Planning Commission - 09/26/1983 AGENDA
• Monday, September 26, 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 Eager, Director of Planning
Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. August 22, 1983
B. August 29, 1983
III. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. LILLIAN BECKMAN. Request for Preliminary Plat of 4.5 acres
into three 3) single family detached lots. Location:
12400 Gerard Drive. A public hearing.
• B. MAPLE HILL, by Charis. Request for Zoning District change
from Rural to R1-13.5 for single family detached land use
and Preliminary Plat of 5.3 acres for nine (9) lots.
Location: 18811 Duck Lake Trail. A public hearing.
C. BLUFF RIDGE, by Mark Charles. Request for Planned Unit
Development District Review and Zoning from Rural to RM-6.5
and R1-9.5 for 88 units, and Preliminary Plat of 16.2 for
mixed residential use. Location: Southeast quadrant of
County Road #1 and Franlo Road. A continued public hearing.
D. APPLE GROVES, by Northwest Properties. Request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Review, Planned Unit Development
District Review for a mixed residential land use, Zoning
from Rural to R1-13.5, R1-9.5, and RM-6.5, Preliminary
Platting of 40.91 acres for 162 attached and detached single
family units, and Environmental 'Assessment Worksheet Review.
Location: South of Valley View Road and West of Lorence
Addition. A continued public hearing.
E. PAULSEN'S ADDITION, by Dirlam Development. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 and
Preliminary Plat of 21.6 acres for 43 single family
residential lots. Location: South of Valley View Road,
east of Ticonderoga Trail. A public hearing.
F. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF EDINA. Request for Site Plan Review
and Zoning District Amendment for a Drive-through Banking
Facility. Location: Prairie Center Drive and Franlo Road.
A public meeting.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI. PLANNER'S REPORT
VII. ADJOURNMENT
00
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 26, 1983
City Hall, 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
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 Hallett, to approve the
agenda as presented.
Motion carried--7-0-0
• II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen, to approve the
minutes of the August 22, 1983, Planning Commission meeting, subject
to the following change: Page 7, first paragraph, add the following
to the second sentence, "With single family on the west and the tree
line, multiple family to the east. . ."
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner, to approve the
minutes of the August 29, 1983, special Planning Commission meeting
as printed.
Motion carried--5-0-2 (Johannes and Torjesen abstained)
III. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. LILLIAN BECKMAN. Request for Preliminary Plat of 4.5 acres
Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 26, 1983
into three (3) single family detached lots. Location: 12400 Gerard
Drive. A public hearing.
Due to the error in the hearing notice for the previous meeting on
this proposal, the notice was republished to hold an additional
public hearing at this meeting.
Staff reviewed a letter sent by Karin and Larry Hanson, property
owners to the west of Mrs. Beckman, indicating their concern
regarding inclusion of their property with respect to future
development of Mrs. Beckman's land. The letter stated that they had
no intentions of developing their property beyond a single family
dwelling, as it currently existed.
Mrs. Hanson was present and stated that their concern was based on
the fact that a drawing had been included in the Staff Report to the
Planning Commission, which could possibly be interpretted to mean
that the they (the Hansons) intended to develop their property.
This was not their intention. Mrs. Hanson added that, in the past
on several occasions, similar plans had been made for their property
without their knowledge, and they did not want this drawing to
indicate to the City that they intended to develop.
Gartner reassured Mrs. Hanson that the Commission was fully aware
that the sketch included in the Planning Staff Report was a
representation of what could happen, not necessarily what would
happen. Torjesen concurred with Gartner, adding that he understood
why the Hansons were concerned.
Mrs. Hanson stated that one of the situations was a map showing a
trail across their property from the Cardinal Creek area. She
stated that the trail had been discussed in detail at meetings of
the Council and yet no one could find a map showing its location.
Staff stated that there had been discussion at one time to extend a
trail from the Cardinal Creek area south through the Hanson
property. However, plans to extend this trail had been abandoned by
the Council for various reasons.
