Planning Commission - 07/25/1983 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, July 25, 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. 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 continued
public hearing.
B. E. A. SWEEN. Request for Zoning District Amendment of 9.1
acres for a corporate office building. Location: South of
State Highway #5 at Fuller Road. A public meeting.
C. TIMBER CREEK, by B-T Land Company. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment, Planned Unit Development
District Review, with variances, Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 for 162 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 158 single family detached lots. Location: County
Road #4 and Duck Lake Trail. A public hearing.
D. TIMBER BAY MANOR HOMES, by Richard Miller Homes, Inc.
Request for Preliminary Plat of 14.8 acres into eight (8)
lots. Location: Timber Lakes Drive and County Road A. A
public hearing.
E. WILLIAM & CLAUDIA BEARMAN. Request for Steep Slope Grading
Review, Pursuant to Section 11 .60 of the City Code.
Location: South of County Road #1, west of County Road #4.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
• EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, July ,25, 1983
City Hall , 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Marhula
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 Gartner, to approve the
agenda as presented.
Motion carried--6-0-0
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to adopt the
minutes of the July 11, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as
presented.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Hallett abstained)
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. 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 continued
public hearing.
Mary Prochaska, Menard's, reviewed the revised elevations,
preliminary plat, and landscape plan for the project based on
changes requested by the Planning Commission at the meeting of July
11, 1983, at which time this item had been continued.
Mr. Prochaska pointed out that the lighting was designed to be the
Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 25, 1983
same as that for the use on the east side of Plaza Drive, and that
planters would be installed along the front of the building.
Johannes asked why all store frontages were not treated in a similar
fashion with the large glass windows. Mr. Prochaska responded that
the smaller stores preferred to have large windows, whereas, larger
stores did not require the display space provided by such a feature.
Torjesen asked if the site had been designed to provide for adequate
drainage of the site. Mr. Prochaska stated that it had.
Regarding the roof line, Torjesen asked if the roof line wrapped
around to the rear of the building after it turned the corner to the
northeast. Mr. Prochaska stated that it did not.
Johannes asked if there was any separation planned between the
existing and proposed parking lots, and, further, if cross easements
would be required. Mr. Prochaska stated that the land was under one
ownership, therefore easements would not be necessary. He added
that this was also a reason for continuity of the parking lots and
that they would adjoin each other.
Torjesen inquired about the access to Outlot B to the southeast of
this site. Staff stated that discussions had been held regarding
• the best access situation for this site. It was pointed out that
the direct access to Outlot B would not be on a curve. If it was,
it would create a dangerous situation for anyone entering or leaving
the site. Torjesen asked if the off-set of the driveways accessing
Plaza Drive would cause a problem. Planner Enger stated that, while
it would be preferable to have the driveways directly across from
each other, the best access for each lot was a greater priority in
this case. Therefore, the driveways were proposed at an off-set.
Torjesen asked if there would be a median in Plaza Drive. Staff
responded that there would not. Torjesen asked what the distance
between the two driveways would be. Staff responded that it would
be approximately 150 ft., adding that further consideration would be
given to the matter.
Hallett asked if steps would be necessary to access the walkway in
front of the site. Staff stated that they would not.
Chairman Bearman stated that, at the previous meeting, there had
been discussion regarding signage of the site. He asked the
proponent if it was their intent to have signs for each use with
equal dimensions in terms of shapes of letters, sign width and
length, color, etc. Mr. Prochaska stated that this would not
necessarily be the case.
Chairman Bearman stated that, in his opinion, equal dimensions,
color, etc., would add to the continuity of the site.
Johannes asked what the signage plan was on the east side of Plaza
Drive. Staff responded that there would be only one free-standing
Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 25, 1983
• sign for that use, with no individual signs for the individual
tenants. However, this was part of a Planned Unit Development for
which this specific sign plan was requested by the developer.
