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.