Loading...
Planning Commission - 06/08/1981 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, June 8, 1981 7:30 PM, City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Matthew Levitt, Virginia Gartner, Grant Sutliff, Hakon Torjesen, Robert Hallett STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF MAY 11, 1981 MINUTES III. APPROVAL OF MAY 20, 1981 MINUTES IV. MEMBERS REPORTS V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. BASSWOOD d2 REVISIONS, by E. J. Schneider, Co. Request for approval of a revised site development plan for Basswood d2 of The Preserve PUD 70-04. The plan includes 4 buildings and 48 units. Located north of Basswood Townhouses & south of Basswood Road. B. LAKE TRAIL ESTATES REZONING, by Swenson & Schwartz. Request to rezone lots 1 & 2, block 1 and lots 5 & 6, block 2 from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 fur duplexes. Located along Carnelian Lane and north of TH 5. A public meeting. C. HARDEE'S RESTAURANT PLAT, by North Central Food Systems , Inc. Request to preliminary plat 1.1 acres of the Eden Glen PUD for construction of a Hardee's Restaurant. Located in the southwest corner of Eden Road and US 169-212. A public meeting. D. WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, by Richard W. Anderson, Inc. Re- quest for approval of a PUD, rezoning from Rural and I-2 Park_ to I-5 Park with setback variances, preliminary plat, and an Environmental Assessment Worksheet upon 42 acres. Located south of Co. Rd. 67 & west of St. John's Woods. A public hearing. VI. Chapter 11 of Codification VII. OLD BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. PLANNER'S REPORT A. Slope Committee Recommendations X. ADJOURNMENT y MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING. COMMISSION approved Monday, June 8, 1981 7:30 PM, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Matthew Levitt, Grant Sutliff, Hakon Torjesen MEMBERS ABSENT: Liz Retterath, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Torjesen moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0. II. APPROVAL OF MAY 11, 1981 MINUTES Sutliff moved to approve the May 11, 1981 minutes as submitted. Levitt seconded, motion carried 4-0. III. APPROVAL OF MAY 20, 1981 MINUTES Sutliff moved to approve the May 20, 1981 minutes as submitted. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 3-0-1. Levitt abstained. IV. MEMBERS REPORTS None V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. BASSWOOD d2 REVISIONS, by E.J. Schneider, Co. Request for approval of a revised site development plan for Basswood d2 of The Preserve PUD 70-04. The plan includes 4 buildings and 48 units. Located north of Basswood Townhouses & south of Basswood Road. The Planner stated that this is a site plan review. and introduced Mr. Duke Schneider of E.J. Schneider Co, and Mr. Howard Goltz, of Klapste Goltz Associates. The Planner also stated that the proponent has held many neighborhood meetings. Goltz stated that the concensus among the neighbors was approval 'of the site plan. He reviewed surrounding land uses, parking, grading, and stated that they are still working on elevations. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 6/5/81:, Levitt asked if it is 48 units within 4 buiTdings and if so, how many parking spaces are provided for guests. Goltz replied yes, and stated that there are 31 spaces for guests. The Planner stated that the ordinance requires 1 enclosed parking space and 1 exterior space per unit and stated that because there were 96 interior spaces provided that he felt it would be sufficient. ,approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 8, 1981 Levitt asked if the units would be 2 or 3 bedroom units and also asked the what the price range is. Goltz replied that they would be 2 bedroom units which would include 2 underground stalls, and stated that. the price range would be in the low hundreds. He also stated that all the units would have the same floor plan. Torjesen asked if the proponent dedided on the exterior building material and asked if the 35' building limit would be a problem. Goltz replied they will use brick and stated that there would be no problem with the 35' height limit. Torjesen asked if they will comply with heating garage energy conservation. Goltz replied there will be a minor cost to be paid: to keep the garage in