Planning Commission - 06/06/1983 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, June 6, 1983
7:30 p.m., City Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. LEN SWEDLUND & REPUBLIC SUPPLY COMPANY. Request for Pre-
liminary Plat of 14 acres into three (3) lots of
approximately 4.6 acres for single family detached homes.
Location: South of Riley Lake Road and east of the
Carver/Hennepin County boundary. A continued public
hearing.
B. JAMES REFRIGERATION. Request for Zoning from Rural to
Office for 2.16 acres for an office building. Location:
Southwest corner of Shady Oak Road and Highway #169. A
public meeting.
C. REMBRANDT RIDGE, by Neil A. Lewis and Associates. Request
for Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of
10.4 acres for 19 single family residential lots. Location:
East of 168th Avenue West and south of Chatham Woods. A
public hearing.
D. HIGH TRAIL ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, by Countryside Investments,
Inc. Request for Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and
Preliminary Plat of 10 acres for 25 single family detached
lots. Location: 6451 Duck Lake Road. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Proposed Ordinance for Commercial Stables
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Proposed Ordinance for Signage for Churches, Schools, and
Other Public Buildings
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 6, 1983
City Hall, 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Dennis
Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Stan Johannes
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to approve the
agenda as submitted.
Motion carried--6-0-0
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. LEN SWEDLUND & REPUBLIC SUPPLY COMPANY. Request for Pre-
liminary Plat of 14 acres into three (3) lots of
approximately 4.6 acres for single family detached homes.
Location: South of Riley Lake Road and east of the
Carver/Hennepin County boundary. A continued public
hearing.
At its meeting of May 23, 1983, the Planning Commission continued
this item pending information regarding the status of the final plat
in the City. Planning Staff reported that, according to the
Engineering Department, the final plat had never been placed on an
agenda and that no final plat was submitted in a completed form for
City review.
Greg Frank, McCombs-Knutson Associates, representing the proponent,
reviewed the contents of a letter submitted to the City, dated June
1, 1983, responding to the concerns of the Commission at the
Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 6, 1983
previous meeting regarding setting of precedent with respect to the
variance to lot size requested by the proponent.
Dennis Howly, 6430 Undestad, asked if the lots proposed would be the
only lots in the area. Staff responded that they were not and
pointed out the other subdivisions in the vicinity.
Torjesen stated that he felt the circumstances warranted special
consideration of the request of proponent.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to recommend
approval of the request of Len Swedlund and Republic Supply Company
for preliminary plat of 14 acres into three (3) lots, located on the
northeast side of Lake Riley, based on the findings of the Staff
• Report of May 20, 1983, due to the unique circumstances involved
with this project.
Marhula questioned whether the land was located outside of the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area. Staff stated that it was. He also
questioned whether this project would adversely affect the adjacent
development in the City of Chanhassen. Mr. Frank stated that it
would not. He added that, should there come a time when sewer and
water would be necessary for this site, it would likely come from
the existing Chanhassen development. However, it would not be a
problem to add these three lots to the existing capacity of
Chanhassen's sewer and water in this area.
Motion carried--3-2-1 (Gartner, Marhula, and Torjesen in favor;
Chairman Bearman and Schuck against; Hallett
abstained)
B. JAMES REFRIGERATION. Request for Zoning from Rural to
Office for 2.16 acres for an office building. Location:
Southwest corner of Shady Oak Road and Highway #169. A
public meeting.
Charles James, proponent, reviewed the proposal with the Commission,
explaining significant site and design features of the project.
Planner Enger reviewed the Staff Report of June 3, 1983, regarding
• the proposal and pointed out the variances requested by proponent as
part of the project. Staff explained that this was an unusual site
to deal with as it had three street frontages and, therefore, three
front yards. The variances requested included building height of
greater than 30 ft. ; number of parking spaces required for the
Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 6, 1983
square footage of the structure--14 spaces short of required amount;
and, front yard setbacks for structures.
Planner Enger stated that one of the recommended conditions of
approval was the addition of pedestrian access from the site to the
intersection of Bryant Lake Drive and Shady Oak Road.
Hallett asked if the parking spaces eliminated by the removal of the
western 12 ft. wide bank drive-out area could be made up anywhere
else on the site. Planner Enger stated that he did not feel that
they could.
Chairman Bearman questioned when the requirement for 8 parking
spaces per 1,000 gross sq. ft. of floor area for banks was
initiated. Planner Enger stated that it had been in effect for many
years.
Tim McCoy, architect for proponent, stated that the mechanical
equipment for the building had not yet been completely designed;
however, it was their intention to place the mechanical equipment
within the ceilings of the structure.
