Planning Commission - 10/12/1982 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Tuesday, October 12, 1982
7:30 PM, City Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath,
Hakon Torjesen, Virginia Gartner, Dennis
Marhula, Grant Sutliff, Robert Hallett
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Hilgers, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. September 13, 1982
B. September 27, 1982
III. MEMBERS REPORTS '
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. CLEAN SWEEP, by Clean Sweep. Request for rezoning of
approximately 2 acres from Rural to 1-2 Park with
possible variances from the I-2 District to be reviewed
by the Board of Appeals. Located at 9125 Flying Cloud
Drive. A continued public meeting.
B. SHADY OAK AMOCO, by Amoco Oil Company. Request for re-
zoning .93 acres from Rural to Hwy-Com and preliminary
plat for construction of a gas station. Located at the
southwest corner of TH 5 and future Prairie Center Drive.
A continued public hearing.
C. RED ROCK RANCH, by Robert Mason. Request for Gui'de Plan
change from low to medium density residential , PUD Concept
Review for approximately 800-1100 residential- units and
park upon 150 acres, and approval of an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet. Located east of Red Rock Lake, west
of Mitchell Road, and south of Pheasant Oaks. A public
hearing.
D. EDEN PRAIRIE PUBLIC LIBRARY, by Hennepin County. Request
to rezone 2.5 acres from Rural to Public and preliminary
plat approval to construct a Hennepin County Library
facility. Located in the southwest corner of Schooner Blvd.
and Preserve Blvd. A public hearing.
E. BASSWOODS FIFTH TOWNHOUSE REPLAT, by Dahlquist. Request for
PUD 70-03 The Preserve amendment for rear yard setback
variance and preliminary platting of Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot
3, Block 1, Basswoods Townhouse Second Addition'._= Located
at 8851 Basswood Road. A ,publ_ic hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
approved
Tuesday, October 12, 1982 7:30 NM, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Hakon Torjesen, Virginia
Gartner, Dennis Marhula, Grant Sutliff,
Robert Hallett
MEMBERS ABSENT: William Bearman, Liz Retterath
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Hilgers, 'Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Sutliff moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Gartner seconded,
motion carried 5-0.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. September 13, 1982
Marhula moved to approve the September 13, 1982 minutes with the following
corrections and/or additions:
P. 4, Discussion, add: 'with regards to building materials and construction. '
P. 5, 3rd para. , add: ' It later appeared closer to 3000 employees. '
Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-0-1. Torjesen abstained.
B. September 27, 1982
Gartner moved to continue the approval of the September 27, 1982 minutes
with the following changes and needed additions:
P. 3, item B, Discussion, Hallett should be Torjesen.
4th line, item B, Discussion, Sutliff should be Hallett.
P. 4, Discussion should read: 'Torjesen stated that the proposed zoning
is consistent with the Guide Plan but inconsistent with existing
grandfathered uses around it. He would like to minimize the impact
on the surrounding residents and recommended that the staff review
screening plans in detail prior to building permit issuance. Motion
maker and seconder agreed to include this as part of the motion. '
Marhula seconded, motion carried 5-0.
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
None
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 12, 1982
A. CLEAN SWEEP, by Clean Sweep. Request for rezoning of
approximately 2 acres from Rural to I-2 Park with
possible variances from the I=2 District to be reviewed
by the Board of Appeals. Located at 9125 Flying Cloud
Drive. A continued public meeting.
The Planner stated that this request has been continued from September 27, 1982 .
to allow the proponent to consider the Planning Commission's questions and work
out problems. He stated that he had reviewed the question of non-conforming
use with the City Attorney. The Planner's opinion is that Clean Sweep is an
illegal use, not a non-conforming use, and would require rezoning to continue
operations. The centerline of the Vo-tec entrance if extended, lies directly
on the Clean Sweep/Hein property line. Therefore, 25' of right-of-way reser-
vation would be necessary. Although it would be best to have a 50' front yard
setback from this future right-of-way line, a 20' sideyard setback is reasonable.
Mr. Hansen has agreed to this. Mr. Hansen has also agreed to remove the home
with construction of the new building. He stated that Mr. Hansen will be proposing
screened outside storage as a variance to be reviewed every two years and at time
of review, if rejected by the City, would be removed or placed inside. He stated
that this request has to go to the Board of Appeals. He stated that Staff is not
recommending approval of the outside storage and metal building.
