The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission - 08/24/1981 t AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, August 24, 1981 7:30 PM, City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Hakon Torjesen, Grant Sutliff, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call I. OATH OF OFFICE TO NEW COMMISSION MEMBER DENNIS MARHULA II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 10, 1981 MINUTES IV. MEMBER REPORTS V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. SMETANA LAKE TRAFFIC STUDY. Continued B. WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, REVISED, by Richard W. Anderson, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development approval of 42 acres as industrial , preliminary platting of 4 industrial lots, rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park, and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. A public hearing. C. MEADOWS 2ND REZONING LOTS 1-8,BLOCK 1, by Central Investment Corporation. Request to rezone 8 lots from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5. Located at 7508-7578 Bittersweet Drive. A public meeting. D. MID-AMERICA HOMES, INC. OFFICE, by Mid-America Homes, Inc. Request to combine 2 properties and rezone the 4.9 acres from Rural to Office for construction of office uses. Located north of TH 5 and west of Purgatory Creek. A public hearing. E. OVERLOOK PLACE, by Hustad Development Corporation. Request to preliminary plat 32 duplex lots and 9 single family lots. Located north of Pioneer Trail and east of Yorkshire Point. A continued public hearing. F. ' PRESERVE CONDOMINIUMS, by Prairie Lakes Corporation. Request for PUD Development Stage approval , plat approval , and rezoning of 8 acres from Rural to RM 2.5 for construction of 2 buildings for a total of 124 condominiums. Located south of Anderson Lakes Parkway and west of Preserve Community Center. A public hearing. G. REVIEW OF EDEN PRAIRIE'S DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.1 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCE PLAN FOR A ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT IX. ADJOURNMENT t a MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved Monday, August 24, 1981 7:30 PM, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Grant Sutliff, Virginia Gartner, Hakon Torjesen, Robert Hallett MEMBERS ABSENT: Liz Retterath STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary I. SWEARING IN OF NEW COMMISSION MEMBER DENNIS MARHULA The oath of office was administered to Mr. Dennis Marhula by The Planner. The Planner explained that Mr. Marhula will be filling the unexpired term of Mr. Levitt. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Gartner moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 6-0. III. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 10, 1981 MINUTES Gartner moved to approve the August 10, 1981 minutes with the following additions and/or changes: P. 3, 7th para. , change spelling of 'permenent' to 'permanent' P. 4, Discussion, change spelling of 'permenent' to 'permanent' and add after the word access, to Valley View Road, and delete 'is needed' P. 5, 2nd para. , 2nd 1 i ne, 'home should be;office P. 6, Motion 2, delete ' as per the revisions listed in the staff report' Item D, 5th para: , add after the word 'bungalows' , on cul-de-sacs 7th para. , 3rd line should read 'then stated that if the only reason for 2 lots was because of the width, he wouTd like 4. P. 7, #11, change the word 'per' to 'for each duplex' Change Sutliff seconded to Gartner seconded. P. 8 & 9, take first 4 paragraphs from page 9 and place on top of page 8 P. 8, first comment from Bearman, add The Planning Commission agreed to limit the discussion to the land use topic initially. 11th para. , 2nd line, add after the word 'developed' , 'as shown' P. 9, Motion 2, (City West), after City Council , change to read 'to uphold the Comprehensive Guide Plan and denial of the request. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Marhula abstained. IV. MEMBERS REPORTS Norte f approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- Aug. 24, 1981 V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. SMETANA LAKE TRAFFIC STUDY. Continued The Planner reviewed Mr. Helle's letter dated 8/5/81 and reviewed the memo dated 8/7/81. Torjesen pointed out that item #5 of the staff report recommends Alternate #7 where the report states Alternate #15. The Planner stated that should be Alternate #15. Torjesen asked if there will be a bridge only or a bridge with ramps going west across I-494. The Planner stated a bridge only. Torjesen pointed out that it is important to recognize that full access is important. The Planner stated that there will be a full frontage road west of 18 and north of I-494 to Schooner Blvd. Torjesen asked how people will go north on I-494. The Planner stated that they will travel up Schooner Blvd. to Valley View Road and onto the rampi George Hoff, Herleiv Helle's lawyer, stated that the major problem on page 14 of the report is twofold: 1) allowing for traffic circulation for area B; 2) leaving con- gestion at the Co. Rd. 18/Valley View Road intersection. He stated that Mr. Helle is concerned that the proposal directs more traffic toward the Washington Ave./Valley View Road intersection. He stated that Helle felt that upgrading Valley View Road would be best. He suggested two ideas: 1) allow additional traffic to go to Co. Rd. 18 and Valley View Road; 2) upgrade Valley View Road to provide westerly access. He stated that he felt that a Washington Ave. bridge will run into Gelco and add additional traffic to Washington Ave. He stated that he would like the Planning Commission to provide a westerly access and cut off road in the 76th Street area. The Planner stated that the study had been initiated because Condon-Naegele proposed to have 2 cul-de-sacs - one coming from the east and one to the west with no con- nection. He stated that he felt that the frontage road is necessary. He stated that access to the entire area is a problem and suggested that full access be retained to the Washington Ave./Co. Rd. 18 intersection. He stated that parkland is located along either side of Valley View Road, but it is possible to upgrade it. He stated that when traffic is congested at one intersection, people will learn to use the easiest and quickest way out and that the study does not fully reflect this in the numbers given at the Co. Rd. 18/Valley View Road interchange. Torjesen asked if the north/south road will be built by developers. The Planner - replied yes and that the Condon-Naegele road would be also. Bill Pearson, Rt. 5, Box 187, Prior Lake, stated he agrees with Mr. Helle's concerns. He stated he felt that W. 76th Street has not been looked at, that Smetana Lane will become a two (2) lane road and join into Valley View Road. He'also stated that keeping the approach from Washington Ave. to Co. Rd. 18 is important. The Planner stated that he agreed that W. 76th St. could go to Valley View Road when and i.f.lSmetana Lane develops. He stated that he felt the best solution would be to have all the roads constructed which figure 15 plans. He stated that the study does not preclude the up- grading of Smetana Lane. Craig Anderson, ADI, stated he was in favor of upgrading the Co. Rd. 18/Valley View Road intersection but stated he felt that electric traffic signals are important to have. approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 24, 1981 Herleiv Helle, 6138 Arctic Way, Edina, stated that he felt that a diamond such as the one located at Hwy 100 and I-494 would be good. Torjesen stated that he felt that putting three (3) sets of brid es across I_494_i_n. a short distance between TH 5 and Co. Rd. 18 and still not solving the Droblem com- pletely, was expensive and excessive. Beaman stated that access to the entire area is a problem and he felt that no matter what was done, the Co. Rd. 18/Washington Ave. intersection will be a problem to some degree. Torjesen stated he was concerned that the City has three(3) different consultants working on three (3) different studies. The Ring Route, the Smetana Lake Sector Study, and the State's upgrading of Co. Rd. 18/I-494 full diamond. Beaman stated that the studies have different functions. The Planner stated that the studies have been coordinated as much as possible. William Peak, Prudential Insurance, P.O. Box 709, Mpls. , MN 55440, asked the time frame for the estimated traffic. The Planner replied 10-15 years. Peak then stated that he felt that the intersection of Co. Rd. 18/Washington Ave. and ROW are very important and felt that they should be dealt with first. The Planner stated that a full diamond -interchange at the I-494/18 intersection will be completed first, then the signalization of the 18/Washington Ave. intersection, and then the Washington Ave./Valley View Road intersection and rest as the developers develop their property. Peak asked what will be done to Valley View Road and if there will be a signal at Washington Ave. 