Planning Commission - 06/09/1986 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 9, 1986
�30 P.M.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge,
Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Charles 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
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
(7:35) A. LAKE PARK, by The Rottlund Company, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment on 16.7 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review within
the RM-6.5 zoning district on 16.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 16.7 acres
into 102 lots for construction of 98 townhome units. Location: Southwest
quadrant of County Road #4 and Timber Lakes Drive. A public hearing.
(8:15) B. STENEHJEM ADDITION, by Kathleen M. Stenehjem. Request for Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5 with lot frontage variance, and Preliminary Plat of
3.34 acres into five single family lots. Location: North of Craig Drive, east
of Duck Lake Road. A public hearing.
(8:45) C. EIGHTEEN PARK BUSINESS CENTER, by Investment Services Group, Inc. Request for
Zoning District Change from I-5 Park to I-2 Park on 2.85 acres with Preliminary
Plat of 2.85 acres into one lot for construction of a 37,000 square foot
office/warehouse. Location: West of Washington Avenue, South of Flying Cloud
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.
0
MINUTES
• EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 9, 1986
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Robert Hallett (7:35 p.m.), Rich Anderson,
Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Chuck
Ruebling
MEMBER ABSENT: Chairman Ed Schuck
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Donald Uram, Assistant
Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Bye, to adopt the agenda as
printed.
lot
Motion carried--5-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Gartner, to approve the minutes of the
May 27, 1986, special Planning Commission meeting, as written.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Bye abstained)
(Acting Chairman Hallett arrived at 7:35 p.m.)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. LAKE PARK, by The Rottlund Company, Inc. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 16.7 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review within the RM-6.5 zoning district on
16.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 16.7 acres into 102 lots for
construction of 98 townhome units. Location: Southwest quadrant of
• County Road #4 and Timber Lakes Drive. A public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 9, 1986
Mr. Bill Price, engineer for proponents, reviewed the site design with the
Commission, including site access, landscaping, and architecture.
Planner Enger reviewed the Staff Report of June 6, 1986. He stated that the
previous approval for this property had been for 84 units when the City
originally reviewed the Mitchell Lake Planned Unit Development of 1976.
Staff noted that additional access to the property would be provided in the
future along the south property line, in conjunction with access to future
Miller Park, located south and west of the property. It was also pointed
out that the final details of storm water drainage for the property needed
to be worked out with the City Engineer. Planner Enger stated that the City
Council was currently reviewing an engineering feasibility study regarding
storm water drainage and the "chain of lakes" in Eden Prairie, which would
be impacted by this drainage system, and which would have an affect on the
development of this property. He noted that the Council was expected to act
on the feasibility study some time in July.
Mr. Price explained that the storm water from the site, itself, would be
held on the property in the pond shown. He noted that it would be sealed to
hold the water and, therefore, maintain the amenity to avoid a drying out of
the pond. Gartner asked how the sealing of the pond would take place. Mr.
Price explained that it would be done by one of several methods, including a
polyethelene liner, clay, or imported material from South Dakota which was a
natural sealer.
Gartner asked about the 102 lots requested by platting versus the 98 units
proposed for units. Mr. Price stated that the other four lots would be
owned by the Homeowners' Association for this property and maintained as
common space for the entire development.
Anderson asked if there would be a walkway around the entire pond. Mr.
Price stated that it would not be around the entire circumference of the
pond, but would be routed along one side of the pond. Anderson stated that
he was concerned about future maintenance of this area for attractiveness of
the development, since it appeared to be the principle amenity for the
property. Mr. Price stated that the intent was that it be maintained. He
noted that the developers were considering the use of a well for the pond in
order to assure that the water would stay fresh.
Bye stated that she was concerned about the provision of adequate parking
for the development, adding that she concurred with the Staff recommendation
for additional parking on the property. Mr. Price indicated that he felt
this was a matter which could be worked out with the Staff prior to City
Council review. He added that proponents were willing to comply with all of
the Staff recommendations.