Howard Kaerwer, 12800 Gerard Drive, asked if the future development
of the Beckman property was now a "dead" issue. Staff stated that,
as far as the sketch included in the Staff Report was concerned, it
was only a study to see what possibilities were available for future
development of the property to ensure that what was being proposed
at this time would not be a detriment to the future. Staff pointed
out that only a private property owner, not the City, could initiate
subdivision of property.
Mr. Kaerwer stated that they had dedicated two acres of land to the
City for purposes of a wildlife preserve area. He stated that he
felt it would defeat the purpose of dedicating the land to the City
in the first place if this area would be allowed to develop.
Mrs. Barbara Kaerwer, 12800 Gerard Drive, stated that she felt it
would be granting an unfair advantage to anyone who would develop
Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 26, 1983
the Beckman property by allowing them to develop next to land that
they (the Kaerwers) had dedicated to the City for park.
Mrs. Hanson stated that she felt the City should have looked at
alternatives in all directions from the Beckman land, north, south,
east, and west; however, the sketch had been done only with
consideration for the property to the west of the Beckman land.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to ratify the
recommendation of the Planning Commission meeting of September 12,
1983, recommending to the City Council approval of the preliminary
plat for Lillian Beckman for three single family lots on 4.5 acres,
based on plans dated May 27, 1983, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 9, 1983.
Motion carried--6-0-1 (Schuck abstained)
B. MAPLE HILL, by Charis. Request for Zoning District change
from Rural to R1-13.5 for single family detached land use
and Preliminary Plat of 5.3 acres for nine (9) lots.
Location: 18811 Duck Lake Trail. A public hearing.
Bill Bonner, Charis, presented revised plans to the Commission for
review. Mr. Bonner had revised the plans previously reviewed by the
Planning Commission by extending the cul-de-sac further to the
south. The revised plan accomplished four major items: 1)
eliminated the need for refurbishing the exterior of the existing
home on the property; 2) eliminated the 30 ft. wide frontages on the
two lots for which proponent was previously requesting variances,
bringing these lots into conformance with the Code requirement of 55
ft. of frontage on a cul-de-sac; 3) provided for more lots within
the subdivision (11 instead of 9) for the proponent, all of which
met the Code requirements; and 4) allowed for a lessening of the
grade of the street from 8% to 6%.
Staff stated that the revised plan met all Code requirements.
Chairman Bearman asked how long the cul-de-sac would be. Mr. Bonner
stated that it would be less than the 500 foot maximum allowed by
City Code.
Hallett asked if the Shoreland Management Ordinance still had an
affect on Lot 11 (formerly Lot 9) . Staff stated that it did and
F
that the lot could be built upon only in the area south of the
Shoreland setback requirements.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 26, 1983
• Marlin Rodgers, 6865 Tartan Curve, stated that he was located
adjacent to proposed Lot 8. He questioned what would happen to the
values of the existing homes in the area. Mr. Bonner stated that it
was their intention to develop in the range of $125-$135,000, which
would match the value of those existing in the area at this time.
There would be no effect on home values in the area. Mr. Rodgers
asked how many trees would be removed with development. Mr. Bonner
responded that only those necessary for building pads for the homes
would be removed, and the pine trees along the north area of the
property would be relocated.
David Messerli, 6905 Tartan Curve, asked if any variances would be
required for this plat. Staff responded that there would not be
with the redesigned plat for eleven lots.
Darrell Rodenz, 6801 Tartan Curve, expressed concern for drainage in
the area. He stated that during heavy rains, water would be
standing on his I'ot. Mr. Rodenz presented the Commission with a
letter to that effect, asking that it be made part of the record for
the project and that his concerns be dealt with as soon as possible.
Planning Staff responded that the Engineering Department would be
able to study the situation and make a recommendation by the time
the matter would be reviewed by Council.
• Steve Krause, 6832 Sugar Hills Circle, expressed concern for the
number of trees to be removed with development. Mr. Bonner stated
that it was their intent to remove as few trees as necessary for
development.
