Planning Commission - 02/10/1986 MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, February 10, 1986
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia
Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas,
Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to adopt the agenda as printed.
Motion carried--7-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to approve the minutes of
the January 13, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--7-0-0
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. WINDSONG, by Daniel Koosman. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential
on 5.86 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 5.86
acres with variances to be reviewed by Board of Adjustments and
Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 5.86 acres into 10 lots and 1 outlot
for construction of 9, four-plex units. Location: South of Pioneer
Trail, west of Sherman Drive. A public hearing.
Mr. Jerry Mezara, architect for proponents, reviewed the site
characteristics and design for the development with the Commission. He
stated that, after reading the Staff's Report, proponents understood that
it there was a concern about the amount of density for the project. Mr. Mezara
Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 10, 1986
stated that proponents had talked to the property
p p p p y owner to the west about
adding 2.7 acres of that property to the development of the Windsong
project, which would bring the density down to approximately 4.5 units per
acre. Mr. Mezara stated that it would be the desire of the proponents to
leave the site plan as was shown currently and to leave the westerly 2.7
acres open in order to allow this area to be used as a buffer space to the
property to the west. Mr. Mezara noted that the revised plan also reflected
amendments to the parking in order that it meet Code.
Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
of February 7, 1986. He noted that one of Staff's main concerns was that of
the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, which encompassed the request
for greater density for the property.
Planner Uram noted that the site plan appeared to be "too tight" based on
such things as the number of locations where the building and parking areas
were encroaching into the setbacks. He stated that the Staff Report
suggested that it may be more appropriate to design the property with 24
total units, or approximately 4.0 units per acre.
Hallett asked if the addition of 2.7 acres would mitigate Staff's concerns
for this project as listed in the Staff Report. Planner Uram responded that
the main issue would still be whether this particular land use was an
acceptable transition to the property to the west and south.
Marhula stated that he concurred with Staff regarding the issue of
transition. Marhula noted that there were several conflicts between parking
stalls and garages. He stated that he felt the addition of land to the
development would make this project more viable and that he could support a
project density of 4.0 units per acre, if the site planning issues were
mitigated. Chairman Schuck stated that he concurred with Marhula.
Johannes expressed concern about the access to County Road #1 and asked if
it would be possible to make the proposed cul-de-sac a temporary cul-de-sac
in order to allow for the possibility of closing either this access, or the
access at Blossom Road, at some point in the future to provide for safer
access to County Road #1. Planner Enger explained that Staff had reviewed
this access situation from several points of view. He stated that major
considerations included the angle at which the road would access County Road
#1 and the proximity of the access to the Blossom Road access to the west.
He added that another concern of Staff was that of connecting a multi-family
neighborhood to a single-family neighborhood, thereby routing the multi-
family neighborhood traffic through the single-family area. Planner Enger
stated that Staff hesitated at making such a recommendation, and that this
may be one reason for not allowing the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
requested by proponents. He added that allowance of this property for use
as multi-family residential may encourage development of the property to the
west as multi-family residential, in particular if a road access to the west
was provided in this way.
Mr. Paul Rippe, 10689 Sherman Drive, expressed concern regarding the access
to County Road #1. He stated that it was already difficult to make turn
movements to the east from his development, Eden Bluffs, and that the
addition of another access, in his opinion, would only make matters worse.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 10, 1986
Planner Uram noted that Staff had checked into the sight vision distance for
this proposed access in that it was found that there was adequate sight
vision distance for access in County Road #1 from this location.
Mr. Doug Moran, 10788 Jackson Drive, asked whether the units could be rented
or owned. Mr. Koosman responded that the buildings were intended to be
owned by one individual, who would in turn rent out three or four of the
units within each structure. He noted that there would be a management
system for the project and that the management would be responsible for
maintanence and upkeep of the property and structures. Mr. Moran asked if a
family that needed more than two bedrooms would be allowed to move into a
unit with only two bedrooms. Mr. Koosman responded that this would not be
allowed.