the mid 40's. Levitt asked the distance between these buildings and Basswood Townhouses. Goltz replied 100+' . Sutliff asked about the connection between the entryways for cross-traffic. Goltz stated that it will be a one-way frontage road. Sutliff asked if there will be a swimming pool . Goltz replied 40* ne�ar6 plann®d4 . but that there will be a central area for barbeques, etc. Beaman asked how IO'dg the parking spaces will be. Goltz :replied 21-22' . Janet VanFossen, 8819 Basswood Road stated that she was concerned with the 60' between the closest building and Basswood Townhouses. Bill Schfreffius, 8760 Bentwood Drive, asked the scale of the plan and asked the time frame for the project. Goltz replied the scale is 1"-20' and stated that the proponent would like to begin construction the 1st of July and finish in 10 months. Bill Weedenbacker, 8855 Basswood Road, representative for Basswood Townhouse Assoc. , stated that they find the new plan responsive to the topography on the site, stated they are pleased with the preservation of the trees , and stated they are satisified with the plan. Robert Lewis, 8731 B1ack*Maple Drive, stated that he has no objections to the plan. MOTION Levitt moved to approve the revised PUD site development plan dated 6/4/81 as per the staff report of 6/5/81. Torjesen seconded. DISCUSSION Beaman stated that recommendation #1 of the staff report should read 'Construction limits to be fixed' and asked that that be added. Levitt replied yes. Sutliff asked if the City Forester has been to the site. The Planner replied no, but that he had been there and stated the trees are maple, elm, basswood, and oak. Levitt asked if construction fencing protects the trees. The Planner replied that he felt that it would work well , but that there are no examples in the City where it had been required and construction had gone ahead. Motion carried 4-0. approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 8, 1981 B. LAKE TRAIL ESTATED REZONING, by Swenson & Schwartz. Request to rezone lots 1 & 2, block 1 and lots 5 & 6, block 2 from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 for duplexes. Located along Carnelian Lane and north of TH 5. A public meeting. Bearman stated that there have been petitions received and that they should be made part of the minutes. The Planner stated that this is a request for rezoning 4 lots from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 for duplexes. He introduced Mr. Arvid Schwartz and Mr. Clifton Swenson. Schwartz reviewed the location of the four lots, and stated that the owner for lot 4, block 2, and lot 3, block 1 have no objections for lot 2, block 1 and lot 5, block 2 being duplexes. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 6/4/81 and stated that 2 units/acre is the maximum allowed in the RM 6.5 zone and that this request would comply. Torjesen asked if the owners for lot 4, block 2 and lot 3, block 1 have written doom their comments. Schwartz replied that one has and that the other owner is out of the country. Sutliff asked if the duplex could be owned by two parties if a lot line was to be drawn between the duplex. The Planner replied yes and that each unit would be re- quired to be on a 6,500 sq. ft. minimum lot. Levitt asked if a lot line was drawn, if the plat would come later. The Planner replied that if the owners wanted to have a lot line drawn, it could be done administratively. Sutliff asked if done administratively, if there would be sideyards and setback variances requested. The Planner replied yes. Levitt asked why a variance is required. The Planner replied because there is no setback provided to the common lot line. Mr. Rhodes, 7660 Heritage Road, stated that they have submitted petitions and are opposed Beaman stated that Carole Lentz, 17210 Park Circle called him and could not make it to the meeting, but wanted it known that she was opposed to the proposal . John1Henry; 17250 Park Circle, stated that he felt that the duplexes will affect the property values of the single family homes already constructed. Janis Sicard, 17266 Round Lake Road, stated that she was opposed to the proposal . Carol StaTland, Heritage Road, stated that she felt that duplex renters do not take dare of their yard. Mrs. John Henry asked the value of the duplexes to be put in. Schwartz replied the lots are approximately $30,000. so the duplexes will be valued at approximately $150,000±. { ` r approved Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 8, 1981 Maria Taylor, 7741 Heritage Road, asked if $150,000 was per unit or duplex. Schwartz replied per building (duplex). Bob Messina, 17299 Park Circle, asked if any duplex lots are sold. Schwartz .. replied yes contingent upon the rezoning of the lots. Jim Daly, 7715 Carnelian Lane, stated that he was against the duplexes, but now feels that the duplexes could be a buffer to noise coming from TH 5, but stated that he is -still concerned about the quality. Torjesen asked if any other} residents from Carnelian Lane are present. Ken Potter, 7695 Carnelian Lane, stated that he agrees with Mr. Daly. Bearman stated that he was concerned with the desireability of this because of the question of spot zoning. Levitt asked if the person that owns lot 19 was present. Torjesen replied that that is Mr. Brinkman and stated that he submitted a letter and has no objections. Levitt stated that he had less reservations -concerning lots 1 and 2, but had more about lots 5 and 6. MOTION Levitt moved to recommend to the City Council approval of rezoning lot 1, block 1, and denying lots 2, 5, and 6. Sutliff seconded. DISCUSSION Torjesen asked that lot 2, block 1, be approved also. Levitt stated that he approved lot 1 because of it's location - next to TH 5 and having the church parking lot behind it, but stated that he could not justify recommending approval of theoothers because of the location. Motion carried 3-1. Bearman voted no because he felt it was spot zoning. C. HARDEE'S RESTAURANT PLAT, by North Central Food Systems, Inc. Request to preliminary plat 1.1 acres of the Eden Glen PUD for construction of a Hardee's Restaurant. Located in the southwest corner of Eden Road & US 169-212. A public hearing. Bearman asked if there have been any changes from the Eden Glen PUD. The Planner replied no. The Planner also stated that Mr. John Shardlow, of Howard Dahlgren Associates was present for questions. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 6/2/81. Shardlow stated that the proponent will agree to all conditions listed in the report. Levitt asked what new projects will be within the Eden Glen PUD. Shardlow replied that lot 7 is being negotiated for a motel use and the other lots would be according to the PUD. Susie Hummel , 6263 St. John's Drive asked where this will be located. The Planner pointed out the location on the map. approved Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 8, 1981 MOTION 1 Torjesen moved to close the public hearing on the Hardee's Restaurant preliminary plat. Levitt seconded, motion carried 4-0. MOTION 2 Torjesen moved to recommend to the city Council approval of the preliminary plat dated 5/Y/81 as per the staff report of 6/2/81. Sutliff seconded with the addition of the minutes of 5/11/811 DISCUSSION Bearman asked if 12 cars will still be stacked in the 120' provided. The Planner replied that there will be 10 cars stacked. Motion carried 4-0. D. WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, by Richard W. Anderson, Inc. Re- quest for approval of a PUD, rezoning from Rural and I-2 Park to I-5 Park with setback variances, preliminary plat, and an Environmental Assessment Worksheet upon 42 acres. Located south of Co. Rd. 67 and west of St. John's Woods. A public hearing. The Planner suggested continuance-for a staff report because of significant problems with the proposal' and needed revisions. He also stated that Mr. Michael Niemeyer and Jan Heinig, HGA Architects, Inc. were present to give the presentation. Niemeyer stated they are representing ADI, and reviewed the site location, grading, vegetation, utilities, sanitary sewer system, and gave a slide presentation of the site. The Planner stated that his slides were similar to _. the ones shown. He stated that he felt it was important to review the perspective plan. He also stated that the Guide Plan designates this land as Industrial , and that he felt that the access �.is important.. Heinig. stated that most of the vegetation is southwest of the location for the grading to occur. The Planner stated that in 1971 the City granted a gravelling permit to Bury-Carlson and stated that the intent was to preserve the land east of it'which should not be changed. Bearman