Bob Medved, 18901 Duck Lake Trail, asked if there would be a need
for additional utilities to service this project. Staff responded
that adequate utilities were available to the site to service all of
the lots.
Mr. Rodenz asked when construction would begin. Mr. Bonner
responded that the street would be graded this year, but
construction of homes and utilities would likely not take place
until Spring, 1984.
Torjesen asked if there would be greater cuts required in the lots
since the grade of the street had been lowered. Mr. Bonner stated
that the amount of additional grading required because of this would
be minimal.
Torjesen expressed concern that the trees to remain after
construction be protected as much as possible during construction to
avoid damage and to maintain the existing character of the site.
Barb Rodgers, 6865 Tartan Curve, stated that it appeared as if more
than one-third of the trees would be removed with construction of
the street and lots.
Torjesen stated that when a developer proposed a project which was
less dense than the Guide Plan permitted and in complete conformance
Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 26, 1983
• with the Code requirements, it would be difficult to require more of
that developer than was required of those that did not meet all Code
and Guide Plan regulations. In this case, he stated that he felt
the proponent was making a concerted effort to maintain and preserve
as many trees as possible.
Mr. Rodenz asked how the City would be certain that spring rains did
not wash out or erode the property or adjoining properties during
construction. Mr. Bonner stated that the standard erosion control
methods recommended by the City Engineering Department would be
followed throughout construction of the project.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to close the
public hearing.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Charis for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for single family detached use
• for Maple Hill, based on plans and written materials dated September
23, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated September 9, 1983 subject to the following changes: Eliminate
#la and #3a of the Staff recommended conditions, and, add to #2 the
following words at the end of the stated condition, ". . . with
particular care taken to deal with storm sewer to the west," and,
add a #3d to read, "Trees shall be protected with snow fencing or
some other appropriate method during construction."
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 3•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Charis for Preliminary
Plat of 5.3 acres for eleven (11) lots for Maple Hill, based on
plans and written materials dated September 23, 1983, and subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 9, 1983,
subject to the following changes: Eliminate #la and #3a of the
Staff recommended conditions, and add to #2 the following words at
the end of the stated condition, . . with particular care taken
to deal with storm sewer to the west," and a #3d to read, "Trees
shall be protected with snow fencing or some other appropriate
method during construction."
Motion carried--7-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 26, 1983
C. BLUFF RIDGE, by Mark Charles. Request for Planned Unit
Development District Review for a mixed residential use and
Zoning from Rural to RM-6.5 and R1-9.5 for 88 units, and
Preliminary Plat of 16.2 for mixed residential use.
Location: Southeast quadrant of County Road #1 and Franlo
Road. A continued public hearing.
Charles Coombs, representing Mark Charles, reviewed with the
Commission the revised plans for the site including graphics showing
sight lines, grading plan revisions showing the cuts and fills, and
site plan revisions regarding entrances of driveways onto public
streets.
Mr. Coombs explained the revised storm drainage system, which was a
matter of concern at previous meetings on this proposal. The
revised system had been worked out with the Engineering Department
Staff.
Chairman Bearman asked what the City's obligations were with respect
to private roads. Staff responded that obligations of maintenance
and repair were left to the association and not the responsibility
of the City. Chairman Bearman asked Staff to check with the City
Attorney regarding any possible liabilities on the part of the City
with respect to private roads.
Hallett asked who would be responsibile for the construction of a
bike trail along County Road #1 . Staff responded that the City
would be and added that the construction of the trail had not be
scheduled into the City's capital improvements at this time. The
development had provided for adequate right-of-way for the trail by
the proposed plat.
Torjesen asked about provisions made for buffering of the units of
this project from the future land uses to the southeast. Planner
Enger stated that it had been recommended that two units in the
southeast area be eliminated to provide for adequate space for such
a buffer.
Chairman Bearman asked if, because of the grade differential, 70
feet would be an adequate amount of space for provision of a buffer
in the southeast area. Planner Enger stated that it was Staff
opinion that it would be enough.