'and Valley View Road. The Planner replied Valley View Road will continue to the Braun' s area, and there will be a signal . Beaman asked if the warrants have been met for the signals. The Planner replied yes. MOTION Torjesen moved that the Planning Commission - receive_ the Smetana Lake Traffic Study and forward_ it to the City Council -notinq the recommendations listed on pages 31-35 of the Study_, the 8/7/81 staff report, and noting the following additional items: 1. That 3 sets of bridges within -1_.5 miles of the Co. Rd. 18/I-494 and TH 5 intersec- tion is not desirabld. 2. Noting access at I-494 westbound is necessary. 3. Noting the need to keep options to have traffic move in a westerly direction, i .e. , Smetana Lane, Shady Oak Road, etc. Sutliff seconded. DISCUSSION Sutliff asked why there is no definite approval or denial . Torjesen stated that he was uncomfortable with approval or denial. . Beaman stated that he felt that three (3) bridges within 1.5 rules is not good, but that this need was created by the bisection of the community by I-494. t .approved Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 24, 1981 Hallett stated that he felt that the traffic improvements recommended in the study are necessary and should be approved. Gartner stated that she was concerned for safety with the number of on-off ramps on 494 if they were added as Torjesen suggested and asked that emphasis be placed on total access onto Co. Rd. 18. Motion failed, 2-3-1. AMENDMENT 1 Beaman moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Smetana Lake Traffic Study noting the recommendations listed on pages 31-35 of the Study and the 8/7/81 staff report. Gartner seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Marhula abstained. AMENDMENT 2 Beaman moved to amend the motion stressing the importance for total access onto Co. Rd. 18, not precluding the possibility of future access for W. 76th St. , Valley View Road, and Smetana Lane, and drawing attention to the bridge problem within the 1.5 mile stretch. Torjesen seconded. Motion carried 5-0-1. Marhula abstained. B. WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, by Richard W. Anderson, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development approval of 42 acres as industrial) preliminary platting of 4 industrial lots, and rezoning of 42 acres from Rural to I-2 Park. A public hearing. The Planner stated that this has been revised to provide access to the land-locked western property. He also stated Mr. Michael Niemeyer and Jan Heinig were present to give the presentation. Niemeyer, Westwood Planning & Engineering, representing ADI, stated that the buildings have been moved more easterly to provide a road leading to the land- locked property. He stated ADI will pay their share of the cost of the road and stated" he felt that the project is less dense than originally proposed. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 8/13/81 and stated he felt that I-2 zone is appropriate with the amount of open space shown and with the additional ROW on the western portion of the site. He stated that setbacks can be made to meet ordinance requirements. Bearman stated his concern for the density of the project. Sutliff asked if the proposal is in conformance with the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The Planner replied yes. Susie Hummel , 6262 St. John's Drive, was concerned with the amount of open space , and asked if there will be a road between 2 buildings on lot 4. Neimeyer replied that it will be an emergency exit point. Beaman asked the amount of right-of-way on Co.Rd:67. Heinig replied 33' which would be enough for expansion-of Co.. ,Rd,-67. John Shardlow, Howard Dahlgren Assoc. , representing Franklin National Bank, reviewed his letter dated 8/24/81. .approved Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 24, 1981 Joann Irvine, 18930 Lotus View Drive, stated she was concerned with the location for sewer and water. Heinig replied that water will come from Baker Road through the Franklin National Bank land and stated storm water will remain the same. The sanitary sewer will come from a metro interceptor which ADI will connect with, which is expected'to be located in the road right-of-way. Torjesen asked'if variances are necessary. The Planner replied no because shifting the buildings to conform to the I-2 zone will not require any. Joann Irvine asked if the sewer could be brought up through the ADI property. The Planner replied it will go up the center of the project in the road right-of-way. MOTION 1 Gartner moved to close the public hearing on Westwood Industrial Park. Hallett seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Westwood PUD as per the plans dated 5/20/81-revised 8/3/81 as per the staff report of 8/13/81, the Hennepin County Department of Transportation letter of 8/19/81, the HGA letter dated 7/31/81, and the 8/7/81 letter from John Shardlow, Howard Dahlgren Assoc. , representing Franklin National Bank. