Planning Commission - 11/26/1984 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 26, 1984
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
(7:35) A. NORTH BAY OF TIMBER LAKES 2ND ADDITION, by Richard Miller Homes.
Request for Zoning District Amendment within RM-2.5 District (with
variances for the Board of Appeals) and Site Plan Review for 12
units within three buildings on approximately 1.34 acres; and
Preliminary Plat of approximately 9.41 acres into three lots and one
outlot. Location: Northwest quadrant of County Road #4 and Timber
Lakes Drive. A continued public hearing.
(7:55) B. RESEARCH FARM ADDITION, by Hoyt Development. Request for Planned
Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from
Rural to I-2 for 17.64 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.64 acres
into two lots for office/warehouse/showroom facilities. Location:
West of Highway #169, north of Research Road. A public hearing.
(8:40) C. EDENVALE EXECUTIVE PARK, by Welsh Construction. Request for Planned
Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from
Rural to I-2 for approximately 9.0 acres and Preliminary Plat of
approximately 9.0 acres for office/warehouse facility. Location:
Southeast quadrant of Valley View Road and Mitchell Road. A public
hearing.
D. REYNOLDS PRINTING. Request for Planned Unit Development District
Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 for three acres
and Preliminary Plat of 13.6 acres for an office/manufactur-
ing/warehouse facility. Location: Southeast quadrant of Valley
View Road and Mitchell Road. A public hearing.
Agenda
Monday, November 26, 1984
(9:40) E. YOUNGSTEDT SERVICE CENTER/ROCKY ROCOCO PIZZA, by the Preserve.
Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional
Service for 0.89 acres for an auto service center and from Rural to
Commercial Regional Service for 1.53 acres for a restaurant; and
Preliminary Plat of 3.25 acres into two lots and two outlots.
Location: Southeast quadrant of Highway #169 and Prairie Center
Drive. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: The times listed above are tentative and may be significantly earlier, or
later than listed.
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 26, 1984
School District Boardroom
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett,
Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula (8:40 p.m.), Ed Schuck, Hakon
Torjesen (7:45 p.m.)
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Gartner, to adopt the agenda as
printed.
Motion carried--5-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
(Torjesen arrived at 7:45 p.m.)
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to adopt the minutes of the
November 13, 1984, Planning Commission meeting as printed with the following
addition: Item IV. F. Research Farm, page 10, first paragraph, add, "Mr.
Hoyt stated that proponent's were requesting action, in particular, on the
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment requested at this time and that any
recommendations regarding the Planned Unit Development Concept could be
postponed to a later date."
Motion carried--4-0-2 (Johannes and Schuck abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. NORTH BAY OF TIMBER LAKES 2ND ADDITION, by Richard Miller Homes.
Request for Zoning District Amendment within RM-2.5 District (with
variances for the Board of Appeals) and Site Plan Review for 8 units
Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 26, 1984
within two buildings on approximately 1.34 acres; and Preliminary
Plat of approximately 9.41 acres into three lots and one outlot.
Location: Northwest quadrant of County Road #4 and Timber Lakes
Drive. A continued public hearing.
Mr. Terry Lamb, representing Richard Miller Homes, presented the revised
plans for the subject project. He stated that the third building and third
lot had been removed from the plan. Also, parking spaces for the units had
been provided with two enclosed spaces for each unit and other at-grade
spaces provided in other locations on-site.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings of the Staff Report of November 23,
1984, regarding the project.
Torjesen asked how many parking spaces, total , were provided for each unit.
It was determined that proponents had provided 4.25 parking spaces per unit
for this development.
Hallett asked if County Road #4 would ever be upgraded to a four-lane road.
Staff responded that it would be. Hallett asked if the sidewalk along
County Road #4 would be located outside of the right-of-way. Staff stated
that it would be. Hallett expressed concern that the sidewalk for this are
not be torn up with the upgrading of County Road #4. He asked if the
pedestrian trails would eventually be installed all the way to County Road
A. Staff responded that this was planned for the future.
Hallett asked if the existing single family home, the exception parcel along
the east border of the property, would be required to install sidewalk along
the lot frontage. Staff explained that it would not be necessary that the
trail be located in front of the single family residence as the residents of
the Timber Lakes developments could access the public trail without crossing
private property. Hallett asked Staff to check into the requirements for
installation of sidewalk along the frontage of the single family home.
Torjesen asked if the City had ever granted variances such as those
requested by proponent for setbacks. Staff responded that this had been
done before and listed several projects where the setback variances had been
granted based on lot lines platted for purposes of financing through federal
government programs for mortgages.