Chairman Bearman asked who would be responsible for the cost of
installation of the pipe to the southeast for storm drainage
purposes. Mr. Coombs responded that Mark Charles would pay for the
pipe.
Jerry Hegge, 10015 Pioneer Trail, stated that, currently, drainage
from the future City park, located adjacent to Bluff Ridge, was
draining across their yards. Mr. Hegge stated that he felt it would
be important to implement some form of erosion control from the
City's park, through the Bluff Ridge area, during their development.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 26, 1983
Torjesen asked about the land uses to the north of the site. Staff
responded that immediately north of the property was a site
designated for "church" by the Comprehensive Guide Plan, with
townhouses located directly across County Road #1 . Torjesen asked
about land uses to the west. Staff responded that the single family
residential development of Bluffs East was located across Franlo
Road from this property, abutting the cluster portion of the Bluff
Ridge property, only.
Marhula asked about construction of the roadway to the east. Staff
stated that the road would be constructed to the east property line
of Bluff Ridge, allowing for extension through the properties to the
east at some time in the future. Marhula asked if the grades of the
road had been matched to allow for extension of the road in a proper
manner at some time in the future. Staff stated that they had.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 2•
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the Bluff Ridge Planned Unit Development
District Review for mixed residential land use and Zoning from Rural
to RM-6.5 and R1-9.5 for 88 units, based on plans dated September 21
and 22, 1983, and written materials dated September 21, 1983,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September
23, 1983, with the following added conditions: #12. An easement be
granted over the private road for public use; and, #13. City
Engineering Department and Community Services Department be asked
for recommendations regarding the drainage from the park area
adjacent to Bluff Ridge and erosion control methods to be used
during and after construction.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 3:
Move to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary
Plat of Bluff Ridge for Mark Charles of 16.2 acres for mixed
residential land use, based on plans dated September 21 and 22,
1983, and written materials dated September 21, 1983, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 23, 1983, with
the following added conditions: #12. An easement be granted over
the private road for public use; and, #13. City Engineering
Department and Community Services Department be asked for
recommendations regarding the drainage from the park area adjacent
to Bluff Ridge and erosion control methods to be used during and
after construction.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 26, 1983
Motion carried--7-0-0
D. APPLE GROVES, by Northwest Properties. Request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Review, Planned Unit Development
District Review for a mixed residential land use, Zoning
from Rural to R1-13.5, R1-9.5, and RM-6.5, Preliminary
Platting of 40.91 acres for 162 attached and detached single
family units, and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review.
Location: South of Valley View Road and West of Lorence
Addition. A continued public hearing.
Mr. Hani Hayek presented the revised plans for the subject project,
showing changes to the number of units from 181 to 162. Townhouse
units had been reduced from 98 to 65. Single family detached lots
were introduced adjacent to Valley View Road.
Staff reviewed the recommendations of the September 23, 1983 Staff
Report evaluating the project changes.
Marhula asked if there was a need to extend Williams Lane to the
south boundary of the property. Staff stated that there was not a
need for this, but that Lorence Way should be so extended to connect
to the proposed development to the south-southwest.
Hallett asked if an internal walkway system had been provided within
the project. Staff responded that a five-foot wide sidewalk had
been shown on the south side of Lorence Way, and along Liv Lane to
Valley View Road. Hallett asked if it would be appropriate to
require an internal walkway system within the multiple family area
which would provide access to the public walkways and parks.
Chairman Bearman expressed concern for the public use of the private
roadway planned within the project as to the public liability
involved.
Bob Nardi, 18141 Valley View Road, asked what the price range would
be for the homes abutting the existing single family homes to the
west. Mr. Hayek responded that the price range would be $120-
150,000.
Ted Brinkman, 18117 Valley View Road, asked if fill would be
required in the low area south of Valley View Road in order to
locate single family homes in this area. Mr. Hayek stated that some
fill would be required, however, the homes would be at a lower
elevation than Valley View Road upon completion. Mr. Brinkman added
that he felt the changes shown at this meeting by the developer were
positive changes and he expressed appreciation for the Mr. Hayek's
efforts in this regard.