Hansen stated that no major construction is planned on the east portion of his lot
at this time.
Sutliff asked the type of screening to be used for the outside storage. Hansen
replied a 7' high southern pine fence that is warrantied to last approximately 75
years.
Sutliff asked how much of the fence would be concealed from view from US 169 by
the berm. Hansen replied if looking from the highway, you could see about the top
2' of the fence.
Ralph Hein, 9135 Flying Cloud Drive, stated that he has a direct line of sight
to all of Clean Sweep's outside storage. He stated that he is against the re-
zoning request.
Sutliff asked the Guide Plan classification for Modern Tire. The Planner replied
Industrial .
Torjesen asked the Staff's position on the filling that has taken place on the
Hansen property. The Planner replied that filling had occured against the City's
ordinances and stated that filling should cease immediately. The northern and
eastern property line should be recontoured because of the steepness of the slope.
Hansen stated that the Industrial zone will eventually include the Hein and
Simchuck properties. The Planner stated that that is what the Guide Plan shows,
but that designation is very general in nature.
Mr. Simchuck, 9145 Flying Cloud Drive, stated that he sat through the mini-sector
study that took place 5 or 6 years ago. He stated that in that study, the Guide
Plan included all the land down to the fruit stand at Sunnybrook Road. He stated
that he is comfortable with an office use being put in.
.approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 12, 1982
Marhula asked if the proponent had thought of moving the building to the south or
north sides of the property. Hansen replied that the building would be moved 72'
north to meet the setback and stated that yes, they had looked at that, but felt
it was better in the location proposed.
Marhula stated that he felt the building would be better in the northwest corner
versus 20' from an anticipated road. He felt that 20' at the entrance to a
residential area to the east is not a large enough setback.
Sutliff stated he felt the building should have a larger setback than 20' .
Torjesen stated he felt the property is valuable, but the building should be
moved back further.
Marhula stated his concern that a comment the Planning Commission repeatedly hears
is that many neighborhoods in Eden Prairie have access only through industrial
areas. He felt the entrance to the residential area to the east should be thought
out very carefully. He had no objections to the rezoning or use of the property
as being proposed, but was concerned about the location of the building. He felt
that the other concerns, i .e. , berming, screening, etc. , could be worked out as
site plan details.
Sutliff stated he felt that two entrances would not be proper and asked what
distance the site access should be back from the intersection. The Planner replied
in this case, the distance should be at least 120' .
The Planner,'stated he felt that access provided is adequate and stated that this
proposal would not generate high traffic volumes.
Gartner stated that she felt that having an additional access for additional
buildings in the future would create a problem.
Gartner asked if the Planning Commission recommends-approval , if they are implying
approval of an addition at some future time. The Planner said that since a
future addition is shown, yes.
MOTION
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council denial of the rezoning of approx-
imately 2 acres from Rural to I-2 Park as presented. Marhula seconded, motion
carried 5-0.
Torjesen stated he had reservations on denying the request without looking at the
various recommendations and contingencies the proponent would have to meet as listed
in the staff report.
B. SHADY OAK AMOCO, by Amoco Oil Company. Request for rezoning
.93 acres from Rural to Hwy-Com and preliminary plat for
construction of a gas station. Located in the southwest
corner of Shady Oak Road (Co. Rd. 61) and future Crosstown
62. A continued public hearing.
The Planner stated that Ray Duggan and Harlan McGregor of Amoco Oil were present.
He stated that this proposal has been continued to work out the access to West
62nd Street. He stated a revised site plan has been submitted along with a
grading plan.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 12, 1982
Duggan reviewed the location, access, and stated that after many changes, they
have come up with the plan which is submitted showing one access to West 62nd
Street rather than two, moving the access further from the intersection with
Shady Oak Road.
The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 8/5/82. ' He stated that the proponent
will review the 10' dedication to the County with the County.
Sutliff asked what will happen to Old Shady Oak Road. The Planner replied that it
terminates into a dead-end.
Sutliff asked if there will be enough room for semi 's on the-site. Duggan replied
that there is some allowance, but did not expect semi 's coming to this station.
Marhula asked if Old Shady Oak Road will be vacated or dedicated. The Planner
stated that it is vacated now north of West 62nd Street.
Marhula asked where the landscaping plan was that was requested in the staff report.
Duggan replied that it has not been completed because of the many changes needed
to the plan. He stated that all ordinance requirements will be met.