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--6-0-0
• MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Richard Miller Homes for Zoning District
• Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 26, 1984
Amendment within the RM-2.5 District for approximately 1.34 acres for eight
multiple family units to be known as North Bay of Timber Lakes 2nd Addition,
based on revised plans dated November 19, 1984, subject to the findings of
the Staff Reports dated November 9, and November 23, 1984.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Richard Miller Homes for Preliminary Plat
of 9.41 acres into two lots and one outlot for two four-unit multiple family
structures to be known as North Bay of Timber Lakes 2nd Addition, based on
revised plans dated November 19, 1984, subject to the findings of the Staff
Reports dated November 9, and November 23, 1984.
Motion carried--6-0-0
B. RESEARCH FARM ADDITION, by Hoyt Development. Request for Planned
Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from
Rural to I-2 for 17.64 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.64 acres
into two lots for office/warehouse/showroom facilities. Location:
West of Highway #169, north of Research Road. A public hearing.
Publication of the public hearing notice for the subject request for
proposed Phase I of Research Farm had been accomplished prior to the
Planning Commission recommendation on November 13, 1984, to deny the request
for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. While the previous action of the
Planning Comimssion made any action at this time moot on the rezoning and
platting request, the proponent were requesting the Commission to reconsider
their action for denial of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change.
Chairman Bearman stated that, upon the advice of the City Attorney, the
proponents would be allowed only to state what type of information would be
presented to the Commission at a future date, should the Commission decide
to reconsider their action on the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment. However, no new information could be presented at this time. It
would be proper to present the new information within the context of a
public hearing on this request. The Planning Commission had not announced a
public hearing at this meeting for that purpose; therefore, it was the
advice of the City Attorney that, should the Commission act to reconsider
the proposal, proper procedure would dictate a new public hearing be
announced as well, with notification to the surrounding residents. The
public hearing before the Commission at this time was for a zoning and
platting request, made moot by the Planning Commission recommendation for
denial of the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment at their previous
meeting.
Torjesen asked what procedure would be for proponents to resubmit a proposal
which had been denied. Planner Enger responded that the proponents could
resubmit their application and begin the process all over again, should they
so choose. He stated that, at this time, either alternative,
reconsideration by the Commission of their previous action, or resubmittal
by the proponents of the proposal, were possible.
• Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 26, 1984
Mr. Richard Putnam, Tandem Corporation, representing proponents, stated that
proponents were requesting reconsideration of the previous action by the
Planning Commission. He stated that, based upon the findings of the Staff
Report of November 9, 1984, proponents had prepared additional information
requested in support of the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. He
stated that they also planned to discuss the balance of uses within the
community, as well .
Mr. Ed Roessler, Northrup King, stated that Hoyt Development was no longer
involved in the proposal , but that Northrup King, owners of the property,
would be proceding with the request.
Mr. Putnam stated that a neighborhood meeting had been scheduled with the
surrounding residents for December 4, 1984, at which time proponents would
be explaining new information to them and obtaining input from the residents
as to their concerns about the proposal , based on the new information
provided.
Torjesen stated that he did not feel the recommendation made by the
Commission at its previous meeting required reconsideration, rather the
better method would be to treat the Northrup King request as a new proposal
altogether. He stated that he felt it would be a better approach for the
Commission to look at a new proposal with an open mind, as opposed to
• reconsidering an old proposal . Hallett stated that he concurred.
(Marhula arrived at 8:40 p.m.)
Mr. Todd Walker, 8926 Pine Bluff Court, stated that he felt this was too
important an issue to be dealt with during the holiday season when many
people would be unavailable for the public hearings or neighborhood
meetings. He requested that timing be postponed to allow the maximum
possibility for participation by the residents in the area. Mr. Walker
stated that he was opposed to reconsideration of the proposal . He asked if
proponents could legally request another public hearing on this issue.
Chairman Bearman responded that it was within their rights to do so. He
also stated that proponents had a right to review of their project at the
earliest possible date by the City and that it would not be proper to
postpone action on an item without adequate reason.
Mr. James McGlennen, 8888 Knollwood Drive, stated that he had attended the
meeting in order to discuss the 18-acre proposal for zoning and platting and
that he felt a completely new hearing should be held for the Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment being proposed by Northrup King.
Torjesen stated that he felt, if proponents were requesting a shifting of
land uses within the community, that any other land involved in such a land
use designation "swap" should also be properly noticed, and public hearings
announced at the same time, if the idea of switching locations of land uses
was to be considered as a point of substantiation for the proposed
• Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the subject property. Planner Enger
stated that no proposal had been submitted to the City for such purpose.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt the Commission could not discuss a
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to another parcel without proper
• Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 26, 1984
notification. Gartner stated that the Commission had discussed the matter
of land use of parcels for which publication had not been sent in the past.