Torjesen asked if there had been a signage plan submitted with the
existing portion of the Menard's shopping center. Staff responded
that the project was not a Planned Unit Development in the past, nor
had a signage plan been submitted. Signage was permitted in that
development according to City Code.
Torjesen expressed concern for the lack of information regarding
potential development on the surrounding lands in terms of how this
development would affect those future uses. He suggested that, as
far as signage, perhaps the City would consider an overall signage
plan for this entire quadrant of the City as had been done for the
Major Center Area.
Gartner stated that she felt individual signs aided in
identification of various uses, but that she agreed that perhaps
dimensional controls would be appropriate for this project.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of
the audience. There were none.
. 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 Johannes, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Menard's for Zoning from
Rural to Commercial Regional Service for a retail shopping center,
based on plans dated March 18, June 8, and June 9, 1983, the revised
plans of July 19, 20, and 22, 1983, and the letter from proponent
dated July 23, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated July 8, 1983, and including the following items:
a. A four-foot berm along Plaza Drive, with a six-foot wall
behind the berm with the berm having additional plantings in
order to screen the loading area.
b. Additional landscaping along Plaza Drive to match the
landscape theme planned along the east side of Plaza Drive.
C. Grading to an 869 elevation along the north end of the
property line in order to have a higher area to landscape.
d. Three access points be allowed to the property, with one
access allowed to Outlot A.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 25, 1983
•
e. Similar lighting fixtures to be used as those proposed on
the site located on the east side of Plaza Drive at the
entrances to Plaza Drive.
f. Extension of the sidewalk to the berm along Plaza Drive.
g. Six-foot long planters be located along the entire length -of
the front of the structure, with breaks at the entrances to
the shops.
h. Roof lines shall be "jogged" to the maximum amount possible
to break up the mass of the building.
i. Sight lines provided by proponent shall be reviewed for
accuracy and corrected, if necessary, prior to Council
review.
j. Signage for the site shall conform to the City Code.
Motion carried=-6-0-0
MOTION 3•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to
. the City Council approval of the request of Menard's for Preliminary
Plat of 1.6 acres for a retail shopping center, based on plans dated
March 18, June 8, and June 9, 1983, revised plans dated July 19, 20,
and 22, 1983, and the letter from proponent dated July 23, 1983,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 8,
1983.
Motion carried--6-0-0
B. E. A. SWEEN. Request for Zoning District Amendment of 9.1
acres for a corporate office building. Location: South of
State Highway #5 at Fuller Road. A public meeting.
Mr. Bill Anderson, architect for E. A. Sween, reviewed the site
features and proposed development with the Commission. It was
pointed out that the previous expansion plans for the company, which
received City approval, had been abandoned due to economic
conditions and a differing direction for company growth than had
been anticipated. At this time, proponents were suggesting an
amended plan to include a corporate office building only.
The pond at the northwest corner of the site would remain for
purposes of screening the parking. Berms would be 8-10 ft. in
height and existing trees would remain or be transplanted. New
plant materials would be added, also.
Planner Enger stated that there were two issues of importance in
1979 which still involved the current proposal : 1) Proponent had
been warehousing a considerable amount of product in refrigeration
trucks in the parking lot of the building. The I-2 Park zoning
district specifically did not allow outdoor storage. Also, there
Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 25, 1983
• was need to provide the required screening of the parking area; and,
2) Secondary access to the site was still a major consideration,
especially as related to the Fuller Road/Highway #5 intersection.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) had recently been
studying the upgrading of Highway #5. Current plans indicated a
desire on their part to eliminate as many direct access points to
Highway #5 as possible. Frontage roads were being planned, instead
of direct access to the highway.
Planner Enger stated that E. A. Sween had been storing products in
the refrigeration trucks in this manner for six years. He pointed
out that this was not allowed in this zoning district and would have
to be terminated.'
Hallett questioned whether a proposal had been made for use of the
southeast intersection of County Road #4 and Highway #5. Planner
Enger responded that Burger King would be presenting their proposal
for the site in the near future.
