Planning Commission - 07/12/1982 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, July 12, 1982
7:30 PM, City Hall
COOMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath,
Virginia Gartner, Hakon Torjesen, Dennis
Marhula, Grant Sutliff, Robert Hallett
STAFF MEMBERS: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner
Sue Hilgers, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF JUNE 14, 1982 MINUTES
APPROVAL OF JUNE 28, 1982 MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP, by Undestad Investment Company.
Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept approval
for industrial uses on 32 acres (27 acres of which is
zoned I-2) , rezoning from Rural to I-2 for approximately
5 acres, preliminary plat approval of 6 lots and 3 outlots,
possible variances from the I-2 District, and approval of
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located in the
southwest quadrant of the intersection of Co. Rd. 67 and
the Chicago Northwestern Railway. A continued public hearing.
B. KINGS FOREST, by Centurion Company. Request for Guide Plan
change of approximately 70 acres from loFj to medium density
residential , Planned Unit Development approval of 31 single
family and 153 townhouses, rezoning of 15 acres from Rural
to R1-13.5 and 33 acres from Rural to RM 6.5, preliminary
plat approval over the 70 acres, possible variances from
the R1-13.5 and RM 6.5 Districts, and approval of an Envir-
onmental Assessment Worksheet. Located west of Baker Road
and Crosstown Baptist Church, south of St. John's Woods,
and east of West 66th Street's easterly terminous. A public
hearing.
C. BOUTEN DENTAL LAB, by Robert C. Bouten. Request to extend the time
limit to operate a dental lab as an interim land use irr a
Rural District. Located at 8460 Franlo Road, Eden Prairie.
A public meeting.
D. MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION PLAT, by MTS Systems Corporation.
Request for Development Phase approval of PUD 80-40-PUD
including preliminary plat approval of 159 acres into 3
lots and road right-of-way, and approval of an Environ-
mental Assessment Worksheet. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
approved
Monday, July 12, 1982 7:30 PM, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath,
Hakon Torjesen, Dennis Marhula (7�46), Virginia
Gartner, Grant Sutliff, Robert Hallett (7:37)
STAFF PRESENT: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner
Sue Hilgers, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Torjesen moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Retterath seconded,
motion carried 5-0.
II. APPROVAL OF JUNE 14, 1982 MINUTES
Sutliff moved to approve the June 14, 1982 minutes with the following
corrections:
P. 5, Motion 5 Discussion, 4-0-1 should be 4-1.
Motion 6 Gartner abstained not voted no.
P. 6, Motion 1, add Sutliff voted no.
Retterath seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Bearman abstained.
APPROVAL OF JUNE 28, 1982 MINUTES
Sutliff moved to approve the June 28, 1982 minutes with the following
corrections:
P. 2, should read: Torjesen noted that he is acting not on the substance
of the request, but on a procedural question. He asked .
P. 3, 9th para. , 2nd line, clout should be glut
Torjesen seconded, motion carried 4-0-2. Retterath and Hallett abstained.
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
None
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. EDEN PRAIRIE PARTNERSHIP, by Undestad Investment Company.
Request fora Planned Unit Development Concept approval
for industrial uses on 32 acres (27 acres of which is
zoned I-2) , rezoning from Rural to I-2 for approximately
5 acres, preliminary plat approval of 6 lots and 3 outlots ,
possible variances from the I-2 District, and approval of
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located in the
southwest quadrant of the intersection of Co. Rd, 67 and
the Chicago Northwestern Railway. A continued public hearing.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 12, 1982
Johnson stated that revised plans have been submitted and Mr. Geoff Martin and John
Shardlow of Howard Dahlgren & Associates were present to give a brief presentation.
Retterath asked if rezoning is being requested along with the preliminary plat.
Bearman replied yes.
Shardlow reviewed the revised plans and changes that have been made. He reviewed
the landscaping plans and stated that they are proposing to increase the buffer
from 100 to 150' at the eastern most property line. He stated that the proponent
would like to stick with the original plan with the buffer change with the
industrial loop road to the north.
Johnson reviewed the staff report dated 7/8/82. She showed the proposed road
locations for the site (as shown on the Guide Plan) on the overhead projector.