Anderson asked if the homeowners of this development would be part of the
existing homeowners' association, or form another one. Mr. Bud Rotter,
• proponent, responded that the existing association for the homes north of
Timber Lakes Drive would not be part of the association for this
development. He stated that it was likely, however, that the six units
existing on the south side of Timber Lakes Drive would be combined in some
manner into one association with the proposed development.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 9, 1986
Acting Chairman Hallett asked if it would be possible for the development to
provide for another access to the south at the road to be installed in the
future for access to Miller Park. He stated that he felt another access may
be necessary, considering the number of units in the development.
Dodge stated that she felt additional landscaping would be necessary along
County Road #4. She asked if there was potential for access to the south
for this property in order to alleviate the traffic problem in the near
future. Planner Enger stated that this could be reviewed with the
proponents prior to Council review.
Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he was concerned that the additional
parking spaces be included with the minimum loss of green space possible to
the property. Bye concurred.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked about storage for snow on the property. Mr.
Price stated that plans were to remove some of the snow by truck from the
site to other locations. Acting Chairman Hallett asked what provisions, if
any, Staff had recommended for the snow storage on the property. Planner
Enger responded that Staff had suggested curbing along driveways and the
road in order to avoid damage to the green areas of the yards by snow
removal activities.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked about the existing evergreens near County Road
#4. Planner Enger stated that those trees were not located on the property,
but on the adjacent property; therefore, they would not be disturbed.
Mr. Ed Nash, 8072 Timber Lakes Drive, expressed concern for the potential
traffic problems resulting from the new development. He stated that he felt
having only one access to the property would create a bad traffic situation
on Timber Lakes Drive. He pointed out that there would be approximately 200
additional cars resulting from this development. Mr. Nash added that he
believed alternative access to County Road #4 should be provided for the
development as soon as possible and asked when the access to the park would
be constructed. Planner Enger responded that the Director of Community
Services, Bob Lambert, was in the process of negotiating for the purchase of
the necessary property for the access and the park at this time. He stated
that Mr. Lambert had indicated that process should be complete by 1988.
Mr. Nash asked about the phasing of the development. Mr. Rotter stated that
the proponents were planning on completing the development within 18 months,
if possible.
Mr. Nash asked about the water quality of Mitchell Lake and the potential
problems which would result with the storm water drainage system in the area
because of this development. He stated that he felt the existing storm
water drainage situation should be dealt with before additional development
was allowed.
Planner Enger stated that, in the past, the City had pumped the overflow
from Round Lake into Mitchell Lake, which had begun to cause problems in
this neighborhood. Currently, the City was pumping the overflow from Round
Lake to the east into Purgatory Creek. He noted that the Council would be
considering the storm water drainage study for the area as a public
Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 9, 1986
improvements project at a meeting in the near future. Mr. Nash asked if
this would be more "after the fact" rather than preventive. Planner Enger
stated that it would have been inappropriate to perform any improvements
much sooner, and that the storm water drainage improvements being discussed
were timely, in terms of the level of development of the area.
Ms. Rita Rove, 7988 Island Road, stated that she was representing the single
family homeowners in the neighborhood. She stated that she concurred with
the concerns regarding traffic and storm water drainage previously
mentioned. She added that she was also concerned about the possibility of
erosion into Mitchell Lake. Ms. Rove asked how long it would take to
implement the storm water drainage improvements once the study was reviewed.
Planner Enger explained that the City Council would be able to choose from
various alternatives, which would include cost estimates, upon their review
of the study. He stated that he felt the timing of this development and the
storm water drainage improvements would be concurrent.
Mr. David Ludvig, 7998 Island Road, member of the Timber Lakes Homeowners'
Association, asked what procedures the City could implement to guarantee
that there would be an access to the south for this development. Planner
Enger explained that the City had several alternatives, the most common of
which was requirement of a performance bond.