Gartner asked proponent what their opinion was of the use of their
private access by the other two parties, Burger King and Birchwood
Labs.
• Tom Sween stated concern for the future development of the southeast
corner of County Road #4 and Highway #5 as a Burger King site. He
pointed out that the addition of traffic at this site would possibly
introduce more traffic to their site. E. A. Sween was currently,
and had been in the past, experiencing difficulties with vandalism.
Mr. Sween stated that their company would consider it necessary to
install some sort of security device at the entrance to their
property from this access point.
Torjesen questioned the outdoor storage of products in refrigeration
trucks. Mr. Sween stated that they were not storing products
outdoors, but were leaving trucks ready for pick up in the parking
lot until they could be on the road. He stated that additional
freezer space would not be a solution. The trailers were made ready
for pick up to save time of the truck drivers. Planner Enger stated
that E. A. Sween had previously stated that this would be a
temporary situation.
Torjesen asked what the difference between storage and parking would
be in a situation like this. He stated that he felt there would not
be a problem if the trailers were in the lot for a short period of
time.
Mr. Sween stated that he would not be able to build the addition to
their current structure if the zoning district was to be changed as
• it would increase the setback to 75 feet.
Johannes asked if the loading area could adequately screened from
County Road #4 and Highway #5. Staff responded that additional
plant material may be necessary to do so, but that it could be
Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 25, 1983
• worked out.
Gartner stated that she was in favor of the plan, but that she
disagreed that I-Gen zoning was necessary for the site.
Johannes stated that he felt it would be preferrable to allow the
private parties to work out the access situation for the private
road at County Road #4. If the private parties would not be able to
resolve the situation, the City could initiate condemnation
proceedings.
Hallett stated that he was pleased to see the ponding area at the
northwest corner of the site saved.
Mr. Tim Keane, Larkin, Hoffman and Daly, representing Burger King,
stated that, on behalf of their client, they would prefer to see the
matter of access remain a private one at this time. He stated that
he felt all details could be worked out amicably. Mr. Sween stated
that he, too, would prefer the matter be worked out privately.
Mr. Dick Putnam, Tandem Corporation, representing Birchwood Labs,
stated that they, as property owners to the south, had several
concerns: 1) The outside storage of the trailers had become a
nuisance to Birchwood Labs. The refrigeration trucks were noisy and
appeared to be parked on the site for long periods of time. It was
suggested that the trucks be moved further north within the parking
lot; 2) Regarding drainage, Mr. Putnam stated that Birchwood Labs
currently had drainage of their site taking place across the E. A.
Sween parking lot and toward the pond. He expressed concern that
this be maintained or that an acceptable alternative be developed.
Pat Menton, 7994 Timber Lakes Road expressed concern regarding the
running trail in the area. She stated that she felt the additional
traffic would represent a clear threat to the bikers and walkers
along this trail. She suggested that at least the stop signs for
this road be established at a location behind the running trail.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of E. A. Sween for Zoning
District Amendment of 9.1 acres for a corporate office building,
based on plans dated June 14, 1983, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated July 22, 1983, with #la of the Staff
recommendation to read "Meet with the City Engineering Department,
MNDOT, and all affected land owners regarding access to the property
to resolve the access situation to all affected properties," and
with the addition of #ld to read: "Screening shall be incorporated
on the south end of the property providing a visual buffer of the
• parking and loading area from Birchwood Labs to the south."
Torjesen stated that he felt there were too many loose ends at the
time with regard to access, MNDOT requirements, answers regarding
land use, and the zoning of the site based on the uses taking place.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 25, 1983
•
Gartner stated that she felt it was essential that the matter of
access be handled prior to Council review and that the three
properties have one access to County Road #4. If it was not
resolved, she did not feel the proposal should be presented to
Council.
Chairman Bearman stated that he, too, felt the matter of the access
from County Road #4 should be worked out prior to Council review.