She stated that if the road goes through, two lots would have to be readjusted.
MOTION
Gartner moved to reconsider the PUD Concept plan. Torjesen seconded.
DISCUSSION
Hallett agreed to reopen the PUD •Concept plan.
Motion carried 7-0.
Gartner asked who pays for the signalization at the railroad crossing. Johnson
replied that in most cases the State has money available to help and that a
petition would be submitted. Gartner asked if the intersection would be on-grade.
Johnson replied yes.
Shardlow stated that when he originally came before City Staff, he was told that
the through road was not necessary. He stated that at the last meeting, the
Commission voted on the concept and since then they had made very costly changes.
He stated that they will have to proceed to the City Council with the original
plan.
Torjesen apologized for the unclear direction.
Shardlow then stated that he was unaware- that Kings Forest Drive needed
connection through Eden Prairie Partnership.
Bearman expressdd his concern that with the original plan, if the road connection
was made, different platting would be necessary. He then asked if the collector
road goes through, would there be a problem placing two buildings on the upper
right portion of the site. Shardlow replied that it is -a,.very'dlfficult area to
develop effeciently.
Woodrow Bjork, 14302 Stratford, was concerned that the southern most building has
now added a loading dock and stated he felt that something other than industrial
should go on the lot if the collector road goes through.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 12, 1982_
Ron Bastyr, McCombs-Knutson stated he was concerned with the transition between
the industrial and his proponent's request for Kings Forest which is next to this
site. He stated that they would consider placing a joint buffer there. Shardlow
stated he felt that a transition could be worked out.
Johnson stated that a buffer between the. industrial and single family would absorb
some of the noise.
Torjesen asked if there was another way for a transition between industrial and
single family. Johnson replied that other transitions are going from single
family to medium density to industrial .
Bearman stated he felt that large trees and open space is the ideal buffer.
Dick Sathre, 6511 Manchester, stated that residents that live by the inner
corner are pleased with the buffer and stated that with a 150' buffer, they are
still in the floodplain and stated he would like to see a 200' buffer. He was
opposed to the collector road and stated he likes the plan as is and stated he
wants his seclusion.
Hanley Anderson, 6581 Manchester, felt that the two proposals (Eden Prairie
Partnership and Kings Forest) are interrelated and stated that he would like to
see a total plan of both projects put together. Bearman stated that they are
two different public hearings. He then asked Mr. Bastyr and Mr. Shardlow to place
40 their plans adjacent to each other.
Gartner stated that she felt that if she would have seen Kings Forest at the
first meeting when Eden Prairie Partnership was reviewed, she would have felt that
the road should go through.
Hanley Anderson stated he does not like the road going through.
Wayne Gilbertson, 6580 Leesborough, asked where truck traffic will go. Johnson
replied to Birch Island Road. She described the median location which would direct
truck traffic.
Torjesen stated he felt that the appropriate motion at this time would be to continue
the project.
Bearman stated he felt that the roads are needed.
Shardlow stated that a recommendation given to him by staff was to amend the Comp-
rehensive Guide Plan. He felt that the project had not been processed as an amend-
ment.
Marhula stated that he felt that the ordinance needs updating and that Shardlow
expressed good points.
Johnson briefly reviewed the Comprehensive Guide Plan change review process.
MOTION 1
Gartner moved to close the public hearing. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 12, 1982
MOTION 2
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council denial of the PUD Concept and plat
approval because the plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan
(road connection). Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0.
B. KINGS FOREST, by Centurion Company. Request for Guide Plan
change of approximately 70 acres from low to medium density
residential , Planned Unit Development approval of 31 single
family and 153 townhouses, rezoning of 15 acres from Rural
to R1-13.5 and 33 acres from Rural to RM 6.5, preliminary
plat approval over the 70 acres, possible variances from
the R1-13.5 and RM 6.5 Districts, and approval of an Envir-
onmental Assessment Worksheet. Located west of Baker Road
and Crosstown Baptist Church, south of St. John's Woods, and
east of West 66th Street's easterly terminous. A public hearing.
Bastyr reviewed the originally proposed plans and stated that the Hennepin County
map has been found incorrect in the location for the school. The new plan increases
the unit count from 185 to 205 units - 199 multiple and 6 single family.