Chairman Bearman stated that, while the Commission had discussed other
parcels without publication, these parcels had generally been contiguous to
the parcel which had received notification. He stated that he did not
recall doing so in the case of a land use "swap" in the past.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Hallett, to allow proponents to
resubmit an application for the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
for the 189+-acre Northrup King property, and that the City waive the
application fee.
Motion carried--6-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 2•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the public
hearing for rezoning and platting of the 17.64 acre site within Research
Farm.
Motion carried--6-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to accept the letter of
November 23, 1984, from proponents requesting withdrawal of the requested
zoning and platting of the 17.64-acre site within the Research Farm
development and return the item to proponents, without prejudice.
Motion carried--6-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
C. EDENVALE EXECUTIVE PARK, by Welsh Construction. Request for Planned
Unit Development District Review (with variance to allow for up to
60% office use) and Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 for
approximately 9.0 acres and Preliminary Plat of approximately 9.0
acres for office/warehouse facility. Location: Southeast quadrant
of Valley View Road and Mitchell Road. A public hearing.
Mr. Sandy Ritter, RSP Architects, representing proponent, reviewed the site
plan and property characteristics of the project with the Commission.
Planner Enger stated that the plans were in conformance with the previously
approved Edenvale 9th Addition Industrial Park development proposal,
including requirements for meeting criteria established by a design
framework manual and replacement of trees on-site.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings of the November 23, 1984, Staff Report
regarding the proposal .
• Mr. Ritter stated that proponents were in general agreement with the changes
suggested by the Staff Report, but that they would like to meet with Staff
regarding amendment of the plans per Attachment A of the Staff Report.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 26, 1984
Mr. Ritter stated that the one matter of concern was that trails not be
required on both sides of the streets within the proposal . He stated that
proponents would be willing to construct pedestrian walkways along one side
of each street, per the overall development plan approved previously under
the Planned Unit Development Concept for Edenvale 9th Addition Industrial
Park. The Commission discussed this in greater detail with the Commission.
Hallett asked if the walkway system was in place to the south within the
restaurant area. Staff responded that it was. Chairman Bearman stated that
he would prefer only one walkway on one side of the street, providing for
more green area. Hallett, Schuck, and Gartner agreed.
Mr. K. E. Schumacher, representing Equitable Life Assurance, owners of the
property, stated that approximately 30 acres of the overall 100-acre
development were in a conservancy area. He stated that it was the intention
of the land owners to provide additional amenities for this area, including
picnic table, etc. , for the use of employees of this industrial park. Also,
more extensive landscaping would be located within this conservancy area in
the future.
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--7-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Welsh Construction for Planned Unit
Development District Review (with variance to allow for up to 60% office
use) and Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 for approximately 9.0
acres to be known as Edenvale Executive Park, based on plans dated November
6, 1984, subject to the findings of the Staff Report dated November 23,
1984, with an amendment to include pedestrian walkways along only one side
of the streets within the development per the overall Edenvale 9th Addition
Industrial Park approved plan.
Motion carried--6-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City
Council aprpoval of the request of Welsh Construction for Preliminary Plat
of approximately 9.0 acres into one lot to be known as Edenvale Executive
Park, based on plans dated November 6, 1984, subject to the findings of the
. Staff Report dated November 23, 1984, with an amendment to include
pedestrian walkways along only one side of the streets within the
development per the overall Edenvale 9th Addition Industrial Park approved
plan.
Motion carried--6-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
• Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 26, 1984
D. REYNOLDS PRINTING. Request for Planned Unit Development District
Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 for three acres
and Preliminary Plat of approximately 13.6 acres into one lot and
two outlots for an office/manufacturing/warehouse facility.
Location: Southeast quadrant of Valley View Road and Mitchell Road.
A public hearing.
Mr. Tony Feffer, Investment Services Group, representing proponent, reviewed
the proposed use of the site. Mr. Darrell Anderson, architect for
proponent, reviewed the site characteristics and development plan with the
Commission.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings of the Staff Report of November 23,
1984, regarding the project. He stated that Staff would like to review the
effectiveness of the screening proposed with the landscape plan as it was
not clear in some instances whether screening was sufficient.
Planner Enger discussed the exterior materials of the structure with the
Commission. He stated that Staff was concerned with the use of concrete
block for the structure.
Hallett stated that he felt the structure should meet City Code requirements
in terms of exterior materials used. He stated that the pictures passed out
. by Mr. Feffer showed only one view of the docking area. Hallett commented
that, based on other situations like this in the City, he felt it would
behoove the City to make certain that the screening as proposed was adequate
for the site.
