Planning Commission - 03/10/1986 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, March 10, 1986
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine
Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Chuck Ruebling
STAFF MEMBERS: 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
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
A. Swearing in of New Members
B. Election of Officers
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
(7:35) A. BLUFFS EAST 4TH ADDITION, by Hustad Development, Inc. Request for a
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 196
acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential on approximately 33 acres;
Planned Unit Development District Review with Zoning from Rural to
R1-9.5 with variances on 18.91 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 43.53
acres into 51 single family lots and two outlots. Location: West
of County Road #18, north and west of Bluffs Road, and west of
Franlo Road. A continued public hearing.
(7:40) B. WINDSONG, by Koosman Homes. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential
on 8.36 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 5.86
acres and from R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 2.5 acres; and Preliminary Plat of
9.16 acres into eleven lots and one outlot for construction of nine,
four-plex units. Location: South of Pioneer Trail, west of Sherman
Drive. A public hearing.
(8:15) C. HIDDEN GLEN NORTH, by Derrick Land Company. Request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Amendment on 130.25 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review, with variances, on 50.2 acres and
Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.45
acres, Rural to RM-2.5 on 10.95 acres, Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.8
acres, Rural to RM-13.5 on 5.9 acres; Comprehehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential
on 10.95 acres, and from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood
Commercial on 3.45 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 50.2 acres into 65
lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way. Location. Southeast
quadrant of Highway #101 and Townline Road. A public hearing.
Agenda
Monday, March 10, 1986
Page Two
(9:00) D. EDENVALE MINI-STORAGE/LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS CENTER, by Edenvale Indus-
trial Company and Landscape Products Center, Inc. Request for Site
Plan Review within the I-2 Park District on 7.3 acres with variances
to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 12.5
acres into four lots for construction of a 5,000 square foot
warehouse. Location: North of Highway #5, south of Martin Drive.
A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Community Development Block Grant Funding Year XII
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, March 10, 1986
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine
Dodge (8:30 p.m.), Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Charles
Ruebling
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
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
A. Swearing in of New Members
Planner Enger administered the Oath of Office to the newly appointed
Commissioners, Rich Anderson and Charles E. Ruebling.
B. Election of Officers
The Commission discussed election of officers; Planner Enger explained the
appropriate procedures.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to open nominations for the
position of Chairman.
Commissioner Schuck was nominated. There were no other nominations for the
position. Nominations were closed.
A unanimous ballot was cast for Commissioner Schuck as Chairman of the
Planning Commission.
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to open nominations for
the position of Vice Chairman.
Commissioner Hallett was nominated. There were no other nominations for the
position. Nominations were closed.
A unanimous ballot was cast for Commissioner Hallett as Vice Chairman of the
Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 10, 1986
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Hallett, to open nominations for the
position of Secretary.
Commissioner Gartner was nominated. There were no other nominations for the
position. Nominations were closed.
A unanimous ballot was cast for Commissioner Gartner as Secretary of the
Planning Commission.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to approve the minutes of the
February 10, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--4-0-2 (Commissioners Anderson and Ruebling abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BLUFFS EAST 4TH ADDITION, by Hustad Development, Inc. Request for a
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 196
acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential on approximately 33 acres;
Planned Unit Development District Review with Zoning from Rural to
R1-9.5 with variances on 18.91 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 43.53
acres into 51 single family lots and two outlots. Location: West
of County Road #18, north and west of Bluffs Road, and west of
Franlo Road. A continued public hearing.
Planner Enger explained that proponents had not been able to provide the
requested traffic information in time for Staff review prior to this
meeting. It appeared that the traffic study would not be completed by the
March 24, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, either.
After brief discussion, Commissioners concurred that the item should be
readvertised and scheduled for the April 14, 1986, Planning Commission
meeting, pending receipt of the traffic information requested by the City.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing and
return the item to the proponents, without prejudice.
