Loading...
Planning Commission - 12/27/1982 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, December 27, 1982 7:30 p.m. , City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Acting Chairman Liz Retterath, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Dennis Marhula, Grant Sutliff, Hakon Torjesen (Chairman William Bearman on Medical Leave) STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES, DECEMBER 13, 1982 III. MEMBERS REPORTS IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. TOWERS ADDITION, by T. Michael Carmody. Request for PUD District Review of 6.75 acres, with variances, for medium density residential and single family uses, rezoning from Rural to RM6.5 for 8 quadraminium buildings and from Rural to R1-13.5 for 2 single family lots and preliminary plat of 6.75 acres for 8 quadraminium buildings (32 units) and 2 single family lots. . Located north of Carmody Drive and east of Mitchell Road. A public hearing continued (from December 13, 1982) . B. RYMARLAND CAMP 3RD ADDITION, by Milton 0. Quam. Request for preliminary plat of 4.4 acres for 11 single family detached lots, formerly portions of Rymarland Camp 2nd Addition. Located east of Highway 101 and south of Hidden Ponds 2nd Addition. A public hearing. C. SHADY OAK INDUSTRIAL PARK 6TH ADDITION, by Richard Anderson. Request for preliminary plat of 7.3 acres for two lots, formerly portions of Shady Oak Industrial Park 3rd Addition. D. MICRO-ED, INC. . Request for Interim Use of 6.7 acres of property zoned as Rural for Office Use. Located at 8108 Eden Road--the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Single Tree Lane"and Eden Road, south of Lake Idlewild. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, December 27, 1982 7:30 p.m. , City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairperson Liz Retterath, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Grant Sutliff, and Hakon Torjesen (7:40) MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman William Bearman (Medical Leave) and Dennis Marhula STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Sutliff, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried--4-0-0 II. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 13, 1982 MINUTES Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett to approve the minutes of the December 13, 1982 meeting as presented. Motion carried--3-0-1 (Sutliff abstained) III. MEMBERS' REPORTS None IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. TOWERS ADDITION, by T. Michael Carmody. Request for PUD District Review of 6.75 acres, with variances, for medium density residential and single family uses, rezoning from Rural to RM6.5 for 8 quadraminium buildings and from Rural to R1-13.5 for 2 single family lots and preli- minary plat of 6.75 acres for 8 quadraminium buildings (32 units) and 2 single family lots. Located north of Carmody Drive and east of Mitchell Road. A public hearing continued (from December 13, 1982) . Staff reviewed the request of T. Michael Carmody for approval of the Towers Addition proposal and reviewed the Staff report of December 23, 1982 with the Commission. r. Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 27, 1982 Bill Dolan, Meadowood, Inc. , representing the proponent, stated that concerns of the Commission at their last meeting of December 13, 1982 had been addressed by the revised plan. Furthermore, he stated that proponent was in concurrence with the proposed plan amendments of Staff, including the proposed Staff Sketch, Figure #2, of the Staff Report dated December 23, 1982, realigning the lots and streets. DISCUSSION Hallett questioned whether the concerns of Commissioner Marhula had been addressed from the meeting of December 13, 1982, i .e. private drives being too lengthy. Planner Enger stated that the concerns had been addressed and that all drives had been shortened in length, if not eliminated. Hallett asked whether the City of Eden Prairie had allowed other private drives to access Mitchell Road directly. Planner Enger stated that the City had done so, and that such drives existed north of the proposed development. It was suggested that the southerly most units have driveway access to Carmody Lane instead of Mitchell Road. There were no comments from members of the audience. i MOTION #1 Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION #2 Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Sutliff to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for PUD District Review of 6.75 acres, with variances, for medium density residential and single family uses, and rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 for 8 quadraminium buildings and from Rural to R1-13.5 for 2 single family lots per plans dated December 27, 1982, for the Towers Addition of T. Michael Carmody, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 23, 1982. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION #3 Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for preliminary plat of 6.75 acres for 8 quadraminium buildings (32 units) and 2 single family lots for the Towers Addition of T. Michael Carmody, per plans dated December 27, 1982, subject .to recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 23, 1982, and that the proponent submit revised drawings and plans to the City prior to Council review. Motion carried--5-0-0 . Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 27, 1982 B. RYMARLAND CAMP 3RD ADDITION, by Milton 0. Quam. Request for pre- liminary plat of 4.4 acres for 11 single family detached lots, formerly portions of Rymarland Camp 2nd Addition. Located east of Highway 101 and south of Hidden Ponds 2nd Addition. A public hearing. Staff reviewed the request of Milton 0. Quam for preliminary plat of the proposed property and reviewed the Staff Report of December 21 , 1982 with the Commission. Tom Bergquist, Sathre-Bergquist, representing the proponent, stated that proponent would be willing to comply with all conditions of the Staff Report, with the exception of the amount of frontage required for Lots 6 and 8. Mr. Bergquist stated that, in Rymarland Camp 2nd Addition, the lot frontage had been approved for these lots at 51 ft. He requested on behalf of the proponent that these two lots be allowed to maintain the 51 ft. frontage, rather than the 55 ft. required by the ordinance. Planner Enger stated that, regardless of the fact that the plat of these two lots had previously allowed 51 ft. for lot frontage, the current City Code, passed approximately three months ago, required a 55 ft. frontage, thereby requiring a variance for the two lots if they were not modified in the final plat. DISCUSSION Sutliff stated that he would prefer to eliminate the cul-de-sacs within the plat and have a through street for Debbie Lane. Planner Enger stated that the cul-de-sac to the northeast was an existing roadway, Kristie Lane. In fact, the proponent would be creating only one cul-de-sac by this request. Planner Enger added that he did not feel there would be great concerns on the part of the City's Public Safety Department, either, in that the cul-de-sac was a short one, as proposed, not impairing access for any emergency vehicle to any of the units. In addition, if the road- way were extended, the cost to the developer would be approximately 100% more for roadway purposes. Hallett questioned whether the added lots would affect the overall density approved for the site previously. Planner Enger stated that the overall , density would increase slightly as the previous approval was for 2.0 units per acre, including the open area. However, the current City Code allowed for 2.5 units per acre. The proposed plan would still allow the development overall to fit within the provisions of the City Code. Hallett asked if the trees on site would be preserved. Planner Enger stated that one of the requirements listed in the Staff Report of December 21 , 1982 was that the proponent submit a plan for treatment and preservation of the wooded area. Mr. Bergquist reviewed with the Commission the location of the tree stand on the site and the types of trees involved. Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 27, 1982 Hallet also questioned what Staff would consider an "acceptable grade" for Lots, 8, 9, 10, and 11 . Staff stated that 14% would be appropriate. Mr. Bergquist stated that proponent agreed with a 14% grade for those lots. There were no comments from members of the audience. a MOTION #1 Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION #2 Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Milton 0. Quam for preliminary plat of 4.4 acres for 11 single family detached lots, formerly portions of Rymarland Camp 2nd Addition, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 21 , 1982. Motion carried--5-0-0 • Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner to amend the agenda to allow for review of Item D. , Micro-Ed, Inc. prior to Item C. , Shady Oak Industrial Park 6th Addition, since the proponents for Shady Oak 6th had not yet arrived. Motion carried--5-0-0 D. MICRO-ED, INC. Request for Interim Use of 0.67 acres of property zoned as Rural for Office use. Located at 8108 Eden Road--the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Single Tree Lane and Eden Road. Staff reviewed the request of Micro-Ed, Inc. for an Interim Use for property located within the Major Center Area (MCA) , and reviewed the Staff Report of December 21 , 1982 with the Commission. Mr. Brian Duoos, real estate agent for the proponent, spoke to the use of the property and its suitability for the proposed use. Mr. Folwell Esbensen spoke to the history of Micro-Ed as a company and the day-to-day activities of the business proposed for this interim use. Mr. Esbensen pointed out that there would be no "off-the-street" trade for his business. All business was handled by mail order. The business was currently run by seven people. Planner Enger explained the purpose of interim uses in greater detail as concerned the MCA. He added that the City Attorney was in the process is of preparing an ordinance for that purpose. Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 27, 1982 DISCUSSION Hallett questioned whether interim uses were necessary. He questioned whether it would not be better to encourage owners of residential units in the MCA to relocate their structures to other residential lots than to allow for business uses in residential structures. It was pointed out in discussion that the costs of relocating a structure such as this could be quite substantial , and the actual value of the structure cannot be recouped in this way. Hallett also questioned whether allowance of such interim uses would slow down the transition of the MCA to commercial uses if the residential structures would be allowed to exist indefinitely. Planner Enger stated that it was possible. Planner Enger pointed out that, within the City's MCA, there were approxi- mately 25 such possibilities for interim uses. Currently, four existed within the MCA. Mr. Duoos stated that, in his opinion, the City would not be facing many "interim uses" in this area. It was his feeling that once one or more of • the major structures for the area, such as the hotel , were built, that the "final" users of the properties within the MCA would simply buy the residential