• Steve Nixon, 18105 Valley View Road, asked what would happen to the
bike trail along Valley View Road. Staff stated that it would
remain as is. Mr. Nixon stated that he felt the size of the
development, particularly because of the multiple residential units,
rendered a need for additional, internal recreational facilities.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 26, 1983
Donna Nardi, 18141 Valley View Road, questioned why the City would
accept multiple residential in this single family area and asked how
much multiple residential would be enough. Staff responded that, at
the time the community leaders were reviewing the various housing
and other needs for the commmunity, it had been their decision that
a strong tax base would be desirable. In order to attract large
businesses to aid the City's tax base, the City needed to provide
housing for the employees of such companies within a reasonable
price range and within reasonable commuting distance from their
place of work. The City had been successful in attracting many
corporate headquarters types of uses over the past several years.
It had been determined that the vast majority of those employed at
such facilities would require more moderate cost housing in order to
work and live in the City. One way to meet this need was by
providing a variety of multiple housing units. Therefore, the
community leaders determined the desirable amount of business
necessary for a strong tax base, balanced against the housing needs
for support of such a business community, and determined that by
1990 a desirable ratio of multiple to single family housing would be
60% to 40%.
Mrs. Nardi asked what would happen to transplanted trees that died
due to unsuccessful transplanting. Staff responded that, to the
extent that such trees were used as a buffer between the townhouse
units and the single family units, the City would require
replacement of trees.
Debbie Noderman, 7103 Parkview Lane, stated that the trails in her
area were becoming worn and said that she felt the addition of
people to the neighborhood would only add to the deteriorating
condition of the streets. She asked who would be responsible for
repair or replacement of these trails. Staff responded that in the
particular case of her neighborhood, it had been the homeowners'
association that was responsible for the maintenance and repair of
the trails. However, since that time, the homeowners' association
had been dissolved. The possibilities for repair included
assessment of the cost of improvements against the neighborhood.
Staff stated that they would refer the matter to the Community
Services Department.
Bob Cole, 7160 Parkview Lane, stated that, regarding the potential
60% multiple housing forecast for 1990, he felt this would be
defeating the basic philosophy of Eden Prairie. He suggested that
such a high percentage of multiple residential uses would drive out
those wanting high income properties for their residences.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to close the
public hearing.
+ Motion carried--7-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 10 September 26, 1983
MOTION 2•
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Northwest Properties for
Planned Unit Development Concept for medium density residential use
for the Apple Groves proposal, based on revised plans dated
September 19, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Reports of August 19, and September 23, 1983.
Marhula asked if it was the intention of the motion that the number
of townhouse units be increased or left the same and units spread
out over the area where the proposed public and private road met.
Torjesen stated that he intended that the number of units not be
increased, but spread out over the area.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 3•
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the Planned Unit Development District
Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5, R1-9.5, and
RM-6.5 for Apple Groves proposal by Northwest Properties, based on
revised plans dated September 19, 1983, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports of August 19, and September 23,
1983.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat of Apple Groves by
Northwest Properties for 159 attached and detached single family
units on 40.91 acres, based on revised plans dated September 19,
1983.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 5•
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the
City Council adoption of a negative declaration for the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Apple Groves proposal by
Northwest Properties, based on revised materials dated September 19,
1983, in that there is no significant impact.
Motion carried--7-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 11 September 26, 1983
• E. PAULSEN'S ADDITION, by Dirlam Development. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 and
Preliminary Plat of 21.6 acres for 43 single family
residential lots. Location: South of Valley View Road,
east of Ticonderoga Trail. A public hearing.
Dennis Dirlam, Dirlam Development, reviewed the site plan with the
Commission, pointing out the site features and proposed development
characteristics.
Staff reviewed the report on this project, stating that a major
point of concern was the connection and coordination of storm sewer
systems between this property and that of the development directly
adjacent to the east.