Motion carried--6-0-0
B. WINDSONG, by Koosman Homes. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential
on 8.36 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 5.86
acres and from R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 2.5 acres; and Preliminary Plat of
9.16 acres into eleven lots and one outlot for construction of nine,
four-plex units. Location: South of Pioneer Trail, west of Sherman
Drive. A public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 10, 1986
• Planner Uram reviewed the amendments to the plan from the time of previous
review by the Commission. He noted that the cul-de-sac had been shortened,
Building #5 had been relocated, approximately 2.5 acres of property had been
added to the site thereby decreasing the density of the project, and
landscaping for purposes of screening of the development from County Road #1
and from the existing single family residential area to the south had been
increased. Planner Uram stated that the main question was still whether a
transitional use had merit in terms of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
for this property, or not.
Mr. Jerry Mezara, architect for proponents, stated that the retaining wall
previously proposed was no longer necessary due to the ability to relocate
Building #5.
.Chairman Schuck asked if any additional trees were lost due to the
relocation of units. Mr. Mezara stated that this would not be the case.
Hallett asked if the density of 4.2 units per acre included the entire site.
Planner Uram responded that it did. Hallett asked how large the lowland,
wet area was. Planner Uram stated that there was not an exact figure on the
size of this area, but that Staff was not certain that it was unbuildable,
as the area was not designated as protected waters of any type. Hallett
asked if the lowland, wet area could be built upon in the future. Planner
Enger stated that it would be possible if the property were rezoned.
Hallett asked about the zoning of the property to the west of the added 2.5
acres. Planner Uram responded that this property was zoned R1-22. Hallett
expressed concern for the potential for conversion of this R1-22 area to
multiple residential, as well, if the Windsong development was allowed to be
developed as multiple family.
Hallett asked how much land was available between this property and the next
closest multiple family residential development to the west. Planner Uram
responded that the closest development was Mill Creek Townhomes,
approximately one-half mile to the west along County Road #1. Hallett
stated that he did not feel that this entire area should become multiple
residential, but that the potential was there to do so if small
Comprehensive Guide Plan amendments, such as this, were approved. Planner
Enger stated that the City had intended by its current Comprehensive Guide
Plan that the Eden Bluffs townhomes, located to the east of this
development, would be the last multiple residential development along County
Road #1 all the way west to Mill Creek.
Bye stated that she did not feel the proposed single-car garages were
practical . She also expressed concern for the amount of off-street parking
shown, stating that she felt more would be necessary for the development.
Hallett asked if there would still be five entrances onto County Road #1
within one mile in this vicinity. Planner Enger responded that this would
still be the case. Hallett reiterated concerns about the safety of this
number of access points within such close proximity to each other.
Planner Enger pointed out that this project would not have any bearing on
whether Blossom Road would be closed, or its intersection with County Road
Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 10, 1986
#1 altered. He also pointed out that connection of this project to the
future single family property to the west would not be a positive step in
that it would cause multiple family traffic to travel through a single
family area.
Mr. Tim Koloski, 10076 Meade Lane, stated that he did not see any compelling
reason for raising the density of the property. He stated that he was also
concerned about what he considered an unsafe intersection with County Road
#1 at this time. Mr. Koloski stated that access to County Road #1 during
peak hours was already difficult and that he felt this would only add to the
problem. Mr. Koloski added that, at the time he was looking for a lot, he
had checked with City Hall to determine the type of land use that would be
allowed in this location and had found that the property was guided for Low
Density Residential development. He stated that he did not feel this should
be allowed to change.
Mr. Doug Moran, 10788 Jackson Drive, asked about the type of buffer that
would be used between the proposed development and the single family
residential development to the south. He expressed concern that his view to
the north would be of garages and parking areas. Mr. Koosman responded that
there would be a greater distance between the existing single family areas
and the units proposed than originally shown. He added that there would
also be berming six-to-eight feet in height in this area, with plantings on
top of the berm to screen the units from the single family area to the
south.
