Planning Commission - 07/11/1983 AGENDA
W2den Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, July 11, 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. RIDGEWOOD WEST 2ND/WESTOVER, by Centex Corporation. Request
for Planned Unit Development District Review for Medium
Density clustered single family residential development,
Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 for a medium
density land use, and Preliminary Plat of 18.39 acres for 83
lots. Location: Knollwood Drive, South of Cumberland Road.
A public hearing.
B. CRC, by Ryan Construction. Request for Zoning District
change from Rural to Office for a 21,000 sq. ft. building,
and Preliminary Plat of 1.5 acres for one lot for an office
land use. Location: City West Parkway. A public hearing.
C. MENARD'S. Request for Zoning from Rural to Commercial
Regional Service and Preliminary Plat of 1.6 acres for a
retail shopping center. Location: East of existing
Menard's building, adjacent to Plaza Drive. A public
hearing.
D. MINNESOTA MINI-STORAGE, by Tex-sota. Request for Zoning
from Rural to General Industrial and Preliminary Plat of 2.2
acres for an office/warehouse use to include two storage
buildings and a recreation vehicle parking area. A public
hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
Oft VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, July 11, 1983
City Hall , 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Stan Johannes,
Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Hallett
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 Torjesen, seconded by Marhula, to approve the
agenda as submitted.
Motion carried--6-0-0
i II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Torjesen to approve the
minutes of the June 27, 1983, Planning Commission meeting with the
following amendments:
Page 6, paragraph 5, under Flying Cloud Business Center, the oak
tree would not be saved.
Page 6, paragraph 8, under Flying Cloud Business Center, add the
following to comments by Torjesen: "Torjesen stated that he felt
the scale of this project was much more appropriate than the project
reviewed at the previous meeting on the other side of Highway #169.
Planner Enger stated that the two projects were proposed in
differing zoning districts with differing allowable square footages
and floor area ratios."
Page 9, paragraph 2, second sentence, amended to read: "The
Commission was split as to whether or not both types of screening
would be necessary for adequate screening of the area. However,
screening used was to be representative of the existing landscaping
and screening of the Center."
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 11 , 1983
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. RIDGEWOOD WEST 2ND/WESTOVER, by Centex Corporation. Request
for Planned Unit Development District Review for Medium
Density clustered single family residential development,
Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 for a medium
density land use, and Preliminary Plat of 18.39 acres for 83
lots. Location: Knollwood Drive, South of Cumberland Road.
A public hearing.
Tim Eller, Centex, reviewed the proposal with the Commission,
pointing out the features of the site and how the lot configurations
were designed to work within the site constraints. Mr. Eller also
noted the location of the totlot and the scenic easement along
Purgatory Creek, which would be dedicated to the City.
Regarding the proposed landscaping, Mr. Eller stated that the trees
proposed within the courtyard areas would be 3-4 inch caliper
deciduous and 10-15 foot high evergreens. Privacy fencing was also
to be placed at the periphery of the yards of each courtyard unit.
• Chairman Bearman asked if additional trees would be preferable to
privacy fencing. Mr. Eller stated that the type of fencing that was
used in the previous phase had been successful, and that, in terms
of price, the two types of methods for creating privacy were nearly
equal. He added that the fencing to be placed on each lot as shown
in the plans would be maintained and controlled by the homeowners'
association.
Planner Enger stated that the plans included a great deal of
architectural control, which appeared to be one of the reasons for
success of the first phase. He pointed out that one of the concerns
in the previous phase was that of adequate parking within the
development. This plan showed driveways wide enough for double car
garages, with enough room for two cars to park outside of the
garage. In addition, all streets were designed to be 32 ft. in
width, an additional four feet beyond the standard 28 ft. of normal
residential single family subdivisions. Parking of cars would be
allowed along one side of the streets for overflow purposes.
Sidewalks were proposed along all street frontages as well.
Planner Enger stated that the homes were not all courtyard homes,
but that future buyers had the opportunity to purchase courtyard
lots, lots along the looped streets, average sized single family
lots, and small sized single family lots. The types of lots
available in the development suited a variety of needs for a variety
of families in the market place.
Mr. Eller stated that there were several styles of homes available
with two elevations each. No two similar elevations would be
Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 11, 1983
allowed within one ,
court and nor would either of the two variations
courtyard,
of elevations of any one unit type be allowed to be next to each
other. In addition, there were six siding colors available, with
15-16 types of trim for each unit.
Torjesen asked if the adjacent and surrounding road system was
adequate to handle the traffic projected from this development. Mr.