Mr. Moran asked how close the proposed units would be to his property. Mr.
Koosman responded that the closest unit would be approximately 120 feet from
his lot, with heavy landscaping in between. Mr. Moran questioned whether
the construction of multi-family units in this location would devalue his
property. Mr. Koosman responded that this was not the case in other
developments he had participated in throughout the Twin Cities area and in
Willmar.
Mr. Rod Haanen, 10108 Meade Lane, expressed concern about the possibility of
this development encouraging additional multi-family in this area. He
• requested that the project not be approved due the potential of devaluation
of this property in his opinion.
Mr. Moran stated that he had an additional concern about the availability of
open space for the number of families which would be using this property.
He noted that he did not feel he had enough open space in his backyard just
for his own family and pointed out that approximately eight families would
be using this space behind his home for their yard and open space
activities.
Hallett asked if there would, indeed, be eight families using that
particular area for their backyard open space. Planner Uram responded that,
while eight units did back up to this area, other open space areas were
provided on the property, which included the potential for other activities.
Marhula stated that he felt the addition of 2.7 acres to the west would
provide opportunity to improve the site plan. He suggested that proponents
might be able to relocate buildings on the site, thereby providing better
transition to the single-family area to the south.
Mr. Rippe asked about the cost per month for rental of the units. Mr.
Koosman responded the rent would be between $560 and $600 per month per,
unit.
Hallett asked if it would be possible to provide the access to the west
through this property at this time instead of allowing two access points to
County Road #1 in such close proximity to each other. Planner Enger
responded that access could be designed at this time; however, the current
access of Blossom Road to County Road #1 was not at a right-angle
intersection, nor was it scheduled for upgrading to a better access
Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 10, 1986
situation in the near future. Planner Enger reiterated the previous concern
regarding the mixing of multi-family and single-family traffic.
Hallett stated that he was not concerned about allowing for a transition on
this property, since the property to the west had not yet been developed and
anyone moving into that area would already know about a multi-family
development to the east.
Marhula stated that he would not want to see a connection of single-family
and multi-family neighborhoods for traffic purposes. He stated that he did
not feel connection of these neighborhoods was a good idea for that reason.
Hallett noted that this would make five entrances to County Road #1 within
approximately one mile. Marhula suggested that perhaps Hennepin County's
Department of Transportation could review this from a safety point of view.
He stated that many entrances may have an influence on the type of land use
that should be allowed in this area.
Gartner stated that she concurred with Hallett's concern regarding five
access points to County Road #1. She stated that she agreed with Staff
regarding the density of the project, even with the addition of the 2.7-acre
parcel to the west. Gartner asked if Blossom Road was platted. Planner
Enger responded that it was, but that it had been built in a location other
than where it was platted. He stated that it should be aligned at a 90-
degree angle with Spoon Ridge Road, on the north side of County Road #1.
Gartner stated that she would prefer the density of the project to be
reduced to approximately 4.0 units per acre.
Bye stated that she supported the idea of transition on this property. She
added that she felt the development should be spread to the additional 2.7
acres, however, in order to provide for better transition to the property to
the south. Bye stated that she felt the site plan was "too tight" as
proposed.
Gartner stated that she felt units needed to be removed from the proposal,
but that she was not opposed to multi-family use on the property.
Hallett stated that he would prefer one of the four-unit structures to be
removed, but that he, too, felt that as much of land as possible, including
the additional 2.7 acres, should be used in a new layout for the structures.
Mr. Joel Christopherson, 10092 Meade Lane, suggested that Eden Bluffs, the
townhouse project to the east of this proposed development, should be the
transition in this area. He stated that he felt this property should be
developed as single family.