Ruebling asked what the distance would be between the proposed units and the
existing single family units. Mr. Koosman responded that it was
approximately 135-145 ft.
Mr. Kim Haanen, 10108 Meade Lane, asked if the untis would be rented, or
owned. Mr. Koosman responded that it would be likely that one person would
own one structure, living in one of the units and renting out the remaining
units within the structure to other tenants. Mr. Haanen stated that he
would prefer single family homes to be built in this area. He added that he
concurred with the concerns of Commissioner Bye regarding the availability
of parking space for the units.
Mr. Koosman stated that the covenants and restrictions that would be placed
on the property would dictate that one management group would be responsible
for all the maintenance and care of the property for purposes of uniformity
and consistency. He stated that there would be at least two parking spaces
for each unit on the property, adding that guest parking would be available
both on and off the street within the development.
Ms. Debra Christopherson, 10092 Meade Lane, stated that it seemed that
everyone was talking about "covering up" the medium density use, adding that
she did not want to live next to a project that needed to be "hidden." Mr.
Larry Rice, representing the proponent, stated that there would be
approximately one building per acre and that landscaping would be intensive
on the property. He stated that, because of this, views into the proposed
development would be similar to looking into a park area.
Mr. Haanen stated that he felt that no one would want to build a quality
Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 10, 1986
single family home along Jackson Drive if this multiple residential
development was allowed to take place.
Mr. Koloski stated that he felt certain that the remaining property to the
west, all the way to Mill Creek, would become multiple residential if this
project were approved.
Mr. Paul Machacek, 10723 Spoon Ridge, stated that he was concerned about the
amount of traffic that would be added to this area by allowing this
property, and potentially the adjacent properties to the west, to develop as
multiple family residential . Mr. Machacek also expressed concern about
screening of the development from view from County Road #1.
Gartner asked if each structure would be owned by one individual . Mr.
Koosman responded that this would likely be the case. Gartner asked how
management would be controlled amongst different owners. Mr. Koosman stated
that this would be done through covenants and restrictions on the property
at the time of purchase by owners and would require similar management for
all structures and the development as a whole.
Mr. Rice added that the covenants would require that the open space remain
as open space and not be used for any other purpose.
Anderson stated that he did not feel that this type of covenant would be
enforceable against owners of the property. He stated that, should the
owners succumb to financial pressures, this situation could change. Mr.
Koosman stated that this arrangement had been working for three years in
another community in a similar development.
Gartner asked what the property to the south and west was zoned. Planner
Enger responded that it was zoned Rural and guided for Low Density
Residential in the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Anderson expressed concern about the potential for setting a precedent for
the undeveloped property to the west to be developed as Medium Density
Residential, should the Windsong property be allowed to change to Medium
Density Residential.
Bye stated that she understood the reasons for the developers' proposal for
change to Medium Density Residential for this parcel. She stated that she
did not feel that multiple family residents were necessarily the cause of
additional problems in a neighborhood, but that they were often received the
blame for additional problems for which they were the victims. Bye stated
that she felt a transition on this particular parcel would make sense, but
added that she did not feel that the transition should proceed any further
west.
Ruebling asked what the proportion of multiple family versus single family
land was in the City. Planner Enger responded that approximately four
percent of the land in Eden Prairie had been designated for multiple family
residential and that approximately 36 percent of the land in Eden Prairie
had been designated for single family residential use according to the
Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated that there was a tendency, when
property was located along a busy road, such as County Road #1, to assume
Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 10, 1986
that it would be a good location for multiple family residential use.
Planner Enger stated that, because Eden Prairie had such a small percentage
of property as yet unbuilt and designated for multiple family use based on
the current Comprehensive Guide Plan, the City would be receiving a great
deal of pressure to change various portions of the City's Guide Plan from
Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential in order to
accommodate more multiple family residential development.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Gartner, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Koosman Homes for Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on
8.36 acres, based on plans dated February 25, 1986, subject to the
recommendation of the Staff Report dated March 7, 1986.