Torjesen asked if the entire site is to be graded. Duggan replied yes.
Mr. Beersdorf, attorney representing Mr. & Mrs. Uherka of 6301 Shday Oak Road,
questioned what the land use impact upon the Uherka property would be. The
Planner stated that West 62nd Street could act as, a transition to multiple
residential to the south.
Torjesen stated that he saw no problems with the zoning requested and had heard
no comments from the neighborhood.
Hallett asked if all the recommendations as listed in the 8/5/82 staff report
apply at present. The Planner replied yes , all but #3, which is the request for
change in access.
Sutliff stated that he would like to see a map showing the affects that a proposal
has on surrounding land in the future.
MOTION 1
Hallett moved to close the public hearing on Shady Oak Amoco. Marhula seconded,
motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 2
Hallett moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural
to C-Hwy subject to the plans dated October 5, 1982 and the staff report dated
8/5/82 eliminating item 3 of the recommendations. Marhula seconded, motion carried
5-0.
MOTION 3
Hallett moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat of
.93 acres as per the plans dated 10/5/82 and the staff report dated 8/5/82, elim-
inating item 3 of the recommendations. Marhula seconded, motion carried 5-0.
approved
planning Commission Minutes -5- October 12, 1982
C. RED ROCK RANCH, by Robert Mason Homes. Request for Guide
Plan change from low to medium density residential , PUD
Concept review for approximately 800-1100 residential units
and park upon 150 acres, and approval of an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet. Located east of Red Rock Lake, west
of Mitchell Road, and south of Pheasant Oaks. A public
hearing.
The Planner stated that this is an informational meeting for input to Staff and
the proponent from the Commission and residents. Randy Trevalia, of Robert Mason
Homes and Dick Putnam and Jim Ostenson of Tandem Corporation were present to give
the presentation.
Trevalia stated that Robert Mason Homes has owned the property for approximately
15-20 years. He stated that neighborhood meetings have been held to familiarize
the residents with the project.
Putnam gave a slide presentation reviewing the location, an aerial photo, examples
of projects constructed by Robert Mason Homes, surrounding parks, open space,
streets, grading and slopes.
The Planner stated that the Guide Plan shows the density for this site up to 2.5
units/acre which would be a total of 375 units on 150 acres. He stated that the
density is very important for many reasons; water capacity, roads, etc. He
stated that the area is not currently served with sewer or water.
Gartner was concerned for who would be assessed for the sewer trunk, and asked
if the City pays for it, will it add to the City's debts. The Planner replied
yes, it would add to the City' s debts, and that an assessment district had not yet
been determined.
Gartner asked if the house or Red Rock Lake have scenic easements or dedication of
lakeshore proposed as on the northeast shore of the lake. The Planner replied no.
Marhula stated he had concerns that he felt that Research Road improvements are
being put aside in this plan. He also stated that the City should look more
closely into which road (Mitchell Road or the road through this project) should
be the collector road south to Co. Rd. 1.
Torjesen stated that he felt that the burden fdr the need for a Guide Plan change
should be shown in the best interest of the community at large. _ _ _
Sutliff expressed concern regarding the number of cul-de-sacs proposed with such
a high density proposed. The Planner stated that it may be possible to eliminate
some cul-de-sacs in the future.
Gartner asked if the EAW was reviewed by the City -Council . The Planner replied yes.
Gartner asked that the Department of Natural Resources' publication on wildlife be
available for the Planning Commission at the next meeting that Red Rock Ranch is
discussed.
Ken Frickie, 15610 Corral Lane, President of the Homeowner's Association, stated
some major concerns; density and the potential road connections. He also stated
that he objects to the Guide Plan change requested for site J (the condominium
site south of Red Rock Lake). He also submitted a petition and asked that it be
made part of the minutes.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 12, 1982
Gail Liepold, 15466 Village Woods Drive, asked where the current tarred path on
the north end of Red Rock Lake will lead and if it will continue around the lake.
The Planner replied the City's park plan shows the path connecting from Mitchell
Lake down across the northeast side of Red Rock Lake over to the north portion of
Staring Lake and also shows a connection up to Red Rock Park. There are no -
definite plans to continue the path around the lake. That would be up'-to the
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission to discuss.
Dick Ecklund, 10356 Balsam LaAie, stated his objection to the multiple family and
stated his concerns that Mitchell Road is heavily travelled now and also the
density. He stated that he felt that too many people will be crowded in one area.