Planner Enger explained that, if proponents were to add the 2.7 acres to the
west to the project, it would be necessary to republish the hearing notices
for the development. He added that the proponents were aware of this legal
requirement.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing and
Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 10, 1986
return the item to the proponent for redesign based on the concerns of the
Staff Report of February 7, 1986, and the concerns raised by the Commission
at this meeting. Further, that additional fees for republication be waived.
Motion carried--7-0-0
B. TOUCH OF CLASS INTERIORS, by Kate and Craig Halverson. Request for
Comprehen-sive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Office on approximately 2.65 acres and from Low Density Residential
to High Density Residential on approximately 3.9 acres, Zoning
District Change from Rural to Office on 1.1 acres with variances to
be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for an existing
house to be used as a business. Location: South of Pioneer Trail,
west of County Road #18. A public hearing.
Ms. Kate Halverson, proponent, reviewed the history of her business in this
location, and explained how the property was currently being used. Mr. Fred
Hoisington, representing proponents, explained the requested Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change and Zoning District Change, as well as explaining how the
proposed use would fit into the neighborhood in the future.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of February 7, 1986. He noted that Staff was concerned about the
proposed higher intensity uses and the impacts of these uses on surrounding
• land in the future. He noted that the densities of residential uses
proposed were out of character with those proposed across County Road #1.
Planner Franzen noted that Staff was also concerned about the potential for
overcommercialization of this intersection in the future, if the proposed
land use changes were allowed. Planner Franzen then reviewed several site
plan details which were of concern to Staff, including proposed access
points to the property, amount of parking, and the location of storage on
the property. He stated that the use could be considered as a home
occupation according to City Code requirements, if proponents were willing
to make a couple of minor changes to the use as it was being operated at
this time. Currently, the use was considered an illegal non-conforming use
in this location.
Hallett asked why the use was now considered illegal . Planner Franzen
responded that the use was illegal in terms of the fact that it had outside
storage and the fact that the City Code required that only a certain number
of employees for the use could be from outside the family. Hallett stated
that he did not consider this an appropriate site for future single-family
uses, nor did he consider it appropriate for office, or apartment, uses. He
suggested that the appropriate use for the area would be medium density
residential.
Marhula asked if this property had ever been shown as a more intense use on
any of the earlier versions of the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. Planner
Enger responded that it had always been shown as Low Density Residential.
Marhula asked what type of land uses were proposed across County Road #18
from this site. Planner Enger responded that Bloomington had designated
this area as low density residential . Marhula asked if the City had yet
received detailed plans for the northwest quadrant of County Road #1 and
County Road #18. Planner Enger responded that they had not yet been
Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 10, 1986
received. He added that the land use question was how far north and south
of County Road #1 along County Road #18 the City wanted to extend commercial
land uses. He pointed out that should this 15-acre area be added as a
commercial district, it would provide more commercial land use than the
Comprehensive Guide Plan had anticipated in this area.
Marhula stated that he had not ever envisioned this area as office use.
Johannes stated that he was uncomfortable with looking at this proposal
without knowing what the overall plan for this entire area would be. He
noted that the Bluffs project, currently under consideration by the Planning
Commission, may have a large impact on this area. He stated that he felt
that he needed to look at the larger picture in order to provide a situation
which would be beneficial to all parties involved. Johannes added that he
would also be uncomfortable with approving a land use on this property at
this time when there was no pressing need to do so. He noted that
proponents had stated that they would not be developing this land for at
least five years, making this a temporary situation at this time.
Bye stated that she, too, was reluctant to have this area designated for
office use without knowing the future plans of the proponents.
Marhula stated that the largest unknown factor involved in this area was
County Road #18, including its final alignment and the alignment of any
frontage roads as they would impact this property. He stated that he felt
it would be important to deal with the impact of County Road #18 prior to
determining the final land uses for property in this area, if they were to
change at all.
Planner Enger pointed out that it should not be necessary to commercialize
all of the land uses adjacent to County Road #18 or its future frontage
roads. He referred to the frontages of Highway #100 and its frontage roads
through Edina as an example. He noted that there were several different
types of uses, mainly single family residential, in this area.