Motion carried--4-2-0 (Chairman Bearman and Torjesen against)
Chairman Bearman stated that he was against as he felt the matters
of the outdoor storage and the road access were not resolved at this
time.
(Commissioner Schuck left the meeting.)
C. TIMBER CREEK, by B-T Land Company. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment, Planned Unit Development
District Review, with variances, Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 for 162 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 158 single family detached lots. Location: County
Road #4 and Duck Lake Trail . A public hearing.
Mr. Jack Lynch, BRW, proponent's engineer, stated that the property
essentially had been changed from a mixed residential use to
strictly a single family residential use for the property.
Previously proposed were 76 single family lots and 116 townhouse
lots; currently proposed were 156 single family units for a net loss
of 36 units on the entire site. He reviewed the site features with
the Commission.
Mr. Rick Murray, B-T Land, stated that Phase I of the project would
include 54 acres, plus park land to be dedicated to the City and
Phase II would include 20 acres, plus park land to be dedicated to
the City.
Mr. Murray stated that, at this time, B-T Land would like to
withdraw all requested variances for the site and would propose a
site consisting of R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 lots all meeting or exceeding
City Code requirements.
Planner Enger stated that this would still be under the prescribed
2.5 units per acre for low density residential use per the
Comprehensive Plan designation for the property.
Mr. Murray stated that he did not feel it would be appropriate to
provide access to the park area of Timber Creek from the adjacent
development at a cost to his development. He also stated objection
to construction of Ashby Road, consisting of approximately 500 feet,
which was off the Timber Creek site. He stated that, while he
understood the reasons for the City connecting neighborhoods, he did
not feel it should be B-T Land's expense to do so off-site.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 July 25, 1983
Planner Enger stated that while he could agree with elimination of
the park access to the westerly subdivision, he did not know of any
options available to the City regarding connection of the Chatham
Woods neighborhood to this site.
Hallett stated that he felt it should be the expense of the City, in
this case, to connect the Timber Creek and Chatham Woods
neighborhoods.
Chairman Bearman asked if steep slope requirements were involved for
this site. Staff responded that the slopes were reviewed as part of
the overall Planned Unit Development process.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of
the audience. There were none.
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 Hallett, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of B-T Land for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment for Timber Creek, based on plans dated
June 13, 1983, written materials dated July 19, 1983, and subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 22, 1983, which
is amended as follows:
l.a. Delete the last eight words.
I .C. Submit a development plan to the Planning Department for
review and approval placing possible housing types on each
lot.
l.e. Eliminate.
l .i. Change "north" to "west."
l.j. Eliminate.
l .k. Eliminate.
1.1 . Change "construction of" to "grading for."
• l .n. Eliminate.
3. Eliminate as written and substitute: "Phase I shall
terminate at the second northerly cul-de-sac until the
looped road to Chatham Woods is completed for safety
Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 25, 1983
purposes.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of B-T Land for Planned Unit
Development District Amendment and Zoning District Change from Rural
to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 for 162 acres, for Timber Creek, based on
plans dated June 13, 1983, written materials dated July 19, 1983,
and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July
22, 1983, as amended.
Motion carried--4-1-0 (Chairman Bearman voted against)
Chairman Bearman stated he was against as he felt the road
connection to the west to connect neighborhoods should be resolved.
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of B-T Land for Preliminary
Plat of Timber Creek for 158 single family detached lots and
outlots, based on plans dated June 13, 1983, written materials dated
July 19, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated July 22, 1983, as amended.
Motion carried--4-1-0
D. TIMBER BAY MANOR HOMES, by Richard Miller Homes, Inc.
Request for Preliminary Plat of 14.8 acres into eight (8)
lots. Location: Timber Lakes Drive and County Road #4. A
public hearing.
Mr. Jim Carver, representing Richard Miller Homes, Inc., reviewed
the request with the Planning Commission, explaining the project in
greater detail.
Staff pointed out that variances would be necessary for the setbacks
between the buildings for the manor home units.