The Commission asked Mr. James about his intentions for use of the
building. Mr. James responded that, other than the bank, his firm
was the only other confirmed tenant at this time. It was his
intention to use the top floor of the structure as office space for
Integral Refrigeration Systems, one of the firms he headed. At this
time, he had less than ten employees, but he wanted to reserve the
remainder of the top floor for growth of the company. His firm
built and designed grocery and small convenience stores. This
construction function would be staying in another location.
Mr. James stated that he was comfortable with the amount of parking
provided on the site. He added that, as the building owner, he did
not want to be in the position of creating a situation whereby his
tenants would have cause to complain about parking.
Torjesen stated that he felt the project was attractive and that the
land use for this parcel was appropriate. However, he stated
concern that the site was "too tight" for the volume of the use
proposed. Torjesen asked if the site could be scaled down to avoid
the need for any of the variances requested.
Mr. James responded that it would be rather difficult to do at this
time. He stated that he felt the variances requested were
justifiable based on the unusual circumstances of having three front
yards to the site based on the three street frontages and the
unusual shape of the parcel caused by the right-of-ways for the
roads. Mr. James pointed out that one of the variances required for
• front yard setback was a situation where the parking lot "knicked"
the setback with a corner of the parking area.
Hallett questioned City policy regarding Cash Park Fees for such a
project. Staff responded that the project would be charged
Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 6, 1983
• $1,400.00 per acre per City Code.
Schuck asked Mr. James to explain the economics of removing a floor
from the building. Mr. James stated that the parking structure was
an extremely expensive proposition for any developer. For example,
an asphalt surfaced parking lot would cost approximately $2-300 per
parking space. For a parking structure such as this, the cost was
closer to $4,000 per parking space. Mr. James stated that it was
necessary for him to be able to recover the cost of construction of
the ramp by having adequate rental space available within the
building.
Mr. James suggested that the City consider effective striping of the
parking lot to allow for smaller spaces, designated for compact cars
only. On his site, this would add several parking spaces. Staff
confirmed that eight spaces would be picked up by such a striping
method.
Marhula questioned whether the amount of right-of-way for the roads
in this area was excessive. Staff responded that it was greater
than required by Code. Marhula stated that he felt this should be
kept in mind in viewing the site. He stated that the amount of
right-of-way gained along Bryant Lake Drive alone would create a
situation where no setback variance would be necessary from this
Sfrontage.
Schuck stated that he felt the magnitude of the variances requested
was not significant, but was justified based on the case presented
by proponent.
Torjesen expressed concern for the height of the structure. Mr.
James pointed out that each successive floor was smaller than the
one below it by the design. The site coverage was below the maximum
allowed by Code. He stated that the building was designed in this
manner to allow for use of the ground area for parking space
purposes, and even with that, and the parking structure, it was
still difficult to design the site with the required amount of
parking spaces.
Chairman Bearman asked for questions and comments from members of
the audience.
Jerry Steelman, 6601 Golden Ridge, stated that he would prefer to
see at least one story eliminated from the structure. He added that
he felt the building was attractively designed and felt the use
would provide a good neighbor for the existing residents.
Janet Gehereke, 6622 Golden Ridge, stated that she, too, felt the
structure was an attractive one, but felt that it should be required
to meet all Code requirements.
Curtis Knutson, 6511 Undestad Street, asked how the mechanical
equipment would be handled. Mr. McCoy, proponent's architect,
explained the procedure for placing the equipment within the
Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 6, 1983
ceilings of each floor. He pointed out that this added to the
height of each floor, as an alternative to placing all such
equipment on top of the building in view.
Mr. James stated that he felt the City could appreciate the
difficulties involved in designing a structure to fit such a site
with the physical constraints involved due to the roads. He stated
that he felt every effort had been made by his designers to prepare
a project that would fit the Code requirements as much as possible.
Chairman Bearman stated that there were many examples in the City
where the number of parking spaces required was in excess of the
needs of the uses within the structures. He suggested that perhaps
the time had come for the City to review the parking requirements
for various uses. He pointed out that the City of Minnetonka, for
example, required much less in terms of parking spaces for such uses
and appeared to be having no problems with a lesser requirement.
Gartner stated that she felt proponent had a difficult site to deal
with and had prepared an attractive project for the site.
MOTION•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the requested zoning from Rural to Office
for office use for James Refrigeration, per written materials dated
May 3, 1983, and plans dated May 6, 1983, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report of June 3, 1983, and the
addition of the following conditions: #8. Parking lot lighting
shall be down-lighting, no more than 20 ft. in height, with cut-off
luminars; and #9. No mechanical equipment shall be located on the
roof of the structure.
Hallett stated that he would like proponent to consider an overpass,
if necessary, for pedestrian traffic if traffic patterns in the area
so indicated.
Torjesen stated that he still had concerns that the site was too
tightly designed and could be scaled down to meet Code.