Motion carried--4-2-0 (Anderson and Hallett against)
• MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Koosman Homes for Zoning District Change
from Rural to RM-6.5 on 5.86 acres and from R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 2.5 acres,
based on plans dated February 25, 1986, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated March 7, 1986, with the added condition that the
outlot not be rezoned as part of the rezoning request with the intention
that no construction take place on this outlot, but that it be used
exclusively for transition to the adjacent properties to the west.
Motion carried--4-2-0 (Anderson and Hallett against)
MOTION 4•
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Koosman Homes for Preliminary Plat of
9.16 acres into eleven lots and one outlot for construction of nine four-
plex units, based on plans dated February 25, 1986, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 7, 1986, with the added
condition that no construction be allowed to take place on the outlot and
that its intended use be exclusively for transition to the adjacent
properties to the west.
Motion carried--4-2-0 (Anderson and Hallett against)
Hallett stated that he voted against the development due to concerns about
the number of access points onto County Road #1 and the potential of setting
a precedent for allowing the properties west of this site to become Medium
Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 10, 1986
Density Residential, instead of Low Density Residential as was currently
designated on the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Anderson concurred.
Chairman Schuck stated that he agreed with the concern about the potential
for setting a precedent for allowing the properties west of the site to
become Medium Density residential in the future.
(Dodge arrived at 8:30 p.m.)
C. HIDDEN GLEN NORTH, by Derrick Land Company. Request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Amendment on 130.25 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review, with variances, on 50.2 acres and
Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.45
acres, Rural to RM-2.5 on 10.95 acres, Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.8
acres, Rural to RM-13.5 on 5.9 acres; Comprehehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential
on 10.95 acres, and from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood
Commercial on 3.45 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 50.2 acres into 65
lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: Southeast
quadrant of Highway #101 and Townline Road. A public hearing.
Mr. Tim Erkkila, representing proponent, reviewed the history of the
proposed development from its initial review as a Planned Unit Development
in 1984 to the present. Mr. Erkkila explained the transitioning of the uses
from single family, to multiple family, to neighborhood commercial uses in
the northern portion of the property. He also explained the location of
proposed Dell Road and its intersection with Townline Road and Highway #101.
Mr. Erkkila discussed the transition between the proposed R1-13.5 and R1-9.5
lots along Barrington Drive. He also discussed the transition between the
single family area and the proposed neighborhood commercial development to
the north.
Mr. Erkkila raised the question of whether the City would allow lot widths
at the street frontage on a "tight" radius to be the same as those for cul-
de-sacs, instead of the required length. He noted that the lot widths at
the building setbacks would meet, or exceed, City Code requirements. Mr.
Erkkila showed an example of a "tight" radius in the proposed development.
Mr. Erkkila reviewed the grading and utility plans for the development, and
noted the specific areas where existing trees would be saved, or removed, as
a result of construciton.
With respect to the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan change to allow for
development of the neighborhood commercial area, Mr. Erkkila stated that the
City's plan indicated that twelve such neighborhood commercial areas would
be allowed within the community. The locations for these areas was not set,
but it was intended that the locations be determined based upon need in any
particular neighborhood. Mr. Erkkila pointed out that there were no other
• commercial facilities within one mile of this property.
