Planning Commission - 06/18/1984 MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 18, 1984
School District Offices, Room #5
8100 School Road
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan
Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Hakon Torjesen (9:30 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Schuck
STAFF PRESENT: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording
Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to adopt the agenda as printed.
iMotion carried--5-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
A. May 7, 1984
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to approve the minutes of the May
7, 1984, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried
B. May 14, 1984
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to approve the minutes of the May
14, 1984, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Chairman Bearman abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 18, 1984
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. LION'S TAP, Bert Noterman and Lynn Charlson. Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential to Commercial for 1.6 acres; and
Preliminary Plat of 27.0 acres into three lots (with variances before the
Board of Appeals) . Location: Northwest quadrant of Highway #169 and
County Road #4. A continued public hearing.
The Commission reviewed the originally proposed plat for the subject project, as
well as a request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the property, at its
meeting of May 7, 1984, and acted upon the Guide Plan request, postponing action
on the plat request pending resolution of adequate acreage for the northern-most
lot within the proposed plat. The item was again postponed on May 14, 1984.
Planner Franzen reviewed the Staff memorandum dated June 7, 1984, updating the
activity regarding this proposal since its last review by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rick Sathre, proponent's engineer, reviewed the revised plat and lot
configurations with the Planning Commission. Mr. Sathre pointed out that the
right-of-way for County Road #4 in this vicinity had already been dedicated to the
City. However, if it were added to the acreage for the parcel proposed to be 9.6
acres in size, this would bring that parcel to over ten acres, thereby meeting the
minimum requirements for the Rural District of ten-acre minimum lot size.
iMarhula questioned why the Staff recommendation was to require proponent to meet
the ten-acre minimum for the Rural district as opposed to a variance in this
situation. Planner Franzen stated that no hardship of a physical nature had been
shown by proponent.
Mr. Bert Noterman, proponent, stated that he felt that he had made enough
compromises regarding the finalization of this development with the City. He
stated that he had originally purchased two five-acre parcels when the City Code
only required a five-acre minimum lot size in the Rural Districts, he had agreed
to restrict the size of his business, and he had purchased additional road right-
of-way for the eventual relocation of County Road #4 in this vicinity. He stated
that he did not feel he would need to purchase an additional four-tenths of an
acre at this time.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Bert Noterman and Lynn Charlson for preliminary plat of
24.2 acres for two rural lots and one commercial lot, based on plans dated June 6,
1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 7, 1984,
eliminating condition #2 of the June 7, memorandum to allow for a 9.6-acre lot.
Motion carried--3-2-0 (Chairman Bearman and Marhula against)
Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 18, 1984
Chairman Bearman and Marhula stated that they voted against as they did not feel
the variance proposed had been justified. Chairman Bearman added that he was not
in favor of the small acreage and rezoning allowed for the commercial structure on
the south end of the property, either.
B. PRAIRIE KNOLL, by Hestia Homes, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development
District Review and Zoning from Rural to R1-9.5, with variances, for 60
single family residential units and Preliminary Plat of 24 acres into 60
lots and outlots. Location: Northwest quadrant of Valley View Road and
Edenvale Boulevard. A continued public hearing.
At the May 14, 1984, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission raised a number
of concerns for the proponent to consider and to try to work out with neighbors
and the Planning Staff.
The Commission had also asked about the ability of the City to sell any part of
park property to a private party. Mr. Lambert, Director of Community Services,
had researched the conditions of acquisition of the park property, and found that
there were no deed restrictions and that the property could be sold based upon an
appraised fair market value.
Mr. Brian Nowak, proponent, reviewed the amended site plan details as requested by
the Planning Commission at its May 14, 1984 meeting. Since that time, fundamental
changes in the design of the buildings and the long term maintenance of the
project had been made by the proponent.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of
May 4, 1984, with the Planning Commission.
Chairman Bearman expressed concern regarding the traffic along Valley View Road at
this time. He stated that he felt it would be important for the City to begin
upgrading of this road as soon as possible, not only for this project, but
especially for the existing residents in the surrounding area. Chairman Bearman
asked if the Capital Improvements Program recently discussed by the City Council
had included the upgrading of Valley View Road. Planner Franzen responded that it
was anticipated for completion in 1987.
Marhula asked which variances were being requested by the proponent. Planner
Franzen responded that they would be side lot line variances for the zero lot line
concept of the project, road frontage variances, and lot size variances.