structures with the land. Potential "final" users of the land would be interested in long-term inventment of the land, not "interim uses" as were necessary now. However, it would take the construction of one of the major structures, he added. Planner Enger stated that he felt the City would not face the prospect of all 25 residences within the MCA requesting approval of interim uses; rather it would be a fraction of that total . Hallett stated that he felt one of the positive things about interim uses was that it did allow the owner of the home to market his home under better circumstances, "get out of the home," so to speak when he chose. The Commission discussed the matter of parking spaces available on-site with the proponents. George Esbensen stated that he had spoken with several blacktop contractors and had been told not to blacktop at this time. He questioned whether the City would allow Micro-Ed to use the existing parking areas "as is" then, if necessary, require additional parking to be built at a later date. MOTION Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Micro-Ed, Inc. for an Interim Use of 0.67 acres of property zoned as Rural for Office use within the Major Center Area, subject to the following conditions : Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 27, 1982 1 . Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy permit, proponent must: -Have the structure inspected by the Building Department and meet or exceed all Building Codes for office use. -Submit landscape plans to the City regarding screening of the parking area. -Provide for additional parking to meet City Code requirements. It will not be required at this time; however, should the City determine a need exists for additional parking requirements, proponent shall install the parking spaces necessary at the discretion of the City. -Have the septic sewer and water systems evaluated by the Build- ing Department. 2. The interim use agreement shall : -Be for a period of three years. -Be binding on the owners and not transferable. -Upon termination of the term, rezoning or extension would be reviewed by the City for continuation of the proposed use. -Not be construed to express or imply special land use designation for the property in the future. 3. Signage shall be consistent with the City Code. Motion carried--5-0-0 Acting Chairperson Retterath declared a recess at 8:35 p.m. ; the meeting was reconvened at 8:45 p.m. C. SHADY OAK INDUSTRIAL PARK 6TH ADDITION, by Richard Anderson. Request for preliminary plat of 7.3 acres for two lots, formerly portions of Shady Oak Industrial Park 3rd Addition. A public hearing. Staff reviewed the request of Richard Anderson for preliminary. plat approval of the proposed project and reviewed the Staff Report of December 21 , 1982 with the Commission. Craig Anderson and Warren Israelson, proponent's engineer, discussed the plan in greater detail with the Commission, explaining the questions of access to the parking lots raised by Staff in the Staff Report. Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 27, 1982 DISCUSSION Sutliff asked if it was the intention 'of the developer to build all of- the parking area at this time. Mr. Anderson responded that the major reason for the request was a need for additional parking and that it was intended that the parking be built immediately. Mr. Anderson stated that the parking area in the northeast corner of the site would only be used once or twice a year when the two tenants, Tup- perware and Amway, both had meetings scheduled for the same night. Because of this, the proponent stated that he did not feel it was necessary to provide additional access to the parking lot in the northeast corner of the site. Planner Enger stated that he disagreed with proponent. He stated that because of the volume of cars involved, additional access was necessary. Mr. Israelson pointed out that, if needed, the cars from the northeast could exit to the west through the leased MPI parking lot. Torjesen stated that regardless of the availability of a westerly exist, all vehicles would have to exit through the same bottle-neck area. He . stated that he agreed with Staff that additional - access was needed. Torjesen questioned whether the proposed 30 ft. radii were for the area exit at W. 70th Street, or at the bottle-neck area, or both. Planner Enger stated that the proposal was for W. 70th Street only. Torjesen suggested that the requirement hold for the exit area from the parking lot as well . There were no comments from members of the audience. MOTION #1 Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Sutliff, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION #2 Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Sutliff to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Richard Anderson for preliminary plat of 7.3 acres for two lots, formerly portions of Shady Oak Industrial Park 3rd Addition, per the plans dated December 7, 1982, and per the recommenda- tions of the Staff Report dated December 21 , 1982. Further, proponent shall meet the requirenTents of Condition #5 of the Staff Report of December 21 , 1982 prior to review of this matter by the City Council . Motion carried--5-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes -8- December 27, 1982 V. OLD BUSINESS Torjesen stated that a portion of the recommendation to the Council on page 6 of the minutes of December 13, 1982 was missing. He asked that the matter be corrected. VI. NEW BUSINESS None VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Torjesen, seconded by Hallett. Acting Chairperson Retterath adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.