Regarding the intersection of Highway #101 and Dell Road, Mr. Erkkila
reviewed the details of the design and the proposed turning lanes which
would be incorporated into the intersection for safety and easy flow of
traffic. He noted that this interesection would eventually be signalized,
Planning Commission Minutes 8 March 10, 1986
adding that the proposal was for this road to be constructed in Spring, or
Summer, 1986. Mr. Erkkila stated that, due to the location of this
thoroughfare, the developers were proposing multiple residential development
at the very northwest corner of the property.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report of
March 7, 1986. He stated that the development provided for a variety of
land uses, as well as variety of housing types and lot sizes, both of which
were desirable qualities. He added that the idea of neighborhood commercial
in this area seemed appropriate, as well. Planner Franzen noted that, while
the overall density of the development seemed to be consistent with the
original Planned Unit Development for the property, it appeared that too
much of the density was concentrated into one area of the property, causing
the majority of Staff's concerns about the proposed development. He
discussed the need for better transition between the R1-13.5 and R1-9.5
single family lots and between the single family area and the proposed
neighborhood commercial area.
Planner Franzen stated that Staff was also concerned about the timing of the
project with respect to the construction of Dell Road and completion of the
intersection of Dell Road with Highway #101.
Hallett asked if Highway #101 would be constructed as a four-lane road in
this area. Planner Enger responded that it was planned as a two-lane road
at this time. Hallett asked if Townline Road, which coincided with Highway
#101 in the vicinity of its location with Dell Road, would be a four-lane
road. Planner Enger responded that it was planned as a two-lane road and
scheduled for construction in 1988.
Gartner stated that she felt the proposed neighborhood commerical was
appropriate for this area. She added that she was not convinced that the
proposed townhomes were appropriate for this development, however.
Hallett stated that he, too, supported the idea of neighborhood commercial
for this area. He expressed concern regarding the screening of the
neighborhood commercial and the amount of acreage proposed for the use.
Hallett stated that he felt the development should meet the minimum
requirements of the Neighborhood Commercial District. Hallett asked about
the proposal for a day care center within this commercial area.
Planner Franzen stated that a day care center would be an allowed use. He
noted that Staff was more concerned about the intensity of the development
in terms of the parking availability and meeting setbacks in order to
provide for proper transition from the commercial development to the
residential portions of the property.
Bye stated that she supported the idea of neighborhood commercial for this
development. She added that she concurred with Staff's concerns regarding
transition.
Gartner stated that she felt the lots within the development should all meet
the minimum requirements for zoning districts proposed. She asked about the
letter included in the packets from Mrs. Elaine Jacques regarding access to
the exception lot near the northeast portion of the property. The letter
Planning Commission Minutes 9 March 10, 1986
•
discussed the need for provision of appropriate access to . this exception
parcel owned by the Jacques family. Alternatives for access to this parcel
were discussed.
Hallett asked if the proponents had considered purchasing the exception
parcel from the Jacques family. Mr. Roger Derrick, proponent, stated that
offers he had made to the Jacques family in the past had been turned down by
them.
Hallett stated that he felt the site, as proposed, would be too intensely
developed and concurred with the concerns of the Staff in the report of
March 7, 1986. He asked how many units would be lost if the townhouse area
was developed as duplexes, instead. Mr. Erkkila responded that it would
result in approximately 20 units less than the proposed townhouses. Hallett
stated that he felt the proponents should consider less density in this
area.
Hallett expressed concern about the need for single family residents to
cross through the multiple family area in order to obtain access to the
thoroughfares in the area, including Highway #101 and Townline Road.
Planner Enger stated that Staff had been working with proponents for some
time on this proposed development. To date, Staff had not seen any plans
for alternatives to the townhouse development, such as the plans for
duplexes, manor homes, or even single family, as mentioned by the developer.
He noted that the alternatives Staff had recommended did not eliminate as
many as 20 units from the development. Planner Enger added that Staff was
concerned about such a potentially large inventory of R1-9.5 lots in this
area, as well, with respect to repetition of unit types.
Mr. Dick Feerick, representing the Dolesji family, owners of the property,
expressed their concern for commencement of work on the property as soon as
possible.