Hallett asked how many acres of open space were being dedicated by the proponent
for this project. Mr. Nowak responded that it was a total of 8.4 acres. Planner
Franzen pointed out that, including the 8.4 acres to be dedicated for open space,
density for the project overall would be 2.5 units per acre. Without the open
space, the density for the project would be 3.85 units per acre.
Mr. David Bowers, 15800 Valley View Road, expressed concern regarding traffic
along Valley View Road. He stated that during the peak hours, it had been his
observation that traffic would be backed up to the west all the way to the
intersection of County Road #4 and Valley View Road. Mr. Bowers added that he
felt it was premature to deal with any additional projects along Valley View Road
at this time until Valley View Road was upgraded.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 18, 1984
Mr. Harry Treager, 15341 Creekside Court, stated that, currently, he would drive
two miles out of his way in order to avoid traffic along Valley View Road due to
the severe backup during peak hour traffic periods.
Mr. Bowers added that he felt that the City should be aware that this entire
project accessed Valley View Road only, and that there were no alternative access
points for any of the proposed units in this project.
The Commission discussed the project in greater detail, including traffic, the
number of variances requested, the zero lot line concept of the proposal ,
maintenance of the private facilities and structures, and density.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Marhu•la, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City Council
denial of the request of Hestia Homes for development of Prairie Knoll for 60
single family residential lots, based on the significant number of variances
• required on individual lots for lot size and frontage.
Motion carried--3-2-0 (Gartner, Johannes, and Marhula in favor;
Chairman Bearman and Hallett against)
The Commission discussed the project further, particularly with respect to
variances, and asked Mr. Nowak if it would be possible to rearrange lot lines to
reduce the number of variances requested by the current design. Mr. Nowak stated
that he felt this could be accomplished.
MOTION 3:
Motion to Reconsider the Previous Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner.
Motion carried--4-1-0 (Johannes against)
Johannes stated that he felt there were an inordinate number of variances proposed
for the project as designed.
The Commission continued discussion on the motion regarding the Planned Unit
Development District Review and zoning for the Prairie Knoll development.
MOTION 4:
Substitute Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request for Planned Unit Development District Review
and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 for Prairie Knoll by Hestia Homes,
for a single family residential plan on 24 acres, based on written materials and
plans dated April 18, 1984, and revised materials dated June 7, 1984, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 4, 1984, with the additional
condition that the majority of the lots meet the R1-9.5 District requirements for
Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 18, 1984
i
frontage, lot size, etc.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 5•
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request for Preliminary Plat of approximately 24 acres for single
family development known as Prairie Knoll by Hestia Homes, based on written
materials and plans dated May 4, 1984, revised materials dated June 7, 1984,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 4, 1984, with the
additional condition that the majority of the lots meet the R1-9.5 District
requirements for frontage, lot size, etc.
Motion carried--5-0-0
C. KURVERS ADDITION, by Franklin J. Kurvers. Request for Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 2.0 acres into five
single family residential lots. Location: East of Highway #101, north of
Autumn Woods, South of Rymarland Camp. A public hearing.
Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed plat with the
Planning Commission.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of
June 8, 1984.
Chairman Searman 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--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Franklin J. Kurver for Zoning District Change from
rural to R1-13.5 for 2.0 acres, based on plans dated June 4, 1984, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 8, 1984.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Franklin J. Kurver for Preliminary Plat of 2.0 acres
into five lots for single family residential development to be known as the Kurver
Addition, based on plans dated June 4, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated June 8, 1984.
Motion carried--5-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 18, 1984
(Torjesen arrived at 9:30 p.m.)
D. ST. ANDREWS CHURCH. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from
Low and Medium Density Residential to Church for 4.95 acres, Site Plan
Amendment for 3.75 acres for church expansion, and Zoning District Change
from Rural to Public for 1 .2 acres. Location: Northwest quadrant of
Baker Road and Valley View Road. A public hearing.
Mr. Lloyd Bergquist, architect for proponent, reviewed the site plan with the
Planning Commission, pointing out the phasing for the project as proposed. He
stated that while City Code did not require the amount of parking shown on the
site plan, the church did not want to be caught short in the future and,
therefore, was proposing the additional parking spaces to be constructed at this
time. Future expansion for the project included 5,000 square feet of additional
office space to the northwest side of the building.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report for
this project. He stated that there were two points of concern: 1) adequate
screening of the parking areas; 2) the proposed driveway access located
approximately 150 feet northwest of the intersection of St. Andrew Drive and Baker
Road.
