Loading...
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 .