Johnson reviewed the staff report dated 7/9/82 and stated that the density has not
changed from 2.9 units/acre. She stated that staff supports the connections of
West 66th Street and St. John's Drive.
- -
Hallett asked if St---.- John's -Drive will be a_ knock-doam barrier- ---.- Johnson- ----_replied--- -
staff supports_a through road.
Marhula asked if the Kings Forest/St. John' s connection is a rivate street. Johnson
replied yes. Bastyr replied that variances would be requested.
Bearman asked if the connection meets the existing grade. Johnson replied that
it :would go down to match.
Sutliff stated he had concerns regarding the roadway connection to St. John's Woods.
Marhula_expressed concern regarding a otenti_al dead-end.
Bearman asked the length of the north/south road through Kings Forest. Bastyr
replied 700' . Bearman recalled that the ordinance allows 500' and asked if that
is correct. Johnson replied yes.
Gartner stated she felt that it would be too long of a cul-de-sac. Bastyr replied
that it would be a temporary situation.
Woodrow Bjork, 14302 Stratford, stated he felt that the West 66th Street connection
would be unnecessary and stated he is opposed to it.
Hanley Anderson, 6581 Manchester, felt that the cul-de-sac is tooa long.and asked
if the proposed multiple could be changed to single family. Marhula stated that
placing single family there will create more traffic in the neighborhood. He
supported the loop road and stated that if it did not get built, the road would
become a 500'-700' long cul-de-sac.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 12, 1982
Torjesen stated he could not see the need for two road connections and stated he
was not pursuaded that Kings Forest needs two western accesses.
Bearman stated he felt that traffic would travel to Baker Road because it would
be quicker.
Marhula stated that this plan could be approved with the provise that the cul-de-
sac will not exceed 500' .
Bastyr asked the Commission, (if they are acting on the original plan) to act on
the preliminary plat that it either be looped to Eden Prairie Partnership or
looped back.
Johnson stated if police or fire needed to get to the site without the West 66th
Street connection, it would take them-longer.
Beaman stated he felt the road connections are needed.
Roger Sandvick, 14280 Stratford, stated he was opposed to the road connection
and asked that a roll call be taken. Beaman stated the Planning Commission
makes a recommendation to the City Council and suggested that the residents get
together and write a petition and submit that to the City Council .
Dick Sathre, 6511 Manchester Lane, suggested a break-down barrier be placed at .
the West 66th Street connection point.
Retterath expressed her concerns regarding the need for accesses and stated she
felt that the road connections are needed.
Hanley Anderson stated if the West 66th Street connection was made, residents
would travel through the neighborhoods to get to the PDQ Store.
Hallett stated he felt that the West 66th Street connection was not needed, and
stated he likes the road ending up in a cul-de-sac.
Louis Kenny, 6617 Manchester Lane opposed the connection.
Beaman stated that he felt that the overall loop road -bad—to-Baker would never be
built.
Phil Mauer, 14202 Manchester, stated he felt the Planning Commission was over-
reacting to the Police and Fire Chief reports.
MOTION 1
Marhula moved to close the public hearing on Kings Forest. Torjesen seconded,
motion carried 7-0.
MOTION 2
Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Comprehensive Guide
Plan change from low to medium density residential as per the original plans dated
3/24/81 and the 6/25/82 staff report and the 7/9/82 memo with the following change
to the 6/25/82 staff report:
1. The St. John's Drive connection should be eliminated and maintain
the .road as a private road with a break-down barrier constructed.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 12, 1982
DISCUSSION
AMENDMENT
Torjesen moved that West 66th Street connection to the west be eliminated and
that development cannot occur beyond phase one before a connection is made to
the west. Once a connection is made to the west, either the entire loop road
must be completed to Baker Road or the developer can extend 500' beyond that
connection.
Marhula stated he would prefer to vote on the two items separately.
Torjesen withdrew his amendment.
AMENDMENT #2
Torjesen moved that the West 66th Street connection to the west be eliminated.
Hallett seconded.
DISCUSSION
Sutliff stated that Kings Forest Road does not have to go through. at this time if
there is a secondary connection.
Marhula stated that the original motion (motion 2) says that Kings Forest will
extend through the property.