Torjesen asked if intensified landscaping in certain portions of the site
would aid in screening of the loading dock area. Staff responded that it
would be a possible alternative.
Chairman Bearman asked about overall signage, lighting, entrance monuments,
etc. for the development. Mr. K. E. Schumacher, representing Equitable Life
Assurance, owners of the property, stated that there was an overall plan for
the Edenvale 9th Addition Industrial Park for signage and lighting. As to
entrance monuments, Mr. Schumacher stated that the property owners were
awaiting a decision as to whether there would be two accesses, instead of
one, allowed to Valley View Road from the property. He stated that,
depending upon that decision, one or two entrance monuments of timber log
construction, similar to that located at the intersection of Highway #5 and
Mitchell Road for the overall Edenvale Planned Unit Develoment, would be
located on the property.
Torjesen asked what the opinion of the owners of the property was regarding
screening of the loading area. Mr. Schumacher stated that they were
concerned from the point of view of impact upon future neighbors to the
site.
• Chairman Bearman stated that he felt the matter of screening could be left
to Staff and the proponent to work out, with direction to Staff to make
certain that the loading dock area would be adequately screened. Other
Commissioners concurred.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 November 26, 1984
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Reynolds Printing for Planned Unit
Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 for
approximately three acres, based on plans dated October 22, 1984, subject to
the findings of the Staff Report of November 23, 1984, with an amendment to
include pedestrian walkways along only one side of the streets within the
development per the overall Edenvale 9th Addition Industrial Park approved
plan.
Motion carried--6-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 3:
Motion was made Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Reynolds Printing for Preliminary Plat of
• 13.6 acres into one lot and two outlots, based on plans dated October 22,
1984, subject to the findings of the Staff Report of November 23, 1984, with
an amendment to include pedestrian walkways along only one side of the
streets within the development per the overall Edenvale 9th Addition
Industrial Park approved plan.
Motion carried--6-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
E. YOUNGSTEDT SERVICE CENTER/ROCKY ROCOCO PIZZA, by the Preserve.
Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional
Service for 0.89 acres for an auto service center and from Rural to
Commercial Regional Service for 1.53 acres for a restaurant; and
Preliminary Plat of 3.25 acres into two lots and two outlots.
Location: Southeast quadrant of Highway #169 and Prairie Center
Drive. A public hearing.
Mr. Don Hustad, architect for the Rocky Rococo, reviewed the site plan with
the Commission. Planner Enger reviewed the findings of the Staff Report of
November 23, 1984, explaining the suggested reorientation of the structure
and drive lane through the site.
Mr. Youngstedt reviewed the site plan for the service center, explaining the
use of the space on the interior of the structure, and stating that the lot
to the south would be set aside for future use.
Planner Enger reviewed the Staff Report of November 23, 1984, regarding the
• project.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience regarding both developments. There were none.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 November 26, 1984
Youngstedt Service Center
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 2•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Youngstedt Service Center for Zoning
District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service for 0.89 acres for
an auto service center, based on plans dated October 18, 1984, subject to
the findings of the Staff Report dated November 23, 1984.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Youngstedt Service Center for Preliminary
Plat of 1.79 acres into one lot and two outlots, based on plans dated
October 18, 1984, subject to the findings of the Staff Report dated November
23, 1984.
Motion carried--7-0-0
Rocky Rococo
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded Johannes, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Rocky Rococo for Zoning District Change
from Rural to Commercial Regional Service for 1.53 acres for a restaurant
use, based on plans dated October 19, 1984, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated November 23, 1984.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 3:
• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Rocky Rococo for Preliminary Plat of 1.53
acres into one lot for a restaurant use, based on plans dated October 19,
1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 23,
1984.
Planning Commission Minutes 10 November 26, 1984
Motion carried--7-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
Joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting
Planner Enger reminded the Planning Commission of their joint meeting with
the City Council on Tuesday, December 11, 1984, in the Board Room of the
School District Offices at 7:30 p.m. The agenda includes a high-tech zone,
the R1-9.5 Zoning District, Preserve and Edenvale Planned Unit Development
Park Dedication, Development Processes--responsibilities and expectations.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
December Meetings
It was determined there would be no second meeting in the month of December
due to the holidays.
Chamber of Commerce Letter Regarding Advertising Signs
Chairman Bearman reviewed the letter received by the Commission from the
Chamber of Commerce regarding the potential need for advertising signs
• (billboards) in the Major Center Area. Planner Enger stated that the
Commission would be reviewing the issue at its next meeting in conjunction
with a proposed change to the Advertising Sign section of Chapter 11 of the
City Code.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Johannes.
Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
— R�t_'_Zg
Kate Karnas
Recording Secretary