Dodge stated that she was uncomfortable with the idea of an interim use, or
conditional use, permit as it appeared this would still not put the use in a
position of operating legally. Planner Enger stated that it would be
necessary to amend the City Code to allow for a use other than Office as an
interim use, if the City were to use this alternative.
Mr. Hoisington stated that he appreciated the concerns of the City in terms
of evaluation of the use. He added that it was his observation that other
intersections such as this in the city of Eden Prairie had been developed at
the intensity proposed by the proponents. Land uses in these locations
appeared to be either Office, or Commercial, in nature. Mr. Hoisington also
expressed concern regarding the requirement suggested in the Staff Report
for relocating the 30-year-old garage structure. He stated that he did not
feel commercialization of this intersection would provide a negative impact
on the adjacent residential development in this area. He added that the
final configuration for County Road #18, and its frontage roads, should be
available soon.
Marhula stated that he still felt that the final alignment of County Road
Planning Commission Minutes 7 February 10, 1986
#18 and the frontage roads for it would have major impact on the overall
road system, and, therefore, the land uses for this area. He stated that
this would be a major intersection for that road system and that it would
eventually impact this whole area. Marhula added that he felt the plan did
have some merit, and that it may be possible for the use to be continued in
some fashion.
Mr. Gary Briggs, 9715 Pioneer Trail, asked about the proposed frontage road
for County Road #18 and the possible impacts of its location upon his
property. Planner Franzen explained that the major concerns of Staff
included adequate stacking distance and safety considerations. He added
that more detailed information would be available at the time the traffic
study for the Bluffs East 4th Addition Planned Unit Development was
completed.
Planner Enger stated that the traffic study requested with the Bluffs East
Planned Unit Development would likely provide answers regarding the ability
of the proposed road system to handle the amount of traffic that would be
generated in this area based on proposed land uses. He stated that answers
would not likely be available before the Planning Commission meeting of
February 24, 1986.
Dodge stated that she felt the project may have merit; however, she stated
that she was not certain that method of amending the Comprehensive Guide
• Plan was the most appropriate in this situation.
Johannes stated that he felt it would be difficult to consider land use for
just this parcel without taking into consideration the overall picture of
land use in this area. He stated that he felt it would be important to have
the traffic information prior to making a final decision.
Marhula stated that he concurred with Johannes regarding the need for the
traffic information and the need to review the proposal in relationship with
the overall development of this entire area, prior to making a final
decision. Bye stated that she concurred with Marhula and Johannes.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Gartner, to continue the item to the
February 24, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, pending receipt of
information to determine the impacts of the proposal on the surrounding land
uses.
Motion carried--7-0-0
C. FSI OFFICE BUILDING, by Meyer, Scherer, & Rockcastle, Ltd. Request
for Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 1.6
acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for
construction of an office building. Location: South of City West
Parkway, East of Shady Oak Road. A public meeting.
Mr. Jim Larson, architect for proponents, reviewed the development proposal
with the Planning Commission. He also gave a brief history of the type of
business FSI operated. He explained that they were office furnishings
Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 10, 1986
manufacturers and that this would be the headquarters for their offices to
operate the business.
Mr. John Cook, representing proponents, explained the site circulation,
landscape plan, and gave examples of the exterior materials to be used on
the structure.
Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
of February 7, 1986.
Johannes asked about the views of the project from City West Parkway. Mr.
Cook responded that there would be a brick wall visible from City West
Parkway. He noted that there would be no product delivery on a regular
basis to the site, as the showroom space would be the working environment
for the business. Johannes asked if Staff was concerned about the fact that
there would only be brick, no windows, visible from City West Parkway.
Planner Enger stated that the building was small, only 19,000 sq. ft., and
that it would not present a massive, linear view from the road.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION:
• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Meyer, Scherer, & Rockcastle, Ltd., for
Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 1.6 acres, with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for construction of an
office building, based on plans dated January 17, 1986.