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 3 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Westwood rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park as per the plans dated 5/20/81-revised 8/3/81, as per the staff report of 8/13/81, and the same additions as listed in motion 2. Hallett seconded, motion carried 5-1. Bearman voted no because he felt the project is too dense. MOTION 4 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated 5/20/81-revised 8/3/81 as per the staff report of 8/13/81 and the same additions as listed in motion 2. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 5-1. Bearman voted no. MOTION 5 Gartner moved to recommend approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet dated 5/81 to the City Council. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 5-1. Bearman voted no. C. MEADOWS 2ND REZONING LOTS 1-8, BLOCK 1, by Central Investment Corporation. Request to rezone 8 lots from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 Located at 7508-7578 Bittersweet Drive. A public meeting. Bearman stated that the Planning Commission has received letters from residents which should be made part of the minutes; 8/24/81-Lawler, 8/19/81 and 8/18/81- Conrad, Thorstenson, 8/17/81-Cram, 8/18/81-Neitge. . The Planner stated Mr. Herb Mason of M.B. Hagen was present to give the presentation. Mason, representing Central Investment Corp. , reviewed the request. Torjesen stated that he felt that the residents who have moved there have a right to be able to depend upon the zoning which is designated for the land according to the City Hall records. _approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- 5 August 24, 1981 • The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 8/13/81. Marhula asked what has been built on the lots on the cul-de-sac located west of the request in the 3rd Addition. Mason replied 3 single family homes and 1 under construction. Marhula asked if Bittersweet Drive extends to the next plat through lot 7. The Planner replied yes. Norman Cram, 7586 Bittersweet Drive, stated that he was opposed to placing duplexes 6n these lots because of traffic congestion and stated that of the existing duplexes, only 2 are owner occupied and feels that when they are rented, they are not kept up as well . Mr. Yanda, 7528 Bittersweet Drive, stated he is opposed to rezoning this for multiple. He stated that the first owners on the cul-de-sac were in agreement that these lots would be used for single family homes. Spencer Conrad, 15518 Garfield Cir. , stated he also was in agreement that the lots would not be rezoned and stated his concern for the up-keep of the rented duplexes and stated he felt they were too dense. Ralph Hoffman, fee owner for some of the lots, stated that he feels the lots would sell much easier if they were rezoned for duplexes. MOTION Gartner moved to recommend denial of the Meadows 2nd Rezoning Lots 1-8, Block 1 as an unprecidental spot zoning. Sutliff seconded. Motion carried 6-0. D. MID-AMERICAN HOMES, INC. OFFICE, by Mid-American Homes Inc. Request to combine 2 lots and rezone 4.9 acres from Rural to Office for construction of 2 office. buildings. Located north of TH 5, and west of Purgatory Creek. A public hearing. The Planner stated that there is a conflict in the site plan and the Purgatory Creek Conservancy Zone - 'no-build' zone surrounding Purgatory Creek. He stated that this was brought to the proponent's attention and stated Mr. John Cosmos has submitted a new plan dated 8/24/81 but stated that this plan is not for approval , but for review. He stated Mr. Cosmos was present to explain. John Cosmos, K.K. Design, stated that a natural break-down is in the center of the property. He stated that the proponent would like to retain the access points, and stated they will not be filling in the floodplain. The Planner stated that the land use of office is appropriate but stated that the Conservancy Zone takes out the parking. He suggested that the 8/24/81 plan 1) does not follow the topographic contour; and 2) the Purgatory Creek Conservancy Zone is the line to follow but stated that_ the Creek Study needs interpretation. He stated that the proponent has shown that they are willing to compromise. He stated • that access from TH 5 is proposed as a right-in/right-out access. He felt that a right-out will create a weave problem and stated he will suggest only a right-in going through the ROW easement by the parking lots of Mr. Steak, McDonalds, and Chesters. approved Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 24, 1981 Torjesen stated that he felt that the 842 line should be upheld. MOTION Gartner moved to continue the public hearing to September 14, 1981 for a staff report. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Marhula stated that he abstained because he has business with Equitable Life. E. OVERLOOK PLACE, by Hustad Development Corporation. Request to preliminary plat 30 duplex lots and 9 single family lots. Located north of Pioneer Trail and east of Yorkshire Point. A continued public hearing. The Planner stated that the plan has been modified to meet ordinance requirements and Mr. Dick Putnam gave the presentation. Putnam, R.A. Putnam & Assoc. , representing Hustads, stated that 1 duplex has been eliminated as well ' as the cul-de-sac. The grading plan has been changed, the units will -be cut down in numbers, and the slope and-trees will be retained. The Planner stated that he felt that the project had been improved and reviewed the 8/24/81 staff report. He also noted that the park has been made smaller by 1500 sq. ft. and stated that the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commis- sion will review that. Hallett asked how many trees will be taken out of the site and stated that he felt that it was important to save as many as possible. Putnam replied very few will be removed. Torjesen asked if there will be any screening between the single family and multiple. Putnam replied that the hill is steep enough so that the most the owners of ;the multiple units would see would be the top story of the house. Sutliff asked if there will be a pathway along Co. Rd. 1. The Planner replied that there will be one in the future. Bearman asked the length of the cul-de-sac. Putnam replied close to 400' . Mr. McCormick, 9449 Woodridge Drive, stated that he was opposed to placing duplexes on this site and felt that this project is tooddense. Putnam stated that the density is 3.9 units/acre for the duplexes. Greg Koschinske, 9379 Creek Knoll Road, stated he was also opposed to placing dup- lexes on this site. Mike Kodrich';'9450 Woodridge Dr. , felt the project was too dense, and was concerned with the style and upkeep of the duplexes. Torjesen stated that he felt that the width of the lot at the building line 'was not according to ordinance. The Planner stated that the mean width of the ordinance is S90' and agreed that some lots do not meet this. But, however, these lots are larger than those of Yorkshire Point (on the west and some of Creekwood are smaller. He stated that these duplexes will cost approximately $20,000 more, than the single family and have 2 garages/dwelling unit. He _ stated that there are technical problems with the driveways which can be worked out. He also stated that the side- yard setbacks are identical to those of Creekwood. approved Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 24, 1981 Bearman stated that he felt the proponent has met the requirements stated at the last meeting, but stated he still felt the project is too dense. Hallett asked if the trees can be fenced prior to construction. The Planner replied yes. Hallett then stated he would like it to be stated in the motion that the developer cannot return for rezoning these lots again.- Putnam stated that when the project was originally proposed, it was more dense than now. MOTION 1 Torjesen moved to close the public hearing on Overlook Place. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council denial of the plat dated 8/14/81 on the grounds that it does not meet ordinance codes. Sutliff seconded, motion failed 2-4. AMENDMENT Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the plat dated 8/14/81 as per the reports of 8/5/81 and 8/24/81. Hallett seconded. DISCUSSION Hallett asked that fencing be required at time of development to save the trees. He also asked that the Commission strongly recommend that lots 21-29 not be returned for rezoning for doubles. Gartner agreed. Motion carried 5-1. Sutliff voted no. F. PRESERVE CONDOMINIUMS, by Prairie Lakes Corporation. Request for PUD Development Stage approval , plat approval , and rezoning of 8 acres from Rural to RM 2.5 for construction of 2 buildings for a total of 124 condominiums. Located south of Anderson Lakes Parkway and west of Preserve Community Center. A public hearing. The Planner stated that the proponent was present and has requested a continuation to the September 14', 1981 meeting. MOTION Sutliff moved to continue the public hearing on Preserve Condominiums to the Sept, 14, 1981 meeting. Torjesen seconded, mot ion carried 6-0. G. REVIEW OF EDEN PRAIRIE'S DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCE PLAN FOR'AN ECONOMIC 'DEVELOPMENT'DISTRICT. Bearman turned the chair over to Torjesen. The Planner stated that this is the second Tax Increment Financing Plan the City has reviewed. He stated that the City is -able to propose_ this through an economic develop- ment district. He stated that the road improvements have been taken from the Capital Improvement Program in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated that the improve- ments are basically the same as originally proposed and recommended that they are consistent. .approved Planning Commission Minutes --9- August 24, 1981 Gartner asked where the Tax Increment District is located. The Planner stated that it surrounds the Major Center Area and is described in the development plan. He then stated that the Planning Commission has been asked to. recommend to the City Council that the Tax Increment Finance Plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the municipality as a whole. Torjesen stated he felt the request should be broader than just consistency and that this should be looked at_t-h-rough -a different approach. He stated that the -Guide Plan Update has estimated dates for development-of the roads and estimated dates for when funds wiT1 be available for the roads which are erroneous. He felt the Commission would like balanced growth and stated he felt it is necessary for businesses to move into the MCA and that it is necessary for the roads. He stated that he felt that this decision should be made by all the residents of Eden Prairie in a voting booth. He stated 'he felt the decision is too important of a decision for just the Planning Commission and City Council to decide. Bearman stated that when the MCA industrial and commercial businesses were approved, there was anticipated committment by the builders, the City, and Hennepin County Department of Transportation that certain money would be spent on the Capital Improvement Program by the County. He stated that he felt that it is now the responsibility of the Commission and City Council because nothing has been done so far which needs to be done. This way the City will not have to wait for Hennepin County to delegate funds for the Improvement Program and Eden Prairie will take on the responsibility to the committments such as those that were made for the businesses in the Major Center Area. He stated that Homart, Gelco, etc. , were built on the assumption that adequate access would be provided. Parts of the MCA-are built, but the committment has not been met. He stated that with this plan, that committment can be and should be met. Herleiv Helle, 6138 Arctic Way, Edina, asked if Valley View Road is included. The Planner replied yes - at the intersection at Washington Avenue. Sutliff stated that he felt that this plan is in the best interest of the City and that the City needs the improvements. He then asked if this will take potential growth away from the upgrading of other roadways. The Planner replied it will increase the City's mill levy. Torjesen stated that it will take 3,000 acres off the tax roll for up to 10 years. The Planner stated that only the increment district will be removed, and that the same amount will be retained as if the road improvements did not go in. Torjesen stated that he felt that these are bond issues. The Planner stated that when the original plan was proposed the City received an 'A' bond rating___-__ ___ Hallett stated that he felt that the MCA needs to have adequate access so developers can develop there. Torjesen stated that he felt that the Tax Increment Finance Plan should be proposed in another way but stated he felt that it should be decided. Marhula stated that he had some experience with Tax Increment Finance Plans before and feels that this one is consistent. He stated that Tax Increment is a tool for the implementation of money to develop roads. He stated that you would put up with the disadvantages of the Plan because in the long run it would be a benefit. approved Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 24, 1981 The Planner stated that once the parcels are made available, this will be in a balanced plan. He stated that he felt it is important to be done and that there are not enough services provided now to the existing commercial area in the MCA. Sutliff asked if this will go before the public as a voting item. The Planner replied no. Torjesen stated he was uncomfortable with the wording used. Marhula asked if this increment does not occur to repay the bond, if the City is liable. The Planner replied yes. MOTION Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council the finding that the Tax Incre- ment Finance Plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the municipality as a whole. Hallett seconded, motion carried 4-1-1. Torjesen voted no and Bearman abstained. VI. OLD BUSINESS Bearman stated that the joint City Council/Development Commission/Planning Commission meeting will be held September 1, at 6:30 PM. VII. NEW BUSINESS None VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT The Planner reviewed the upcoming projects for September 14, 1981. IX. ADJOURNMENT Gartner moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:14 AM. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0. I r ell -- C• !f y of ��N - �i�/�'ia?!tom- - ---- -- --- - - --- /.'"`�- C�.!'/j'�.✓/ ` 2T /v/N$' —- --- �/✓[�!t/�•�'il9n�'- �'/j"'�2�LS /liar`'-�'��y /��sil��'�T-S ----- - - —�i4'�-./��,�f"✓4-;t1y ,�/y�Cv:-T fs7'"v. TioN o�i'•� - - - .jv Joi,lt ....a.......-..•.........a...... ...... • 6 7 rt1 ^ 5) Aj le- - -- -- - - - C%�/.'�-'�v rJ. - � -_ ,�c�.,,, �r_s�r'y-� ter✓ o� - .��l�2i t � Aj iy'4,Pen k 4 c 1;3�7';r/7-4--v V n f If - -- N� ��,r r1�� ,� .� v - �,� �s it r�LoxTs�gN , /s 411 Csucin� 2 s k 7— 77el GF'y lk"s %s ��f�>zTu/�S: .6� Wes' H 71,�'.�`o";°a/ S ,at2 2� Glit/ �cl7r Chi✓ r"�K� Y .�w.[u O tl•.�.. l 4 n s x w e P,s v v w-w♦v V�r...s...• a....♦s a.t'w w.+.a . .,.� •a y+ ro..x w r•<s co) e'r:��,v �Gc. e- .i/ - - .--•- - - •- - -LJ/'T`r�2�GL.f�Sr.�%'�-. .-..GiI�F t/� - -l"3'✓ls/� --pNT•+T�7G�Cl - - -- ` --- `�v.�� ✓/^bpi-G�-.-tea l d t?4�..�� O .. - �G� /��/��i/Y�.sC�Li/� ..- --- - -—-— �-�••n-� - -�c� .�� - /��/�'��/ �S`-�-n�ti i Tom/ / �r7 M - -- - - - ,�� . G'2;:n-7-�..�� ./•� /y'�iiwc•i✓t�n c. 5.._ f.ve•ra�•rr��• eZ- - / z- - � -z2 (-2 -,-�1�14 Ile- .�� ,„mac �� y� =�'`G��`'�: 1'2,7,Z 17 71 12 Y�o 0 .21 cCc g�7 -{{�y�� /+y �.�/ cy��/��,Lv/ �� JZM-65) . Sfi /r,�+d owe ,cr�.��,�.' t�,.�..� � 4�.�� a � �� x � � a./�w .r.�.iU s o.�.�GO � � ��N�� y • Mr. & Mrs. Robert W. Thorstenson 15528 Garfield Circle Eden Prairie, MN 55344 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION City Offices 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Gentlemen: I am writing in reference to the attached notice of a Public Hearing. When my husband and I purchased our lot at 15528 Garfield Circle, we were told that the entire northwest section of Bittersweet Drive to the north- east section of Garfield Circle was zoned for single family homes. • I feel that if this land was rezoned, there would be a worse traffic problem than we already have and I feel that it may bring the value of our property down. I hope you will read this and understand that we wish to keep this section of land zoned as it currently stands. Thank you. Sincerely, LC' Mrs. Robert W. Thorstenson • August 17, 1981 City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie City Hall 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Sirs : We are writing in reference to the proposed rezoning of eight lots from R1-13. 5 to RM6.5 for duplex unit construction. We are totally opposed to any such change in the zoning for this area. As residents of a single family dwelling on Bittersweet Drive, we were always lead to believe that this would never happen. I only hope that some investment and construction corporation doesn't sway the thinking of the city. I seriously question whether or not they have our best interests in mind. I am certain they don't. • Bittersweet Drive is so congested now with cars, trucks and other assorted vehicles that it is almost impossible for us to use it. With further construction of multi-family housing on the other side of the street, I feel the problem will only become more impossible and fear for the safety of our community in the case of an emergency, like that of a fire. We, the resident taxpayers, hope that you strongly consider these problems and leave this area zoned as it is. I know I speak for the majority of the residents who are living in the single-family dwellings when I say that we are vehemently opposed to this proposed change. Sincerely, A ��L Mr. and Mrs. Norman A. Cram 7586 Bittersweet Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 • i August 18, 1981 City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Attention: Planning Commission Regarding: Rezoning of Lots 1 - 8, Block 1 Meadows 2nd Addition Dear Sirs: I have received today your notice of meeting and request for my presence and • comments. I am in complete favor of this rezoning. In my opinion, this should be viewed by the commission as a resolution to a mistake rather than a rezoning. I hope the people seeking this rezoning are granted their wishes. Yours truly, ST V NEITG ten