asked if all slopes had been returned to a 3:1 grade. The Planner replied there is a natural slope which is 2:1 but stated that the engineers feel the grading ordinance has been met. Bearman asked 'how long the cul-de-sac will be if nothing goes through? Heinig replied 750' . Bearman stated that when the proponent returns, he would like the following to be addressed: sanitary sewer, lot lines, grading limitations, and would like to see the buildings back for rezoning and the possibility of seeing a working model . approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 8; 1981 Torjesen stated .that he felt it is important to see the topographic relationship of the land to other land around the site, what has been done to the site, what will be done, and stated that a more comprehensive plan should be completed. Levitt stated that he would like an idea of timing. Bearman asked the proponent if continuing the proposal to July 13th would allow them adequate time to address these items. Niemeyer replied yes. John Shardlow, Howard Dahlgren Associates, stated that he has been working for Franklin National Bank of Minneapolis, and stated- that they own the land to the southwest of the site and need access roads. John Palm, 6389 St. John's Drive, stated that he is in the St. John's Wood Assoc. , and felt that ADI should respect the morraine. Audrey Standberg, 6380 St. John's Drive, President of St. John's Wood Assoc. , agreed with Mr. Palm. Susie Hummel , 6263 St. John's Drive, asked what a PUD is, and if the developer plans to sell the land. Bearman explained PUD, and Anderson stated that they will lease the land. Ward Dahlberg, 6319 St. John's Drive, stated that he would like the morraine to remain. Mr. Freedman, 6367 St. John's Drive, stated that he also would like the morraine to remain, but was concerned with the land to the south. Peter Stalland, 6317 St. John' s Drive, asked if the gravel permit' is� a conditional use permit. The Planner replied yes. Stalland then stated that he was also concerned with the easement. Mrs. Wyman, 14001 W. 62nd St. , stated that she felt that something should be put in writing to perserve the hill . MOTION Levitt moved to continue Westwood Industrial Park to July 13, 1981. Torjesen seconded; motion carried 4-0. V. Chapter 11 of Codification Bearman stated that the Commission should review Chapter 11 and write down specific subjects they feel are important and asked staff to set up a special meeting to discuss this item. VI. OLD BUSINESS None I� I , ;approved Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 8, 1981 VII. NEW BUSINESS Torjesen asked Mr. Anderson (still present from Westwood) what the status of the road is in City West. Anderson replied it is access for the engineers to the site. Torjesen also asked about the status of 212. The Planner replied that it is being changed to a State project and that he will check on it and report it to the Commission. VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT A. Slope Committee Recommendations The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 5/27/81. Levitt asked what 'the feelings of the committee was. Bearman replied that the term 'significant slope' can be applied to almost any slope. The members stated that they felt that the same philsophical approach as was suggested for the Bluffs protection could be utilized for other significant slopes in the Community. MOTION Torjesen moved to recommend approval of the Slope Committee's findings with the addition of incorporating additional signif- icant slopes in the protection areas. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0. IX. ADJOURNMENT Levitt moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:14 PM. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 4-0. Chris Enger, City Planner 8950 Eden :prairie Vd. Eden Prairie M 55344 Dear Mr. Enger• We hereby request that Lots 1 & 2 Block 1 and Lots 5 & 6" Block 2, Lake Trail Estates be rezoned from single family residential to duplex_ residential for the following reasons- A. The lots immediately across the street are duplex lots. While we have duplex buyers for these lots; we do not and cannot interest people in these lots as single family lots. B. When originally platted the frontage road now being built para- lell to Highway n5 was intended to serve Christ Lutheran Church parking lot, thereby producing very little traffic. TTith the current elan to extend this road to the Prairie Village mall substantial amounts of additional traffic will be produced. This additional traffic makes Lots 1 & 2. 