Vote on Amendment #2
Amendment carried 4-3. Sutliff, Retterath and Bearman voted no.
AMENDMENT 0
Hallett moved that all .lots be eliminated 500' south of the east/west connection.
Gartner seconded.
DISCUSSION
Torjesen stated he intended to vote no because 22 lots will be lost.
Vote on Amendment #3
Amendment failed 3-4. Bearman, Sutliff, Marhula and Torjesen voted no.
AMENDMENT #4
Hallett moved to allow the developer to make up the density he would be loosing by
the elimination of the southern 22 lots except the six lots bordering the property
line. Torjesen seconded.
VI DISCUSSION
Marhula stated he felt it might be difficult to place more units in the approved
section of the plan.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 12, 1982
Vote on Amendment #4
Amendment failed, 2-5. Hallett and Retterath voted aye.
AMENDMENT TO ORIGINAL MOTION 2
Marhula stated he would add allowing a temporary road not to exceed 500' length of
the temporary cul-de-sac. Torjesen accepted the change.
VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION
Motion carried 4-3. Retterath, Bearman and Sutliff voted no. Retterath voted no
because she felt the West 66th Street connection is needed. Sutliff agreed.
Bearman also agreed with that, and stated that he felt that the only portion of
the site that will be developed will be the first phase and the rest of the site
will sit undeveloped.
MOTION 3
Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Kings Forest PUD
Concept as per the original plans dated 3/24/81 and the 6/25/82 staff report and
the 7/9/82 memo with the same additions and/or changes in motion 2. Torjesen
seconded, motion carried 5-2.
MOTION 4
Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from
Rural to R1-13.5 and RM 6.5 for 31 single family and 100 multiple as per the
original plans dated 3/24/81 and the 6/25/82 staff report and the 7/9/82 memo with
the same additions and/or changes as in motion 2. Sutliff seconded, motion
carried 5-2. Retterath and Bearman voted no.
MOTION 5
Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat
dated March 24, 1982 as per the original plans and the 6/25/82 staff report
and the 7/9/82 memo with the same additions and/or changes as in motion 2. Sutliff
seconded, motion carried 5-2. Retterath and Bearman voted no.
MOTION 6
Marhula moved to forward to the City Council the EAW finding of no significant
impact. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 7-0.
C. BOUTEN DENTAL LAB, by Robert C. Bouten. Request to extend
the time limit to operate a dental lab as an interim use in
a Rural District. Located at 8460 Franlo Road. A public
meeting.
Johnson stated that there had previously been a three year agreement on the property.
She pointed out the location of the site on the City map. When the agreement was
signed, the City Council had set specific contingencies - they have all been met.
There has been no complaints todate. The City Attorney, City Planner, and City
Manager had met and discussed this request, and decided that Mr. Bouten should
ask for rezoning rather than an interim use and return to the Planning Commission.
Retterath asked Mr. Bouten if he plans to stay in the buiding. Bouten replied that
he would like to continue as an interim use at least three more years.
• Retterath asked if he is against rezoning. Bouten replied that that would require
additional expense.
Torjesen stated that in a rezoning request, the final use is shown.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 12, 1982
1
Bearman expressed concern that there is no ordinance reigning over interim uses
and he would like the City Council to seriously look at an ordinance governing
interim uses.
MOTION -----
Retterath moved to recommend approval of the extension of the Interim Use Agreement
for another three years (June 4, 1985) as per the conditions listed in the June 4,
1979 Agreement noting the upholding of interim uses. Gartner seconded.
DISCUSSION
Sutliff asked if it !„wo,a1d now go before the Board of Appeals. Johnson replied
no.
Torjesen asked that the need for the City Council address the issue of interim
uses be added to the motion. Retterath ane Gartner agreed.
Motion,: carried- 6-1. Bearman voted no because he is not in agreement with interim
uses.
D. MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION PLAT, by MTS Systems Corporation.
Request for Development Phase approval of PUD 80-40-PUD
including preliminary plat approval of 159 acres into 3
lots and road right-of-way, and approval of an Environ-
mental Assessment Worksheet. Located south of TH 5 and
east of Mitchell Road. A public hearing.