Eller responded that Cumberland had been built to Mitchell Road with
the first phase. There had been concern about Anderson Lakes
Parkway with the first phase, as well . Approximately 300 ft.
existed between Anderson Lake Parkway as it currently existed to
access this property. It would have to be built across the
adjacent owner's property.
Torjesen questioned whether Staff was comfortable with the road
network in terms of capacity, given the volume of traffic to be
generated from this residential development. Staff responded that
study had shown that the road network was adequate to service the
first phase and this phase of the development. Additional phases
would not be allowed until the connection of Anderson Lakes Parkway
was completed. Staff stated that the connection was intended to be
under construction within the next couple of years, based on City
plans.
Torjesen inquired as to the exact nature of the variances requested
for the project. Staff responded that the variances were requested
for the courtyard lots and looped road lots with respect to
setbacks, lots sizes, etc. Mr. Dick Krier, Westwood Planning &
Engineering, representing proponent, stated that all lots on public
road frontages could meet the minimum ordinance requirements if the
Commission required it.
Torjesen questioned the justification for the variances. Mr. Eller
stated that the Planned Unit Development Concept for this entire
project had been adopted as presented with this project phase. He
pointed out that the two changes to the approved concept plan
included the change from cul-de-sacs to looped configurations for
two roads and the fact that two lots "shifted" phases. Torjesen
stated that he felt that was adequate justification for the
variances requested.
Johannes asked if there had been a change from the total number of
units approved originally with the Planned Unit Development Concept.
Mr. Eller responded that two units had "shifted" phases. This phase
picked up two units, while a subsequent phase would have two less
units due to alignments necessitated by soils conditions. The net
total was the same, however.
Torjesen asked if the assumption was made that this was an approved
• Planned Unit Development whether the underlying zoning of R1-9.5 was
appropriate. Staff responded that the unit type was detached single
family residential, not attached, which would be represented by
single family residential zoning districts.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 11, 1983
• Johannes inquired whether the same proportion of trees would be used
in landscaping the lots on the private looped roads as was proposed
for the courtyard lots. Mr. Eller stated that the same proportion
would be used.
Mr. Eller pointed out that the total amounts of fencing and
shrubbery shown at the model homes location was not representative
of everything provided by the association for the development.
Additional fencing and shrubbery were added at the model location to
provide visual examples of what people could do with their homes,
should they so choose. However, the landscaping and fencing shown
on the plans was to be installed in the locations shown.
Johannes inquired as to the timing of the upgrading of Mitchell
Road. Staff responded "that Council had directed that a study be
prepared on the feasibility of extension of the road. Upon
completion of the feasibility study, more detailed information would
be available as to the timing of the upgrading of the road.
Chairman Bearman asked if the road system within the project would
be connected to Anderson Lakes Parkway when it was completed. Staff
stated that it was a requirement of the Planned Unit Development for
this project that prior to construction of the next, or third,
phase, the roads would be connected to Anderson Lakes Parkway.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of
the audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck,to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Centex Corporation for
Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning from R1-13.5 to
R1-9.5 for clustered single family residential development, based on
written materials and plans dated July 1, 1983, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 8, 1983, with the
addition of condition #10 to read: "Lots along the east side of the
public street frontage of Knollwood Drive shall meet all
requirements of the R1-9.5 zoning district, if they are not part of
a courtyard or looped street lot configuration."
MOTION TO AMEND was made by Johannes, seconded by Torjesen, to
delete condition #10.
In discussion of the amendment Torjesen stated that he felt it
should be clear that this developer had justified the variances
requested for the lots within this project. He stated that he felt
Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 11, 1983
it was important that any developer be able to do so before the City
could grant variances for any reason.
Motion to Amend carried--4-1-1 (Gartner against; Marhula abstained)
The Commission then voted on the main motion, as amended.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Centex Corporation for
Preliminary Plat of 18.39 acre for 83 lots for medium density
residential land use, based on written materials and plans dated
July 1, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated July 8, 1983.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
B. CRC, by Ryan Construction. Request for Zoning District
change from Rural to Office for a 21,000 sq. ft. building,
and Preliminary Plat of 1.5 acres for one lot for an office
land use. Location: City West Parkway. A public hearing.
• Jerry Junkman, Ryan Construction, presented and reviewed the request
for CRC, Creative Resource Center, for a 21,000 sq. ft. building in
the City West Planned Unit Development area. Mr. Junkman stated
that the condition of the July 8, 1983, Staff Report requesting
realignment of the west entrance would be complied with by the
developer. He added that the developers would, however, like to
maintain a "right-in/right-out" entrance at the east end of the
property, rather than eliminating that entrance as suggested in the
Staff Report.