Mr. Derrick stated that the engineers for the project had only developed the
alternative plans for the northwest portion of the site on the day of the
meeting. He added that the proponents did not want the density only for the
sake of having more units on the property, but that they would prefer to
have a plan which represented good planning and provided a good neighborhood
for the City. Mr. Derrick asked about the potential for variance being
granted to the amount of street frontage required on lots located on a
"tight" radius.
Mr. Bob Kruell , 6780 Tartan Curve, expressed concern about the inclusion of
Neighborhood Commercial in this area. and also expressed concern about the
number of units proposed.
Mr. Scott Jacques, 18801 Townline Road, stated that he was unaware of any
proposals by Derrick Land Company for purchase of their property (the
exception parcel located near the proposed intersection of Highway #101 and
Dell Road) . Mr. Jacques stated that his main concern with respect to the
access for this exception lot would be the final grades of the property and
the relationship of the grades of the Hidden Glen property to theirs. He
stated that he did not want the homestead to "stick out." Mr. Derrick
Planning Commission Minutes 10 March 10, 1986
•
stated that the final grades would be dependent upon the final alignment of
Highway #101 and Dell Road at their intersection near the Jacques property.
He noted that one of the alternatives would place the home at an elevation
eight feet higher than the road. Mr. Derrick stated that no matter what the
final grades, proper access would be provided.
Mr. Phillip Luther, 18790 Harrogate Drive, stated that he felt more trees
would be lost with grading that was represented by the development plan. He
stated that he did not feel there was a need for any neighborhood commercial
use in this area, and listed several stores which, in his opinion, were
close enough to the neighborhood to provide service. Mr. Luther also
expressed concern regarding the proposal for variance to the R1-9.5 lot
frontages. He stated that he did not feel this should be approved. Mr.
Luther stated that felt the hilly nature of the land should be preserved and
that he felt single family units would be more appropriate in the northwest
portion of the property. He asked that any multiple units for the
development be owned and not allowed to be rental units.
Mr. Erkkila responded to the question of trees being removed, noting the
areas on the grading plan for preservation.
Chairman Schuck stated that he felt the Staff should have an opportunity to
review the alternative plans for the northwest portion of the property.
• Hallett stated that he concurred.
Gartner stated that she was concerned that the R1-9.5 lots would be
supporting expensive houses. She stated that the intention of the smaller
lot size was to provide for less expensive housing in Eden Prairie.
Ruebling stated that he felt the neighborhood commercial area should meet
all the minimum requirements of the City Code. He expressed concern about
the density of the multiple family area in the northwest portion of the
property. He stated that he would be interested in the alternatives for
development of this area referred to by the proponents.
Bye stated that she concurred with the concerns noted in the Staff Report.
She stated that she felt the Staff and developer had adequate direction from
the Commission and suggested that the matter be returned to the Commission
at a later date after the developer had made revisions to the plan and the
Staff had had an opportunity to review the revisions. Anderson concurred.
Mr. Erkkila asked if it would be appropriate to consider such items as the
reduced lot size of the neighborhood commercial area and the request for
smaller street frontages for lots located on a "tight" radius as variances
granted as part of the Planned Unit Development request for the property.
Planner Enger responded that the Planned Unit Development process was
available for such purposes, but that the requests required justification by
the proponents.
• Gartner stated that, generally, variances included as part of a Planned Unit
Development implied that the variances were granted to allow for flexibility
and opportunities for both the developer and the City that would otherwise
not be possible through the standard requirements of the Code. She
emphasized that the City must also realize some benefit from any variances
Planning Commission Minutes 11 March 10, 1986
a
proposed as part of a Planned Unit Development.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to continue this item to
the April 14, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, with direction for revision
to the plans as discussed at this meeting.
Motion carried--7-0-0
D. EDENVALE MINI-STORAGE/LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS CENTER, by Edenvale Indus-
trial Company and Landscape Products Center, Inc. Request for Site
Plan Review within the I-2 Park District on 7.3 acres with variances
to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 12.5
acres into four lots for construction of a 5,000 square foot
warehouse. Location: North of Highway #5, south of Martin Drive.