'clock 1 very undesirable for single family lots. C. Because of the site plan approved for Christ Lutheran Church the back of Lots 1 & 2, Mock 1, now face a parking lot. Againi this makes these lots undesirable for single family lots. D. Lots 5 & 6, Block_ 2. are the only single family lots on a cul-du- sac that are not duplex lots. In addition both lots face duplex lots. This is given as a reason by buyers why they do not wish to buy these lots as single family lots. E. These lots exceed Eden Prairie requirements for duplex lots in terms of size. T.7e stand ready to supply any additional material you deem necessary to consider our recmest. Thank you for your consideration. / � � Sincerely, Clifton J. Swenson • r t June 8, 1981 Planning Commission Eden Prairie, Minn. 55344 Dear Sirs: This letter is in reference to this particular property: LOCATION: 2 lots in NE corner of TH 5 & Carnelian Lane 2 lots west of Carnelian Lane cul-de-sac LEGri.L DE30HIPTION: Lots 1 ,2,5,6, Block 2 Lake Trail Estates Hennepin County, Minnesota . e wish to make it known that we oppose the proposed rezoning of the above listed lots, because we feel that the neighbor- hood should be maintained with single family residences. We do not wish to have a precedent set by allowing duplexes in to the area and we definitely do not care to risk a lowering of our own property value. Sincerely-i �� — 17rgo • c JUNE 81 1981 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY HALL EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA DEAR SIRS, WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE RE-ZONING OF THE 2 LOTS IN THE • NE CORNER OF TH5 & CARNELIAN LANE AND THE 2 LOTS WEST OF CARNELIAN LANE CUL-DE-SAC. L•t.GAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1, 2., 51 6, BLOCK 2 LAKE TRAIL ESTATES HENNIPEN COUNTY, MINNESOTA WE DO -NOT FEEL RE-ZONING THESE LOTS WILL BENEFIT OUR AREA BECAUSE: 1. WE FEEL THE EXISTANCE OF DUPLEXES IN OUR AREA WILL DEFINITELY NOT HELP THE PROPERTY VALUE OF OUR HOME; ESPECIALLY IF THE DUPLEXES ARE RENTED OUT. RENTERS DO NOT CARE FOR THEIR HOME & GROUNDS LIKE OWNERS TEND TO. 2. IF DUPLEXES ARE ESTABLISHED ON THE MENTIONED LOTS MORE WILL SURE TO FOLLOW . WE WOULD PREFER NOT TO MIX SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND MULTI FAMILY DWELLINGS. REGARDS, DOUGL S M RISC CARLOTTA K BISCH0F ,d F . CGS 7p4dW( /7)9 _ - t 4 M - - 1 •-.fit-e..� �c�� - �.�_ G, -- _-.___�-- _- . .. - •� � � r 9 ' _ � i - i :���� i �_____.�G�u-e.�_.l�s�C..----�.__.-- - --- — - - ---���.--_.___ i ---� ---Z��-- -- _ -G2��-_.----- r � _ r / ' /� /�� _. r I . � 1 _`__ ._._ ____ __`. T i . � � � # ... _ � � .. ,. � � . June 8, 1981 7711 Heritage Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road j Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Rezoning Lots 1, 2, 5, 6 Block 2 i Lake Trail Estates, Hennepin County, MN .This letter serves as notice of our disapproval of the proposed rezoning of the above mentioned lots, from R1-13. 5 single family to RM-6.5 multiple family. f It is grossly unjust to current homeowners who have. purchased residences within this area on the basis that the development is zoned for single family dwelling. Rezoning of these lots will only set a precedent for future action by other developers. ' Youx tru�G�� Bernard P. Aldrich * Cindy L. Aldrich -*42�. } • I v June 8, 1981 �� r Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie, Minnesota , Dear Sirs, 7A&(o We are against the rezoning of the 2 lots in-the NE corner of TH5 & Carnelian Lane and the 2 lots west of Carnelian Lane cul-de-sac. Legal. Description: Lots 1, 2; 5, 6, Block 2'. Lake Trail Estates Hennipen County, Minnesota We do not feel rezoning these lots will benefit our area because: 1. We are against mixing single family dwellings and multi-family dwellings. 2. We feel the existance of duplexes in our area will cause our property valu&to go down. 3. Allow' some duplexes to be built will establish a preQent ror more to be built further North on Carnelian. Thank you.' Sincerely, aA -711-74 AL 69 7Rd-ft �7Q i �1�,� ,�s7lJ � ► �,i� 4 S6 o Ca r.-•{c2'!,✓ t 6 ,�.1' __