Bill Edes, 8641 Red Oak Drive, asked why an outlet to the lake is needed when there
are no inlets. Putnam stated that the outlet would be a small pipe of 8-12" set
at the lake elevation today. The Watershed District has required that. Edes asked
if the overflow water would be used to fill the ponds. Putnam replied no.
Putnam stated that when the trunk sewer goes in, the cost is assessed to certain
areas. He understands that the area affected would go up to the Siefert property.
The development would occur in phases and so would the assessments. Eventually,
everyone will have to pay.
Jack VanRenortel16031 Summit Drive, stated he would like the Planning Commission to
question why the Watershed is requiring the outlet.
Larry Lange, 15028 Corral Lane, asked the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
Commission's recommendations. He felt that both commissions should discuss the
project at the same time. Hallett and Sutliff agreed.
Marhula stated that looking at the details of thePUD prior to the Guide Plan change
may be getting ahead of ourselves. He stated that the input will be beneficial and
that the Commission is not making a decision on where the pathways will be. The
Planner replied that the request is for a PUD Concept as well as a Guide Plan change.
Sutliff asked if this falls under the Shoreland Management Act. The Planner replied
yes.
Mr. Olson, 9030 W. Staring Lane, stated he felt single-family homes s ou_ld abut-_______
existing single family homes as a transition.
Nancy Hedlund, 9010 Mitchell Road was concerned with the density.
Donna Hart, 9061 E. Sunrise Circle, asked if this request has been reviewed in the
aspect that it lies under the Flying Cloud Airport approach zones. The Planner
replied that it is under the flight pattern, but not under the approach -zones.-- Eloise
would be a concern.
Hallett felt the density is too high.
Gartner felt that density is too high and stated that having Mitchell Road go
farther east for the main traffic should be reconsidered., The Planner stated
that that would be a major item for the Staff to work on. He suggested becau§e
of the need for the Park and Recreation to meet and the number of questions to
be answered, continuance for one month.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 12, 1982
•
Gartner agreed to the one month continuance and stated that the road system should
be worked on. The Planner agreed.
Gartner asked if the Department of Natural Resources has looked at filling the low
areas other than the lake. The Planner replied that they are concerned with
floodplain, and public waters.
MOTION
Gartner moved to continue Red Rock Rahch to the November 8, 1982 meeting with intro-
duction of this project to the Parks, Recreation- and Natural Resources Commission
Hallett seconded, motion carried 5-0.
D. EDEN PRAIRIE PUBLIC LIBRARY, by Hennepin County. Request
to rezone 2.5 acres from Rural to Public and preliminary
plat approval of approximately 10 acres,' to construct a
Hennepin County Library facility. Located in the southwest
corner of Schooner Blvd. and Preserve Blvd. A public hearing.
The Planner introduced Earl Johnson of Hennepin County who was present to give the
presentation.
Johnson stated that Mr. Smith, Hennepin County Library Staff was also present.
He stated that the site is 2.5 acres, utilities are available, the library will
be constructed in 1984. Phase one consists of 6,000 square-feet with off-street
parking for 50 autos; Phase two is anticipated to be constructed in 1987 which
consists of 4,000 square feet for a grand total of 10,000 square feet of library
space.
The Planner stated that the site plan is general at this time and that, Hennepin
County will have to return to the Planning Commission in the future for site plan
review. He stated that he expects the site to be developed at an elevation range
of 885 to 888. He reviewed the staff report dated 10/8/82.
Sutliff asked the amount of impervious surface coverage. The Planner replied 75%.
Gartner asked the square footage of the existing library. Mr. Smith replied 1700
square feet.
Gartner asked why concrete for the sidewalk is recommended versus black-top. The
Planner replied that when Prairie Center Drive is completed a concrete sidewalk
will be on both sides of the road.
Hallett asked why Hennepin County was suggested not to pay the cash park fee.
The Planner replied that because it is a governmental body providing a public
a public community service.
Gartner asked if any similar libraries are constructed. Smith replied the
Westonka library in Mound. He stated that at total construction, the library
will be very similar to the Hopkins library.
Dale Wenkus, 8706 Leeward Circle, asked when Preserve Blvd. will be upgraded. The
Planner replied there,-are no current plans for upgrading Preserve Blvd.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 12, 1982
•
Sutliff asked if the existing library will be used after the new one is`cohstructed.