Motion carried--4-2-0 (Hallett and Torjesen against)
C. REMBRANDT RIDGE, by Neil A. Lewis and Associates. Request
for Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of
10.4 acres for 19 single family residential lots. Location:
East of 168th Avenue West and south of Chatham Woods. A
public hearing.
• Roger Nelson, proponent's engineer, presented the project for
Commission consideration. He explained the features of the site and
stated that the site met all Code requirements.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 6, 1983
• Planner Enger reviewed the Staff Report of June 6, 1983 and reviewed
the recommendations of Staff to be met regarding design detail for
the project.
Marhula asked if the cul-de-sac had been designed to City
specifications. Staff responded that it had.
Chairman Bearman asked for questions and comments from members of
the audience.
Bill Michaelson, 16167 Whittington Walk, stated concern for the
drainage of the site and how it would affect the lots to the north.
Staff responded that the detail of the storm sewer would be reviewed
and dealt with by the Engineering Department before the Council
review.
Anita Gelderhaus, 16855 North Manor Road, stated that she, too, was
experiencing storm water problems and asked that Staff review this
prior to final action on the project.
Curtis Knutson, 6511 Undestad, stated that even though his lot was
higher in elevation than the project proposed, he was also
experiencing water problems in his area.
Donna Healen, 16795 Whittington Walk, asked if there ever became a
point with a project where the City would state that it would not be
feasible due to the costs involved. She stated that the reason for
her question was that her neighborhood, Chatham Woods, had been
assessed much more than the average amount due to the public
improvements projects for their area. She questioned whether this
particular storm sewer project would be assessed against lots in her
neighborhood. Chairman Bearman stated that this would be a decision
for Council in the future, but that the developer would be
responsible for the work to be done which would be required as a
result of development of the project parcel.
Bob Borosh, 6470 Undestad, asked who would be responsible for any
mistakes made or problems caused as a result of this development.
Staff responded that it would have to be determined by attorneys at
the time of the situation.
Bob Lund, 6501 W. 168th Avenue, questioned whether the storm sewer
for this project would affect his property. He stated that his
property was wet at this time.
Dick Settingson, 16752 Whittington Walk, expresed concern for the
storm sewer situation, also. He asked if there would be more water
flowing through the area than currently. He stated that he felt the
density of this project was greater than the Chatham Woods area and
questioned whether it would affect his property values. He asked
Mr. Nelson if covenants and restrictions would be available for
review by the public in the future. Mr. Nelson stated that none
were proposed.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 6, 1983
• Hallett questioned whether a walkway system had been considered for
this project. Staff responded that the streets were of a low
traffic character. In addition, trails were, or would be, in
existence leading to the area parks; therefore, no trails were
considered for this small site. Staff stated that a sidewalk may be
appropriate along the street.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request for zoning from Rural to R1-
13.5 for Rembrandt Ridge Estates by Neil A. Lewis, based on plans
and written materials dated May 26, 1983, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report of June 3, 1983, and with the
addition of the following condition #lg: Staff review the need for
a sidewalk along the W. 168th Avenue street frontage.
• In discussion, the Commission stated concern for the number of storm
water drainage problems mentioned by surrounding residents and asked
that the City Engineering, Department be prepared to answer the
questions raised at the Planning Commission at the hearing before
the Council.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request for preliminary plat of 10.4
acres for 19 single family residential lots for Rembrandt Ridge
Estates by Neil A. Lewis, based on plans and written materials dated
May 26, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
of June 3, 1983, with the addition of condition #lg: Staff review
the need for a sidewalk along the W. 168th Street frontage.
Motion carried--6-0-0
D. HIGH TRAIL ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, by Countryside Investments,
Inc. Request for Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and
Preliminary Plat of 10 acres for 25 single family detached
lots. Location: 6451 Duck Lake Road. A public hearing.
• Lloyd Erickson, RCM, engineer for the proponent, reviewed the
request with the Commission. He stated that there were 95 trees,
six inches in diameter, or larger, on the site, which the proponent
would attempt to save during construction. Mr. Erickson stated that
a ,neighborhood meeting had been held prior to the Commission meeting
Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 6, 1983
where surrounding residents had been asked to expresss concerns
regarding the project.
Planner Enger reviewed the Staff Report of June 3, 1983 with the
Commission, pointing out the areas of concern. The storm water pond
was shown as encroaching upon Lots 7, 8, and 9 in the back yards,
leaving little usable space for the future residents of these lots.
Also, both ponds planned for the project required better access and
better location of the connecting swale for purposes of future
maintenance of them once deeded to the City. Planner Enger stated
that other matters of concern included the fact that eight of the
proposed lots abutted four existing lots along the eastern border of
the project, and that trees would be lost with the road, as designed
in the current location.
Chairman Bearman asked whether the street patterns had been designed
to avoid the loss of trees. He stated that if this was done, the
few trees lost would not be significant and would likely make it
possible to avoid the need for variances as requested on the lots.
