Con, Inc. , presented the development plans to the Commission.
The Planner reviewed the staff report of April 23, 1980.
Rettei-ath asked if the units would be rental or owner occupied. Mr. Hagen replied
they would be owner occupied as far as they know.
Sutliff inquired as to the size of the buildings. Mr. Hagen replied 8404 feet
with double garages.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 28, 1980
16 Beaman asked how much the units would sell for. Mr. Hagen estimated
$709000.
Lev i LL irrqu ii'ed how iar•ge Lne units are. Mr. nagen repi iea approximately
1,380 square feet(upper b lower levels) .
Mr. Bill Person, 11220 Lanewood Circle, stated he speaks for 3 homeowners, expressed
concern about the project contributing water to their backyards which already
have a water problem. The Planner replied the City Engineering Department will
review the storm water plans.
Mr. Jim Guy, 11250 Lanewood Circle, expressed approval of the development
plans and Ban-Con' s cooperation.
Beaman instructed the staff to make the petition from the homeowners part
of the minutes.
Motion 1
artner moved, Retterath seconded, to close the public hearing on Northmark
East. Motion carried 5-0.
Motion 2
artner moved, Levitt seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval
of the rezoning from Rural to RM 6. 5 as per the material dated Feb. 29, 1980
and the staff report of April 23, 1980. Motion carried 5-0.
Motion 3
Gartner moved, Sutliff seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of
the preliminary plat dated Feb. 29, 1980 as per the staff report of April 23, 1980.
Motion carried 5-0.
D. NORTHMARK WEST, New public hearing set for May 12, 1980
E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 62 CROSSTOWN FROM
SHADY OAK ROAD Ta I- 94.
Jim Wold and Dave Schmidt, Hennepin County Department of Transportation, presented
the new profile for the Crosstown 62 from Shady Oak Road to I-494. They
explained there would be substantial savings in changing the profile to include
a 40 foot fill section over Nine Mile Creek rather than the previous planned
80 foot high bridge. Mr. Wold stated that at the direction of the County Board
t44,y are putting engineering plans in final form in order to apply for any and
all federal funds that are available so the Crosstown can be constructed as
soon as possible. He stated that in order, to receive federal funding it is
necessary to obtain positive resolutions from the Cities of Minnetonka and
Eden Prairie without contingencies. Mr. Wold then spoke to the 1976 City Resolution
and said they would be conforming witb. all requests except participation in the
Ring Road, construction of Townline Road, and a bridge across I-494. He also
stated that the Baker Road improvements would be part of the project, and Mitchell
Road improvements are scheduled for 1982.
• The Commission discussed the impact of the Crosstown upon the City and related
road systems, conditions attached to the 1976 approval , and previous
approvals.
Sutliff expressed concern that the timeframe for improving Townline Road should
coincide with the extension of Crosstown 62.
approved
Planning Cor±�ission Minutes -5- April 28, 1980
Retterath moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Crosstown
62 Revised Profile 1980. Motion failed for the lack of a second.
Motion
Levitt moved Retterath seconded, to recommend to the City Council denial
of the Crosstown 62 Revised Profile 1980 because:
1. The Crosstown 62 is not necessary.
2. The road will have an adverse impact upon the City.
3. Tf,e City should concentrate efforts on securing funds
for US 212.
Motion passed 4: 1 with Sutliff voting nay.
V OLD BUSINESS
None
VI . NEW BUSNESS
1. Discuss on of cancelling May 26,1980 Meeting(Memorial Day) . Discussion
continued to May 12, 1980.
VII . PLANNER'S REPOPT
V1II .ADJOURNMENT
Retterath moved, Gartner seconded to adjourn the meeting at
PM. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Enger
PFTTTTAN T TNF of AUNTNI! -tiM!:CCTI%� Awn ev v �vMie%o#%v@
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
The undersigned, residents in the neighbor-hood adjacent to the- North-
mark East and Northmark Nest residential development, have reviewed both the
building and the development plans. We hereby request that the Planning
Cor=ission and City Council approve the development plan in accordance with
those plans dated 2� — ">. O — 8 O . attached hereto and made a
part hereof.