A public hearing.
Mr. K. E. Schumacher, representing proponents, reviewed the site plan for
the mini-storage portion of the development. He noted that the single
family home currently located on the site would become the home for an on-
site manager of the property. Mr. Schumacher stated that his major concern
was that of circulation on the site itself. Otherwise, proponents concurred
• with all the recommendations of the Staff Report of March 7, 1986, regarding
the proposal .
Mr. John Wiley, proponent, reviewed the site plan for the Landscape Products
Center portion of the development. He stated that they would not have
equipment stored outside on the site, such as back-hoes, etc. All necessary
equipment would be stored inside the proposed structure.
Mr. Wiley discussed the proposed surcharging for the development. He stated
that it would be preferrable not to berm and landscape until the surcharging
was completed, noting that the surcharging would prevent vision into the
site while it was taking place. Mr. Wiley stated that the second phase of
surcharging would take approximately two years. He added that there would
be no rooftop mechanical units on top of the structure.
Planner Kipp reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
of March 7, 1986, regarding both proposals. He noted that one major concern
was that of the amount of right-of-way which would be required by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation for purposes of expansion of Highway
#5 and/or Highway #212.
Planner Kipp explained that the main reason for requiring the change to the
circulation plan for the mini-storage portion of the development was to
allow for emergency vehicle access to the property. He noted that the Fire
Marshall required a 20 ft, wide access for vehicles. The plans indicated a
• twelve-foot wide access.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the
audience. There were none.
Hallett asked how much of the site would be visible from Highway #5
Planning Commission Minutes 12 March 10, 1986
a
westbound. Mr. Wiley responded that the material piled for the surcharging
would be , all that would be visible for at least two years, until the
surcharging was completed. Mr. Schumacher presented photographs of existing
vegetation on the property, stating that the existing vegetation would
screen the structures from Highway #5 traffic. It was noted that this was
deciduous vegetation.
Gartner expressed concern for the potential for blocking of the interior
circulation drives on the mini-storage portion of the site. Bye concurred.
Mr. John Lassen, proponent, stated that the fire access could be from the
east parking lot, which was location of the closest hydrant.
Hallett asked what type of material would be used for the exterior of the
house located on the mini-storage portion of the site. Mr. Lassen responded
that the materials would be identical to that used on the mini-storage
buildings.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 2•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request for Site Plan Review within the I-2 Park
District for Edenvale Mini-storage and Landscape Products Center, with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, based on
plans dated February 12, and February 25, 1986, subject to the '
recommendations of the Staff Report of March 7, 1986.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request for Preliminary Plat of 12.5 acres into four
lots for Edenvale Mini-storage and Landscape Products Center, based on plans
dated February 12, and February 25, 1986, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report of March 7, 1986.
Motion carried--7-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Community Development Block Grant Funding Year XII
f Planner Enger presented the proposed projects use of the Year XII Community
r
Planning Commission Minutes 13 March 10, 1986
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. He noted that the City had reviewed
the potential for becoming involved in scattered site housing; however, it
was determined that the project, at the scale possible for Eden Prairie,
would not be economically feasible for the amount of money and number of
units that would be involved.
Gartner stated that she was concerned about the possibility of
transportation for the elderly and handicapped in the community and asked if
CDBG funds were available for such use. Planner Enger stated that
transportation was not an eligible activity.
Planner Enger noted that because the City had not used its entire
allocation, the City would be returning a portion of previously approved
funds to the program for reallocation to other communities. Dodge asked if
this would be detrimental to the City in the future. Planner Enger stated
that this was considered a responsible action on the part of the City, in
that the funds were not frivolously spent, nor inappropriately spent.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the proposed Year XII Community Development Block Grant
expenditures as outlined in the memorandum of March 7, 1986.
• Motion carried--7-0-0
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye.
Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 11:50 p.m.
•