Smith replied no, they will offer tt to the City for purchase.
Hallett stated he felt that the proponent should pay the cash park fee.
Gartner stated she felt that the-1odation forithe library is a good one.
MOTION 1
Gartner moved to close the public hearing on Eden Prairie Public Library. Marhula
seconded, motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 2
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning of 2.5
acres from Rural to Public as per the plans dated 8/25/82 and the staff report
dated 10/8/82. Marhula seconded, motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 3
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat
dated 8/25/82 for construction of a Hennepin County Library facility as per the
staff report dated 10/8/82. Marhula seconded.
DISCUSSION
Gartner stated that she felt that this project is a Henneppin County facility
not an Eden Prairie facility. Therefore, cash park fee �s-hould be pad__1Jy-Hennepin
County. The Planner stated that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
Commission would make a recommendation on this.
Hallett stated that he felt that the system should be further defined wha would pay
cash park fees and who would not. --
AMENDMENT TO MOTION 3
Hallett moved to amend Motion 3 deleting item 4 from the staff report recommenda-
tions. Marhula seconded, amendment carried 3-2. Torjesen and Gartner voted no.
VOTE ON MOTION 3 WITH AMENDMENT
Motion carried 5-0.
E. BASSWOODS FIFTH TOWNHOUSE REPLAT, by Dahlquist. Request for
PUD 70-03 The Preserve amendment for rearyard setback
variance and preliminary platting of Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot '
3, Block 1, Basswoods Townhouse Second Addition. Located at
8851 Basswood Road. A public hearing.
The Planner stated that the Planning Commission is looking at this request instead
of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments because the Planning Commission should
deal with changes to a PUD. He stated that Mr. Dahlquist would like to add on to
his townhouse. He has to replat -to do it. He has received approval from the
homeowner's assocation.
MOTION 1
Gartner moved to close the public hearing on Basswoods Fifth Townhouse Replat.
Marhula seconded, motion carried 5-0.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 12, 1982
MOTION 2
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of PUD 70-03 amendment
for rearyard setback variance as per the plans dated 9/24/82 and the staff
report dated 10/7/82. Sutliff seconded.
DISCUSSION
Sutliff asked if this project will go before the Board of Appeals. The Planner
replied no, this was the reason for the PUD amendment.
Motion carried 5-0.
MOTION 3
Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat
dated 9/24/82 of Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 3, Block 1, Basswoods Townhouse Second
Addition as per the staff report dated 10/7/82. Marhula seconded, motion carried
5-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None
• VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
The Planner reviewed upcoming items.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Marhula moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:33 PM. Sutliff seconded,
motion carried 5-0.
October 12, 1982
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Yin 55344
Dear City Officials :
The Robert Mason Homes, Inc . development plan for
the Red Rock Ranch property shows alternative roads
connecting proposed Mitchell Road to Corral Lane .
As attested to by the signatures attached to this :!
letter, the residents of the Eden Hills neighborhood
(Cedar Ridge Road and Corral Lane) are opposed to
a connector road . The heavy traffic potential is not
consistent with the established character of the neigh-
borhood. We request that .the city honor the wishes
of this neighborhood. _
Sincerely
Ken Fricke, President
Eden Hills Association
i
page 1
{ p Y
ThE following homeowners of the Eden Hills neighborhood
are opposed to connecting Corral Lane to the proposed
Mitchell Road.
Name Address
2.
- ..
4.
6.
t
� G��l�.�.��'�'������r. t-f� ...- l�!"l��• ..��49.
10 .
12.
' f
9 1 � ! �*-117 t^— jam',
15
18
70
19.
j, i 'f(y✓ vc F C
20 .
21.
22. ✓f, r
23 .
rG�
24.
{ j r
25'
2627
28. ti� �� 1: 't. .:r..!`i-F�.�- ,J -e�• � �-"�E 1C.1 i {`� (V C'S, V i.l•-'t 4•,9�
29.
32.
34.
35' �e����L.=ice" ��7C
Page 2
ci
The following homeowners of the : Eden Hills neighborhood
are opposed to connecting Corral Lane to the proposed
Mitchell Road.
N Address
37 r. ''`jI
4 _t v 3
38.
39- 44-
40 . tc I L Y� �ffvj
44.
45.
46. ,1�� / 4 7.77 Ale. CV41v
47•
48.
49. 1
50
51-
52.
53-
54.
55-
56
57-
58.
59-
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70 .