Pat Menton, 7994 Timber Lakes Drive, asked what the relationship
would be between the proposed development and the existing
development in terms of associations, etc. Mr. Mel Ford, Richard
Miller Homes, Inc., stated that a new and separate association would
be developed for this project.
• Rita Rove, 7988 Island Road, asked what the future would be for Lot
8 within the development. Staff responded that, with the exception
of Lot 8, there were no other restrictions of a zoning nature. Lot
8, however, would have to be designed with consideration for
Planning Commission Minutes 10 July 25, 1983
• shoreland and floodplain zoning regulations due to its proximity to
Mitchell Lake, and also due to the unusual shape of the lot with the
meandering shoreline.
Lloyd Schenke, 7908 South Bay Curve, stated that he was concerned
about the lack of transition shown between the single family lots
and the proposed multi-family lots.
Torjesen asked if this was an appropriate land use based on the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff stated that it was. Torjesen expressed
concern for the fact that the total development process would not be
reviewed at this time. He pointed out that the Commission was used
to dealing with unzoned, or Rural, property, not property which had
been previously zoned. Dealing only with the plat- seemed to jumping
into the middle of the planning process. Torjesen added that he
felt the developer had proceeded in good faith with the project.
Torjesen stated to the developer that he felt it would be in their
best interest to deal with the transition matter ,at this time. He
stated that he felt it would be in the best interests of the
existing residents, the developer, and the community to prepare a
transition between these uses which would be satisfactory to
everyone concerned.
Ms. Menton asked what the reason for a second access would be.
Staff stated that it was done for purposes of safety. She also
asked what the current plans were for the berm along the exterior of
the site. Mr. Carver stated that the landscape plan was not
finished yet, but would be shortly. She also asked about the
visibility of the homes from her area. Mr. Carver responded that
the rooftops would be visible, but nothing more.
Jerry Bowman, 7969 Island Road, asked if the landscape plan was
being developed for the proposed project only, or if the plan
encompassed a transition area between the existing single family and
the proposed multiple uses.
Hallett stated that he felt it would be important to see the
landscape plan for this project. He also stated that he was glad to
see that the developer was proposing a density of approximately 40%
less than what would be allowed for the site.
Torjesen said that normally, when a plan is reviewed by the City,
the City has the opportunity to review the plan overall with respect
to its impact on the surrounding area, particularly in the case of
existing surrounding uses. He stated that he felt that was missing
from this plan.
Planner Enger stated that the landscaping changed that would be
needed for this site would be quite significant in terms of the
surrounding land uses.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt the landscape plan and the
sight lines from the existing neighborhood would be significant for
Planning Commission Minutes 11 July 25, 1983
Planning Commission review.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to continue the
public hearing to the August 8, 1983, meeting with the developer to
provide a landscape plan dealing with transition of the proposed
units to the existing units, and sight lines from the existing
single family area to the proposed units.
Motion carried--5-0-0
Chairman Bearman stepped down for discussion of the following item;
Acting Chairman Torjesen assumed the chair.
E. WILLIAM & CLAUDIA BEARMAN. Request for Steep Slope Grading
Review, Pursuant to Section 11.60 of the City Code.
Location: South of County Road #1, west of County Road #4.
Proponent was before the Commission for review of grading of a steep
slope of 12% or greater per City Code requirements. The grading was
for a driveway for a residential use.
• Staff stated that the final treatment of the area was needed prior
to final approval of the grading. Mr. Bearman stated that the site
would be sodded and staked in all areas for restoration. Staff
stated that this was an acceptable method of soil stablization.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend
approval of the request for steep slope grading of the driveway for
the Bearmans, located at 9630 Eden Prairie Road, based on plans
dated July 21, 1983, written material dated July 16, 1983, and
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 21 ,
1983.
Motion carried--4-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER' S REPORT
None.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 July 25, 1983
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate Karnas
Planning Secretary