Loading...
Planning Commission - 03/23/1981 ti MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION ,approved Monday, March 23, 1981 7:30 PM, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Matthew Levitt, Grant Sutliff, Virginia Gartner, Hakon Torjesen, Robert Hallett MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Levitt moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 7-0. II. APPROVAL OF MARCH 9, 1981 MINUTES Gartner moved to approve the minutes with the following correction: P. 2, 8th para. should read 'Hallett stated that he was concerned that Ordinance 135 precludes the use of wood as an exterior material for commercial buildings. ' Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0. III. MEMBERS REPORTS A. Retterath reported that Richard Anderson had not removed the earth moving equipment from the City West area. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS None V. OLD BUSINESS A. Chapter 11 of Codification The Commission had general discussion on the definition of Agriculture and felt that it should allow the raising of animals for domestic use but not commercial production. Members felt that horse stables and kennels should be allowed, but specific regulations should be developed for this use.- The Commission also felt that the minimum size parcel in a Rural District should be raised from 5 to 10 acres to reduce urbanizing pressure on the Rural area. SThe Commission asked for the definition of basements and cellars to be clarified. They felt there should be a minimum frontage requirement of 60' on all single family detached lots with a 90' width requirement at the building setback as well as a 90' mean width requirement. approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 23, 1981 They also felt that definition #15 should be changed to say "persons" rather than "human beings" and the word "transiently" be eliminated. Under definition #17, the word "buiTding" should be changed to "structure". Under definition #23, Cellars or basements should be included when figuring "Floor Area Ratio". The Commission moved to continue the codification review at their April 13, 1981 meeting. VI. NEW BUSINESS-, None VII. PLANNER'S REPORT No►ie VIII. ADJOURNMENT Retterath moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:45PM. Sutliff seconded, motion carried, 7-0. • MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 23, 1981 approved 6:30 PM, City Hall CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel , George Bentley, Dean Edstrom, Paul Redpath, George Tangen COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Beaman, Liz Retterath, Matthew Levitt, Grant Sutliff, Hakon Torjesen, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; John Frane, Acting City Manager; Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services; Carl Jullie, City Engineer; Keith Wall , Public Safety; Bob Tysbn I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Planning Commission Chairman Bearman called the meeting to order explaining that the topic of the meeting,as the agenda stated, was to discuss site alternatives for location of City Services. II. PRESENTATION FROM CITY STAFF OF SITE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR CITY SERVICES Is COMPLEX City Planner, Chris Enger introduced staff members present to explain the pros and cons of locating at the existing City Hall site compared to a site near the Major Center Area. Keith Wall explained that the Crime Prevention aspect of a Public Safety Building would be located equally well at either site, because of the fact that most di- spatches of vehicles were from points in the field rather than from a central point. However, he explained that the next fire station for the City should be in a location that would serve the Southwest area of town. Growth would begin to occur west of Co. Rd. 4 once a new sewer trunk was extended, and there would be a need for an additional fire station which could also cover the Airport. Placement of the Public Safety building at the Co. Rd. 4 site would assure that the fire station would be adequately manned by volunteers from the Public Safety Department. If Public Works also located at the Co. Rd. 4 site, it would provide a convenient point for serving Public Safety vehicles and also be a source of additional fire volunteers. Wall explained that good access to Co. Rd. 4 and Co. Rd. 1 would also provide direct access to the major residential population areas of town. • Wall felt, that other than the fire station question, the sites were equal ; the advantages of locating a police and fire public safety building at the Co. Rd. 4 site make it better from a public safety stand point. City Council/Planning approved Commission Minutes -2- March 23, 1981 Wall was asked when Public Safety would need new facilities. He replied that, with the addition to the water treatment plant, where their existing facilities are, next year they would need new quarters. Bob Lambert explained that the Park and Recreation Shop needed to be located centrally in accessibility to City Parks. He illustrated that Bryant Lake Park and Anderson Lakes Park, in the northeast area of the community would be main- tained by the County. The City Parks, were therefore mainly located on either side of Co. Rd. 4 or Co. Rd. 1, and were most easily accessible with maintenance equip- ment from those roads. He mentioned a need for outside storage which could be screened at the Co. Rd. 4 site but would be more diffnicult for higher residential buildings in the M.C.A. Mr. Lambert felt that the existing City Hall site was best for location of a park shop. Carl Jullie presented the advantages of both sites. He explained that the geographic center of town was not the residential population and access center of town. Public Works would be concerned with providing street and utility mainten- ance services in town. The density of water, sewer, street, and storm sewer services in a residential area was many times greater than in a commercial/in- dustrial area, such as the Major Center Area and the Smetana Lake Industrial area. Therefore, from a Public Works standpoint, the site at Co. Rd. 4 pro- vided a more central location to existing and future service areas than a Major Center site. Mr. Jullie went on to compare the screening possibilities for outside storage, explaining that the Co. Rd. 4 site had excellent topographic features which could be utilized to screen required outside storage. Mr. Jullie explained that the site on Co. Rd. 4 and Co. Rd. 1 would provide good high capacity roads for access to all parts of the community without having to utilize City Collector Roads as in the M.C.A. site. Chris Enger explained that a site in the M.C.A. was a correct land use. He presented the 1968 Guide Plan which showed a commercial corner at Co. Rd. 1 and Co. Rd. 4 and the 1979 Guide Plan which showed City Services and a park at the existing City Hall site. While he had concerns about being a compatible land use with outside storage in the M.C.A. , because of the difficulty of screening, he felt outside storage at the Co. Rd. 4 site could be screened very well . He went on to explain that the cemetery and a park would be to the north, Rural land with future residential to the west and Rural laid with future possible neighborhood commercial use to the south and Co. Rd. 4 and existing large lot residential to the east. Mr. Enger also felt the' Co. Rd. 4 site would be the closest to the crossroads of the residential population. • Mr. Enger gave a brief summary and the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 PM.