Johnson stated that Mr. Fred Hoisington, Brauer and Associates, and Paul Strand,
MTS, Systems Corporation was also present.
Hoisington stated he was representing two owners: MTS, who owns three lots and
Magnetic Controls Company (MCC) who owns Lot 1, Block 2. Barb Miller was present
representing MCC. Hoisington stated he was present for two reasons: to get the
EAW out of the way; and platting because ,equipment is presently on the site
ready to start Technology Drive. He had concerns regarding numbers 5, 6, and 10
of the staff report. He stated they would like the southern roadway extended
along the southern boundary.
Barb Miller, MCC's Corporate Attorney, stated that they felt that Anderson Lakes
Parkway is an excessive use of their property.
Bearman asked if the City's Engineering Department has seen the plans for this
project. Johnson replied yes.t,_
Marhula asked the status of Anderson Lakes Parkway's feasibility study. Johnson--
replied that the petition is lacking one or two signatures. -- -
Paul Strand stated that he felt that Scenic Heights Road could be moved to be
more at a 90 degree angle.
Torjesen asked what is located east of the site. Johnson replied floodplain.
Hallett asked where the 212 Corridor exists. Johnson replied that Unique Systems
D runs through the middle of the site.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 12, 1982
MOTION 1
Gartner moved to close the public hearing on the MTS Plat. Retterath seconded,
motion carried 7-0.
MOTION 2
Gartner moved to.,recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat
dated 5/25/82 as per the report of 7/8/82. Retterath seconded, motion carried
7-0.
MOTION 3
Gartner moved to forward the EAW finding of no significant impact to the City
Council. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Codification
The Commission discussed the draft Chapter 11, an ordinance amending
Ordinance 135 relating to zoning, including provisions relating to
Planned Unit Development, Slopes, Shoreland, and other provisions relating
to zoning Districts and conditions and standards applicable thereto and
combining and making a part thereof the following Ordinances together
with any amendments thereto: 142 Regulating Land Alterations, Excavations,
Pits and Removal of Earthly Deposits, 152 relating to Advertising Signs,
261 relating to Signs, 276 Designating Flood Plains and Regulating Their
Use and Development, 289 Regulating Family Care Homes; and amending said
Ordinances 142, 152, 261, 276 and 289.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of Chapter 11 and forwarded it to the
Council for adoption.
Bearman stated that interim use was never addressed. Johnson replied that
the City Attorney has expressed that interim use requests should now be
turned into rezoning requests.
Bearman stated he wants the Council to very strongly look at having a
zoning administrator to uphold the ordinance. He felt that this was
needed.
MOTION
Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council that short of defaulting
on the existing commitment, it should consider at the time of codification,
amending some zones in such a way to make it more easy for new technology
to install private waste treatment systems. Hallett seconded.
DISCUSSION
Johnson stated that there are studies questioning if aquifers can support
continued water appropriation. It is better utilizing a main city well .
Bearman asked the depth of the city well . Johnson replied approximately
500+' . 1
.approved
Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 12, 1982
• Bearman stated they do not want to preclude the use of city water, and
they do not want to eliminate private wells.
Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION
Bearman moved to recommend to the City Council that they take a good look
at interim uses and the possibility of a zoning administrator. Retterath
seconded, motion carried 7-0.
B. City West Site Plan
Warren Isrealson was present to present the site plan as per the Planning
Commission's request.
Sutliff asked when construction of the buildings will begin. Isrealson
replied hopefully this month or next month.
Marhula asked if storm sewer and water is located in City West Parkway.
Isrealson replied yes.
Marhula asked if there was a final site grading plan. Isrealson replied
that the grading plan had not changed since rezoning.
Torjesen asked if the buildings will be constructed as approved. Isreal-
son replied yes.
Torjesen stated ADI's landscaping firm had been dumping bits of sod, trees,
cartons, etc. , on the County right-of-way and expressed concern regarding
the outcome of this when the land settles.
Torjesen stated that he would like to see any plans if the plans have any
significant changes in them. He also stated that if the owners of the
buildings want any major changes to the outside, he would also like to see
those plans.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
Johnson reviewed upcoming items.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Retterath moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:18 am. ' Gartner seconded, motion
carried 7-0.