Marhula expressed concern regarding the access closest to Baker Drive being
located on the inside of a curve, which, he stated, is the least desirable
situation for adequate sight distance for motorists. He asked proponents if it
would be possible to move the driveway to a better location for better sight
distance.
Mr. Fred Hoisington, 10334 Balsam Lane, a member of the St. Andrew's Lutheran
Church Building Committee, stated that the lower level parking area, which was the
location of the driveway being discussed, would not be built at this time. It
would be built in the future. He added that the church would be willing to be
responsible for proper monitoring of the driveway, and, at the request of the
City, would make any amendments necessary at such time the City felt it would be
important to make changes in the access. For example, Mr. Hoisington pointed out
that signage would be an effective way of controlling this access if necessary.
MOTION 1 :
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion-was made by Hallett, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council,
approval of the request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low and Medium
Density Residential to Church for 4.95 acres for the expansion of St. Andrews
Lutheran Church, based on plans dated May 4, 1984, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated June 8, 1984, with the additional condition that the
City monitor the driveway access point closest to the intersection of St. Andrews
Drive and Baker Road, and, in its sole discretion, require proponent to make any
controlled access changes necessary for the safe use of the intersection.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 18, 1984
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Public for 1 .2
acres and Site Plan Amendment for 3.75 acres for the expansion of St. Andrews
Lutheran Church, based on plans dated May 4, 1984, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated June 8, 1984, with the additional condition that the
City monitor the driveway access point closest to the intersection of St. Andrews
Drive and Baker Road, and, in its sole discretion, require proponent to make any
controlled access changes necessary for the safe use of the intersection.
Motion carried--6-0-0
E. LANDMARK WEST, by Landmark Northwest, Inc. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment from Office to C-Regional ; Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment; Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service
(with variances for the Board of Appeals) for 7.29 acres for service uses
(retail, 200-seat restaurant, health club, fast food restaurant, and gas
station/convenience store) . Location: Southeast corner of Shady Oak Road
and City West Parkway. A public hearing.
Mr. John Uban, Howard Dahlgren and Associates, representing proponents, gave a
brief history and development record of proponent. Mr. Uban discussed the
Landmark proposal with respect to the surrounding area. He pointed out that there
would be a total of approximately ten million square feet of office/industrial
space within the vicinity. Mr. Uban stated that the change in the Guide Plan
requested made sense from the regional point of view and from neighborhood point
of view. He stated that none of the uses proposed existed in this vicinity.
Mr. Dennis Eiler, Strgar-Roscoe, traffic consultants for proponent, stated that
total trips per day would increase by 5,000 from the previous 14,000 trips per day
from the City West development with the addition of this proposed shopping area.
Chairman Bearman asked how trips were assigned to the uses within this shopping ,
center. Mr. Eiler explained that most of the uses were considered "capture" uses.
In other words, the vehicles were already enroute to one place or another;
however, they would stop at the shopping center and continue onward. The shopping
center would not be a generator of traffic, such as an office building.
Torjeson asked what would happen to the large cottonwood existing on the site.
Mr. Paul Dahlberg, architect for proponent, stated that the cottonwood tree would
be removed, due to a need for better access and circulation within the site.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
regarding this proposal.
Torjeson pointed out that this area had been designated as office use within the
original City West Planned Unit Development as approved by the City. Torjeson
stated that the specifics of this site included that the office buildings be built
to have a residential character. He stated that he did not feel that this mall ,
as proposed, was of a residential character, nor that a justification for a change
in the Guide Plan had not been made by proponent.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 18, 1984
0
Marhula stated that he felt substantial modification was necessary prior to
Commission action on this project.
Hallett stated that he felt there was a need for retail in this area; however, he,
too, felt that additional modification was necessary prior to Commission action on
the project.
Johannes stated that, while he was generally in favor of the concept, he disagreed
that this should be a regional facility for shopping and retail purposes.
Chairman Bearman stated that he did not feel this was a community use, rather it
was a regional use. He stated that he did not feel this site was appropriate for
a regional size use.
Torjeson stated that he felt the use was inappropriate, particularly because of
the pond located to the east of this property. He stated that he felt an office
building would be more suited to a site such as this.