Motion carried--7-0-0
D. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT, by City of Eden Prairie.
Designation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line, as a
Year 2000 MUSA Line and adoption of 4.93 million gallons of sewage
per day as the maximum flow expected from the community until the
year 2000. A public hearing.
Planner Enger reviewed the proposal for designation of the City's MUSA Line
as a Year 2000 MUSA Line, instead of a Year 1990 MUSA Line, as was currently
represented by the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The request was being
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of a request
of the Metropolitan Council responsive to the planned sewer expansion of the
Mitchell/Red Rock/Staring (MSR) trunk line by Eden Prairie.
As part of the amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan making this a Year
2000 MUSA Line, other minor changes to the Comprehensive Guide Plan document
were also proposed for purposes of consistency, including making the minimum
lot size in the Rural Area ten acres, instead of five acres, to match the
requirement of the City Code.
Planner Enger stated that part of the reason for urgency in this matter was
the fact that the Lake Minnetonka Area had been receiving alot of pressure
for additional sewer capacity. The MSR trunk line was necessary for this to
Planning Commission Minutes 9 February 10, 1986
i
be accomplished.
Chairman Schuck read letters from Mr. William Marshall and Ms. Elaine
Jacques into the record, asking that they be made a permanent part of the
file on this matter. .
Marhula asked what the construction schedule would be for the interceptor.
Planner Enger responded that it would take approximately two years, with the
project planned to be finished in 1987, or 1988.
Ms. Diane Carlson, representing the Jacques family, asked about the
procedures for approval of this change. Planner Enger explained the
requirements in greater detail .
Ms. Carlson asked if it would be possible to include in the agreement with
the Metropolitan Council a provision whereby property owners whose land
would be crossed by the interceptor would be able to hook up to the sewer,
even though their property was currently located outside of the MUSA Line.
As an alternative, she suggested that those properties be included within a
new MUSA Line boundary for the year 2000, adding these lands into the urban
service area.
Ms. Carlson asked if it was true that there would be no assessments levied
against any property until the time development took place on that property.
Planner Enger stated that this was often the case, but that it was not a
matter for the Planning Commission to decide. He added that he would bring
this matter before the City Council and suggested that the land owners make
the Council aware of their feelings as well .
Hallett asked if the owners of property which the interceptor would cross
would be paid for their property. Planner Enger stated that it would depend
on whether the Metropolitan Council owned the property, had easements
across it, etc.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Guide Plan
designating the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line as a Year 2000
MUSA Line, with text changes attendant thereto. Further, that properties
which would be crossed by the proposed MSR Interceptor Sewer Line be
included inside the urban service area and allowed to hook up to the
sanitary sewer through their property.
Motion carried--7-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
Planning Commission Minutes 10 February 10, 1986
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
A. Metropolitan Development Investment Framework
Included in this week's packets is the proposed Metropolitan Development
Investment Framework Chapter, a document proposed to replace the Development
Framework and the Investment Framework Chapters of the Metropolitan
Council 's Development Guide. These combined chapters appear to represent a
change in attitude by the Metropolitan Council, which would impact the City
of Eden Prairie in terms of future development. It seems that the
Metropolitan Council is planning to use population estimates to determine
sewer allocations for communities, based on a priority system which is
outlined in the proposed document.
There have been some discussions amongst the planners of the communities in
the southwest Metropolitan area, all of whom are concerned about the
implications of this document and the potential of the Metropolitan Council
imposing moratoriums on those communities that exceed their "allocated"
sewer capacity.
In the memorandum enclosed in this week's packets, Staff has reviewed what
this will mean to Eden Prairie, specifically. In addition, Staff is
proposing that the City take a position on this document, which would become
a formal recommendation to the Metropolitan Council from Eden Prairie.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner. Chairman Schuck
adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m.