Chairman Bearman asked if one lot could be dropped from the
northeast corner of the project. Mr. Erickson stated that the
proponent agreed that this could be done. He pointed out that the
existing trees in this area were dense and would act as an effective
physical buffer between the two properties.
Marhula expressed concern that the grading plan indicated little
flexibility in terms of types of homes which could be built on the
sites. He stated that he felt the proponent should take this into
consideration.
Dawn Howard, 6430 Undestad, expressed concern for the density of
lots which would be abutting her lot adjacent to the northeast
corner of the project.
Joanne Baden, 6540 N. Coachlight Manor, asked how many of the trees
in the northeast corner of the property were Elms. She expressed
concern that while the developer may state that the trees will
remain, once the developer was gone and new homeowners were in
place, there was no guarantee that the trees would not be removed.
Bob Borosh, 6470 Undestad, stated that he was opposed to the
proposed encroachment on the pond area.
Sue Paul, 6529 Countryside, asked how the site grading and
development would affect the natural features of the site and the
surrounding area, particularly the pond. Mr. Erickson stated that
the amount of standing water in the area would actually be reduced
because a portion of the storm water would be piped underground.
• Other than that, he stated that he did not feel the natural features
of the site would be adversely affected by the development.
Staff pointed out that the City was in the process of a storm water
drainage project along Duck Lake Road at this time, which would
Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 6, 1983
alleviate some of the storm water problems in the vicinity.
Gartner asked where the storm water from this project would be
directed. Staff responded that the water would be directed to
Purgatory Creek, and the various ponding areas in the north creek
area. Planner Enger stated that it was a requirement of the
Watershed District that there be upland storage areas for storm
water.
Katherine Stengum, property owner to the north of the project,
stated that she was concerned about the proposed location of the
road to be extended through her property at some time in the future
when her land and that of her neighbors would be developed. She
stated that she felt it would be better to redesign the road as
there was an existing grade change of 30-40 ft. a short distance
from the proposed location of the road extension, which would make
it impractical for future use.
Marhula stated that he felt there were many areas of concern
remaining on this project. He stated that there were concerns
regarding 1) the transition to the lots to the east in Coachlight
Manor; 2) grading plans reflecting limitation to the types of houses
which could be built on the lots; 3) access to the property to the
north; 4) the excessive length of the cul-de-sac within the project;
5) concern about maintenance of the roads and ponds on-site; 6)
trees to be conserved; and 7) storm water drainage for the site. He
stated that he felt it was the consensus of the Commission that the
project should be revised in these areas prior to a recommendation.
The other members of the Commission concurred.
Hallett questioned what the policy was for requiring a development
plan for a project reflecting varying housing types possible for " a
project. Staff responded that this was generally done with the R1-
9.5 projects only.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to continue the
public hearing on this project to the June 27, 1983, meeting to
allow proponent to address the concerns listed by the Commission,
surrounding property owners, and Staff.
Motion carried--6-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Proposed Ordinance for Commercial Stables
Zoning Administrator, Jean Johnson, presented the proposed
Commercial Stables Code for Commission review. She stated that the
• revisions previously discussed by the Commission had been added into
the Code and that the City Attorney had reviewed the request and
made recommendations.
Planning Commission Minutes 10 June 6, 1983
• Chairman Bearman stated that he was concerned with the provision
requiring a 50 ft. perimeter of unusable property when adjacent to
other subdivisions.
The Commission concurred that Subdivision 3, sections C and D should
be amended to reflect this change.
MOTION•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the
City Council adoption of the proposed Code Amendment to allow
Commercial Stables, as amended, within Eden Prairie under controlled
conditions.
Motion carried--5-1-0 (Torjesen against)
Torjesen stated he was against as he felt that creation of such Code
requirements was over-regulation of the use within the City.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Proposed Ordinance for Signage for Churches, Schools, and
Other Public Buildings
. Zoning Administrator, Jean Johnson, presented the proposed Code
amendment regulating signage for churches, schools, and other public
buildings within the community. She reviewed a letter received from
Fred Hoisington, representing one of the City churches, regarding
the proposed amendment.
Mr. Hoisington was present and stated that he felt the City should
allow for flexibility in the type of signage allowed for such uses
due to the variety of uses which currently were taking place and the
variety of needs of such uses.
The Commission discussed allowing signage for each street frontage
adjacent to such uses.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the
City Council adoption of the proposed Code Amendment for signage for
churches, schools, and other public buildings as presented, with
amendments as discussed.
Motion carried--6-0-0
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner.
Planning Commission Minutes 11 June 6, 1983
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 11 :55 p.m,.
Respectfully submitted,
e� (?-h�
Kate Karnas
Planning Secretary