Mr. Uban stated that people other than those who worked within the City West
Planned Unit Development would be using the facilities proposed by Landmark. He
stated that if the use had been located within the City West development as
opposed to on the fringe near thoroughfare sized roads, it would not be a
successful retail site.
Hallett questioned why it would not be appropriate to locate a use such as this on
the west side of Shady Oak Road. Mr. Uban stated that the site on the west side
of Shady Oak Road had been designated as residential. Ms. Beverly Ahern, agent
for Landmark West, stated that proponents were trying to develop a quality project
within the City. She listed several of the uses proposed for the retail spaces.
Mr. Scott Anderson, Anderson Development, Inc., owners of the property, stated
that they had felt that they had followed the Planned Unit Development as closely
as possible throughout the development of the property. He stated that it was
there opinion that this would be a good use within this vicinity, providing needed
services for the other projects within the area.
Mr. Ken Beirsdorf, representing Len and Betty Uherka, expressed concern regarding
the future potential of their site. He pointed out that utilities and major roads
were available to this site for the Uherka's, however, no final use had yet been
designated for the site. He asked how the development of the Landmark site might
effect their property. Mr. Joe Ruzic, 6825 Rowland Road, stated that he, too,
felt that a commercial use would be more appropriate on the west side of Shady Oak
Road, perhaps on the Uherka property.
Torjeson reiterated the need for justification of the proposed Guide Plan change
for this property.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to continue the public hearing
for the Landmark West proposal to the July 9, 1984, Planning Commission meeting,
to allow proponent opportunity to revise the plans for the project to meet the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 8, 1984.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 18, 1984
Ib
Motion carried--6-0-0
(Gartner left at 12:00 a.m.)
F. SHADY OAK RIDGE, by Joseph Ruzic. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential ; Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-6.5; and Preliminary Plat of 11 .5 acres
for 48 townhouse units. Location: North of Rowland Road, west of Old
Shady Oak Road. A public hearing.
Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed development with
the Commission.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of
June 8, 1984, pointing out the areas of concern to the Planning Commission.
Chairman Bearman stated that he did not feel single family units on this site
would be appropriate, however he had no objection to a multi-family use.
Marhula stated that he felt clustering of the units would be an appropriate way to
develop the property. He stated that he was concerned, however, about the density
of overall site. Marhula added that he felt adjoining properties should be
reviewed as to the impact of the development of this site upon the future uses of
the surrounding sites. 2
Torjeson stated that he was not opposed to the proposed use of this site; however,
he felt the density should remain at 2.5 units per acre.
Hallett stated that he felt the difference between 2.5 units per acre and 4.1
units per acre as proposed by Mr. Ruzic was significant. He added that he, too,
was interested in the effect upon adjoining properties.
Chairman Bearman suggested that proponent review the possibilities of developing
the site as single family units within the R1-44 District. He reiterated that he
felt the townhouse units would be an appropriate use for such a site.
Mr. Krueger stated that, even with removal of a portion of the units, the impact
upon the required slope would be the same for the road through the site. The
current slope for the road was 3/1, and would not change with the number of units
for the site. Mr. Krueger added that development of the site in any way would
require approximately the same amount of grading as well . He also stated that
moving the units further north of the site would not be beneficial, and that it
would require removal of additional trees.
Mr. Len Uherka, 6301 Shady Oak Road, asked about utility access and availability
to this site. Mr. Krueger pointed out that utilities were available at the north
end of the site.
The Commission discussed with Mr. Ruzic the possibility and potential for adding
his six-acre piece to the south of this property to the overall proposal to
provide addtional acreage for spreading of the units across the site.
Marhula stated that he felt the units along the southeast portion of the site were
Planning Commission Minutes 10 June 18, 1984
somewhat tight as shown. Marhula also questioned the access at the south end of
the site as to its safety at its intersection with Shady Oak Road.
Chairman Bearman asked if a homeowners' association would be developed in order to
maintain the private road and other common facilities within the site. Mr. Ruzic
responded that there would be a homeowners' association for such purposes.
The Commission concurred that a tree inventory of this site would aid in
determination of the number of units which would be appropriate for this site and
asked proponent to provide such an inventory to Staff at their earliest
opportunity.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Marhula, to continue the public hearing to
the July 23, 1984, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponent opportunity to
revise the request per the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 8, 1984.
Motion carried--5-0-0
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
I. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Hallett, seconded by Torjesen.
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 1:15 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate Karnas
Recording Secretary
•