� )
. P�p
i
sin-�
= 1
Agri 1 25.. 1980
Planning Commission, City Council a Staff
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55343
Ladles and Ger*lemen:
This letter is a r+aponae to certain industrial develolmrwo proposals in the southwest
quadrar* of the Major Center /area (MCA). It reflects a common viewpoint of i;wmel-
Smaby cwW John Ternan who own properties adjacent to the proposed developments.
The sermel-Swa by and Twwm peopw! as ineexrfew on mea of 120 acres. The properties
are abutting and have been owned lair each party for a period exceeding twenty hears.
During this we have conducted extenti•,rm joint planning studies IncLiding
partidpeflon by our rrpr+esentatives in the MCA Tack Force committees. We and our
esprewdatives have had extensive oar womications with the various city staffs over these
smarty rears. We have spurt eonsidw aible sums with consultants working within the Fie, -
work of city objectives and ultrroc )ly the MCA PUD. DuOng ;he past year we have had
soapy dimossiom with staff whirl;: have foomed on creating a development envinonrnent
for our properties cW.JnIng and partially within the Purgatory Creek Flood Plain area.
The NCA PUD was officially acktp*ed by the City of Eder, Prairie after extensive studies
by represer+iatives of the city metropolitan gove.ownt and agencies such as the
Metropaihan C"J"II, Niphway Department, Watersi Districts and the property avners
1n+biverl. We ha" oorssidared it a valid oar ter us of them paroles. During all of the
odended prods land use disawsions centered around ownmercial, office, institutianal
and teasing uses. Diseunkas relating to #*ndustrial use; in the MCA were to our know-
- - - -- - oirso#rsDn-e a it has af*v" born our un lastarading that the in�ir
aaeipnatian sA err soutf+wso quodr�ont was "lelyto wdate an existing use, narnely,
Rw,�arnt ErVineerirv. It is the only area In the 1,200 acre MCA having an indusWal
desilpm0ian. Ones quvirarr► aho had aii other N4:A lam use designations. we aim
rs Wwoand that thws is an ae►areness that this Roesinount n m"AWor*urin# use in r6 MCA
w,agr net be mosp o siediy vk 4 in the future since tt may not be the 'highest and best use"
of itw isrd.
��sc#r►s..�•air+..+w+�..or s�•�-ro�.� _ _ -
�L-
o t
Both proposals for industrial use am adjacent to the Purgatory Creek flood plain area.
The MCA PUD designates extensive high density multiple housing in this area clustered
on the fringes of the flood pain. Clustering, high density and existing soil conditions
dictate multi-story units. Mousing, particularly of multi-story type, has to have
compatible adjoining uses. in our opinion, expansion of industrial-warehouse useR is not
compatible with housing in the area. If new industry comes into our area of the MCA,
we then have to look at this as a possible use for our properties w:th the following possible
consequences:
1 . Bexa+.,se our properties are bounded to the east by the Homart Center industrial
uses would be "across the street" from that center in place of *he compatible uses
associated with a regional center. Industry would replace the "YoTktowns",
"Gallerias", office and multiple housing complexes which are compatible.
2. Single story industrial buildings sprawl crA tend to maximize grading of the
area. It would also tend to maximize encroachment of the flood plain versus
the clustered concentrated development spelled out in the MCA PUD,
3. The Tudor Oaks housing, nursing home complex would be surrounded by non-
compatible uses. This is an existing use in the area consistent with the MCA PUD.
We have met on previous ocemions with both proponents for industrial zonings. We
understand their rights and needs to develop their properties. They know our concerns about
incompatible adjoining land uses. It is our opinion that if additional industrial use is per-
mitted it should be restricted to a brief transition area immediately adjacent to Rosemount.
It should be considered an interim use and be of the CPT variety in a building meeting
similar architectural and site planning standards.
Since adoption of the 1968 Guide Plan and the MCA PUD, we have worked within the
framework of those documents. The Guide Plan had no industrial designations. The
MCA PUD paid heed to an existing user. Our position is that more than a decade of
extensive, prolonged and costly planning concensus not be abandoned. We also request
that some definitive uses of the Iargie flood plain area be arrived at so as to be in a
better position to evaluate any development proposals for properties in that area.
--------- - - - - - - ----- -- - -- - -- - - --
Yom very truly,
URA*L-SMARY RPALTY, INC.
deuce C. Bet"I Johr� Tearan
Emwtive VIce Prodd urt P"Mly-owner