Marhula stated that, while he did not feel the density of the
property was a difficulty for this project, he was concerned about
the relationship of abutting land uses, i.e. an R1-13.5 Zoning
District abutting an R1-9.5 Zoning District with no transition or
buffer planned. The only "transition" was the public street between
these two zones within the project as proposed. Marhula stated that
he felt this was inappropriate.
Barb Olson, 18208 Valley View Road, asked what would happen to the
trees along the old railroad track bed (adjacent to Valley View
. Road) . Mr. Dirlam responded that some would be removed for building
pads. He added that it would be difficult for the existing
residents on the north side of Valley View Road to see the units
which would be located on the south side of Valley View Road due to
the trees in this location.
Bob Cole, 7160 Parkview, expressed concern for drainage of the area
and how it would affect his lot, in particular. Staff responded
that they would refer the drainage problem to the Engineering
Department for review prior to Council action on the project.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Johannes, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request for Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-13.5 for the Paulsen Addition, based on plans dated
September, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated September 23, 1983, and with the following addition to
• condition #la: "No variances shall be allowed."
Motion carried--6-1-0 (Torjesen against)
Planning Commission Minutes 12 September 26, 1983
Torjesen stated that he voted against as he felt the variances could
be allowed as long as the density requirements were met for the
property, and, in this case, the density was below what was allowed
by the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Schuck, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request for Preliminary Plat of the
Paulsen Addition, based on plans dated September, 1983, for 43
single family residential lots on 21.6 acres, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 23, 1983, and
with the following addition to condition #la: "No variances shall
be allowed."
Motion carried--6-1-0 (Torjesen against)
F. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF EDINA. Request for Site Plan Review
and Zoning District Amendment for a Drive-through Banking
Facility. Location: Prairie Center Drive and Franlo Road.
A public meeting.
David Shea, Shea Architects, representing the proponents, reviewed
the site features and characteristics of the proposal with the
40 Commission.
Staff pointed out that this was different from what was originally
proposed for the site in that the original banking facility was to
be a full service facility, while this one was being proposed on a
smaller scale at this time and would be expandable.
The Commission discussed the exterior materials of the structure
with proponent in detail. Mr. Shea stated that it was their
preference to use the wood exterior, as opposed to brick. Staff
pointed out that if less than 25% of any elevation was wood, it
would not require a variance from the Code.
Chairman Bearman asked for questions and comments from members of
the audience. There were none.
MOTION•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend
approval of the request of First Bank Edina for Site Plan Review and
Zoning District Amendment, based on plans dated August 30 and 31,
1983, and written materials dated September 7, 1983, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 23, 1983.
Motion carried--6-1-0 (Johannes against)
Johannes stated that he felt the City should be consistent in its
requirements for brick as an exterior material, particularly in the
Major Center Area. Therefore, he voted against the motion on that
basis.
Planning Commission Minutes 13 September 26, 1983
IV. OLD BUSINESS
None.
V. NEW BUSINESS
Mrs. Karin Hanson, 13008 Gerard Drive, asked to comment to the
Commission. She expressed concern regarding the planning of her
property without her consent or knowledge. She stated that she felt
the City Council and Commissions should understand that homeowners
take it rather seriously when lines are drawn across their property,
whether possible or probable, and such sketches are made part of the
City's official files on a project. She added that she felt it was
important, and only fair, that all surrounding properties be
reviewed for potential development, not just one or two, as was done
in her case with respect to the Beckman property proposal .
The Commission apologized for any misunderstandings that may have
occurred as a result of the sketch involving her property with
respect to the Beckman proposal and assured Mrs. Hanson that it was,
in the City's opinion, only a possibility of what could happen in
the area. The Commission assured Mrs. Hanson that the City could
not initiate subdivision or rezoning of her property without her
being involved, nor could they foresee reason for condemnation of
any of her property at this time.
VI. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen.
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 12:40 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate Karnas
Planning Secretary