Staff reviewed the other conditions of the Staff Report of July 8,
1983, recommending approval of the project.
Chairman Bearman questioned how many parking spaces would be
required for the project if it were all office. Staff responded
that an additional 36 spaces would be required; however, the studio
space was not counted as office space for parking purposes as it
would not be occupied in the same manner as the planned office space
within the building. Staff added that the City had control over
issuance of an occupancy permit for the structure at all times. If
the building were to be sold, it would likely only be sold to a
future occupant needing a studio; if not, the City would not allow
it to be occupied by a user which would not fit. Mr. Scott Lundeby,
CRC, stated that this building was intended to be their headquarters
• for the foreseeable future.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 11, 1983
Johannes asked, in terms in the exterior finish, whether the block
would be carried through around the entire building. Mr. Junkman
responded that it would.
Johannes asked about the metal stairway located at the rear of the
building. Mr. Junkman responded that the stairway was located there
to provide access from the upper level to the pond area at the rear
of the building. Johannes asked Staff if there were any
requirements regarding metal stairways in the City Code. Staff
responded that there were not.
Torjesen questioned what had been approved for this site within the
original City West Planned Unit Development. Staff responded that
office use was approved for this site, but that it was not required
to be residential in character. Also, square footage of the office
building was limited. This site complied with the approved square
footage requirements.
Chairman Bearman asked if the rooftop mechanical would be screened
as part of this building design. Mr. Junkman stated that the final
detail of the rooftop mechanical had not yet been determined.
Planner Enger stated that since a portion of the building was
designed with the exterior finish of cedar, it was expected that the
screening material for the rooftop mechanical unit(s) would be cedar
ias well, in order to provide screening of an architecturally
integral nature.
Torjesen stated that he recalled CRC had been part of another
proposal within the Bryant Lake Office Tech Center and asked if
proponents had decided to change their location due to the types of
neighboring uses which had been approved, i.e. high tech
office/industrial uses. Mr. Lundeby responded that the site of the
current proposal was the site they originally wanted for their
structure, especially due to the background land features, such as
the pond. It became more feasible to return to their original
choice of a site; therefore, they would not be locating in the
Bryant Lake Office Tech Center.
Torjesen stated that he did felt that the plan approved for the City
West Business Center by the Council and the Planning Commission was
the one in which the buildings were required to be residential in
character; therefore, he was not in favor of this proposal since it
was not, in his opinion, residential in character.
Marhula noted an unusually high grade differential in the parking
lot area. Mr. Scott Anderson, ADI, owners of the property, stated
that this would be corrected to spread the grade across the site
more evenly.
• MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to close the public
hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 11, 1983
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of CRC/Ryan Construction for
Zoning District change from Rural to Office for a 21,000 sq. ft.
office building, based on written materials and plans dated June 13,
1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
July 8, 1983.
Motion carried--5-1-0 (Torjesen against)
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner,to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of CRC/Ryan Construction for
Preliminary Plat of 1.5 acres for a 21,000 sq. ft. office building,
based on written materials and plans dated June 13, 1983, and
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 8,
1983.
Motion carried--5-1-0 (Torjesen against)
• C. MENARD'S. Request for Zoning from Rural to Commercial
Regional Service and Preliminary Plat of 1.6 acres for a
retail shopping center. Location: East of existing
Menard's building, adjacent to Plaza Drive. A public
hearing.
Mary Prochaska, Menard's, presented the request to the Planning
Commission. He stated that the shopping center would be similar to
others which Menard's had built in other communities.
Staff reviewed recommendations of the Staff Report of July 8, 1983,
regarding the request.
Johannes stated that he felt the City had taken great care, along
with the developer, to make certain that the shopping center on the
east side of Plaza Drive would be an asset to the community in terms
of exterior appearance, in particular. He stated that he felt this
project did not meet the standards of the project east of Plaza
Drive, but that it could with amendment to the site plan and
landscaping plan.
Marhula asked Staff if there were any problems anticipated with
respect to the number of parking spaces provided on the site. Staff
stated that none were anticipated. Marhula added that he felt the
treatment of this proposal 's parking lot, in terms of landscaping,
• as well as treatment of the structure, should be similar to the
project east of Plaza Drive, i.e. the landscaped parking islands.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt the back of the building, where
trucks would be unloading, could be treated differently, as well .
Planning Commission Minutes 8 July 11, 1983
• He asked Mr. Prochaska if the building tenants would require outside
storage like the current Menard's building. Mr. Prochaska stated
that none of them would. Chairman Bearman also questioned what the
sight lines would be like from Plaza Drive and Highway 5 from the
project. In particular, he expressed concern for sight lines from
the residential neighborhood existing to the north, Topview.
It was suggested that the building could be in an "L" shape at the
north to screen the truck area. Mr. Prochaska stated that "L"
shaped centers would not work in this small area. Johannes
suggested that it could be simply an extension of a wall to screen
the truck area, rather than an extension of the entire building,
more to create an effect.
Torjesen stated that he was concerned for any use that would be
located to the north of the proposed mall . He asked Mr. Prochaska
if there were plans available indicating the use to the north. Mr.
Prochaska stated that there were none at this time.
Johannes stated that, while he felt the use for the site was
appropriate given the size and shape of the property, he, too, was
concerned for the affects of this project, as proposed, on the
surrounding area, since it was such a visible site within the
community.
• Chairman Bearman asked for questions and comments from members of
the audience. There were none.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Marhula, to continue the
public hearing to allow proponent to revise the plans responsive to
concerns as discussed by the Commission.
Johannes stated that he felt the landscaping was a key element to be
considered prior to return to the Commission. He stated that he
felt the plans needed to be considered with a sense of what has
happened and what will be happening in the surrounding area. He
suggested that plans be presented for the land to the north and that
sight lines be considered from the north, east, and south, in
particular.
Marhula stated that he felt the proponent should consider a signage
plan, with emphasis on continuity and consistency for whatever uses
would eventually exist in the area.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt a key element would be the
handling of the truck area to screen it in the most effective manner
possible.
. Torjesen reiterated concern for the plans for the land to the north
in order that it be compatible with the surrounding uses.
Johannes also expressed concern for the pedestrian system in the
Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 11, 1983
• area and suggested that proponent consider better access for the
pedestrians, as well as adequate lighting for the pedestrian system.
Motion carried--6-0-0
D. MINNESOTA MINI-STORAGE, by Tex-sota. Request for Zoning
from Rural to General Industrial and Preliminary Plat of 2.2
acres for an office/warehouse use to include two storage
buildings and a recreation vehicle parking area. A public
hearing.
Mr. Bruce Hubbard, Tex-sota, presented the request for Commission
review. He explained the integral functions of the site with the
surrounding properties and uses.
Chairman Bearman expressed concern for the sight lines from the
existing and future sites of the outdoor storage areas "proposed for
this project. He stated that he felt the site's outdoor storage
would be visible from many locations, as the site was lower in
elevation than the majority of the surrounding area. Chairman
Bearman asked proponent if any type of camouflage had been
considered to screen the outdoor storage area from the top.
Torjesen stated that he felt the use would fill a need in the
• community for storage of recreational vehicles. However, he stated
that he did not feel this site was appropriate as it could not be
properly screened. Torjesen asked if the small strip of land
between the existing restaurant and the project site could be added
to the site to aid in screening and elimination of the variances
needed. Mr. Hubbard responded that the strip of land was there for
purposes of providing access to the other lots within the area.
Also, per covenants on the land, it could not be sold for other than
access purposes.
Johannes asked if the site could be used for another use. Staff
responded that the site would be available for office/warehouse
uses. Johannes also asked if Highway 169 was visible from the site.
Staff responded that it was not.
Chairman Bearman asked for questions and comments from members of
the audience.
Mr. Tom Thorfinson, representing the Kabuki Restaurant, stated that
the two major concerns of the restaurant were screening of the use
from the restaurant and drainage of the parking area.
Mr. Bill Halvorstad, Eden Inn, asked what the square footage of the
proposed office/warehouse building would be. Proponent responded
that it would be 6,500 sq. ft. Mr. Halvorstad stated that he would
prefer to see the plans for the entire area and how it would affect
the existing land uses in the vicinity.
Planning Commission Minutes 10 July 11 , 1983
MOTION 1 •
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to close the
public hearing.
MOTION 2•
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to
the City Council denial of the request of Tex-sota for zoning from
Rural to General Industrial and preliminary platting of 2.2 acres
for an office/warehouse use to include two storage buildings and a
recreation vehicle parking area, based on the use being
inappropriate with the potential for adversely impacting adjacent
and surrounding land uses.
Torjesen stated that the motion was directed at the storage use
portions of the site, but that the motion was not intended to
prejudice the proposed use along Flying Cloud Drive of the 6,500 sq.
ft. office/warehouse building. The other Commission members
concurred.
The Commission then voted on the main motion.
• Motion carried--6-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen.
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 11 :25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate Karnas
0 Planning Secretary