Acting Chairman Hallett suggested that it may be necessary that several
units be eliminated from the plan in order to provide for adequate space for
snow storage, access, and green space. He asked if proponents were willing
to consider the elimination of a small number of units, if necessary, prior
to Council review of the item in order to mitigate these concerns. Mr.
Rotter stated that he would be willing to eliminate units in order to
facilitate these matters, if no other alternatives were available. He added
that he was willing to work with Staff in order to accomplish this prior to
Council review.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Rottlund Company for Planned Unit
Devleopment Concept Amendment of 16.7 acres of the Mitchell Lake Planned
Unit Development of 1976 for Lake Park for construction of 98 townhome
units, based on plans dated May 30, 1986, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report of June 6, 1986, with the additional requirement that
access to the south property line be provided for connection to the future
public park road access to Miller Park and County Road #4.
Motion carried--6-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 9, 1986
MOTION 3:
Move to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Rottlund
Company for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District
Change within the RM-6.5 Zoning District for 16.7 acres known as Lake Park,
for construction of 98 townhome units, based on plans dated May 30, 1986,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 6, 1986, with
the additional requirement that access to the south property line be
provided for connection to the future public park road access to Miller Park
and County Road #4.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 4:
Move to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Rottlund
Company for Preliminary Plat of 16.7 acres into 102 lots for construction of
98 townhome units for Lake Park, based on plans dated May 30, 1986, subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 6, 1986, with the
additional requirement that access to the south property line be provided
for connection to the future public park road access to Miller Park and
County Road #4.
Motion carried--6-0-0
B. STENEHJEM ADDITION, by Kathleen M. Stenehjem. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5, with lot frontage variance to
be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 3.34
acres into five single family lots. Location: North of Craig
Drive, east of Duck Lake Road. A public hearing.
Ms. Stenehjem gave a brief review of the proposed site development, adding
that she had no objection to any of the recommendations of the Staff Report
of June 6, 1986.
Planner Uram reviewed the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report,
noting that a variance to the width of one of the lots at the street
frontage would require review by the Board of Appeals.
Gartner asked if shifting of lot lines between Lots 2 and 3 would eliminate
the need for the variance. Planner Uram responded that Staff had reviewed
this alternative, but that it had been rejected because of the reduction in
the amount of buildable area that would result for Lot 3.
Ruebling asked if the existing driveway to Duck Lake Trail would remain.
Ms. Stenehjem stated that it would remain as the access to the existing
house. She added that she was considering private restrictions in order to
maintain the trees along the driveway.
Mr. Michael Anderson, 6423 Craig Drive, asked if the development of the
property would result in any additional assessments to his property.
Planner Enger responded that this typically did not occur in situations like
this; however, if his property were impacted by any assessments, there would
be a public hearing process at the City Council and notification would be
Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 9, 1986
•
sent to the affected residents. Mr. Anderson suggested that perhaps one lot
could be removed in order to provide for all lots to meet Code requirements.
Mr. William Putnam, 6411 Craig Drive, stated that he did not currently have
"legal" access to his property since the cul-de-sac proposed on Stenehjem
property was to be dedicated to the City for that purpose. He asked when he
would have "legal" access. Ms. Stenehjem stated that it would be available
to him at the time of filing of the final plat.
Mr. Putnam asked what the distance would be between his home and the house
that would be located on the lot closest to him. Planner Enger stated that
the minimum side yard was ten feet, therefore, there would be at least 20
feet between the homes.
Mr. Putnam asked if the wooded areas would remain as is. Ms. Stenehjem
responded that the lots would be sold to custom home builders and that she
was planning to have them save as many trees as possible. She added that
the quality of the homes would be equal to, or greater than, the homes
existing in the area.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
• Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Kathleen Stenehjem for Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5, with a lot frontage variance for one lot to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals, based on plans dated May 2, 1986, subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 6, 1986.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Kathleen Stenehjem for Preliminary Plat
of the Stenehjem Addition for Kathleen Stenehjem, with a lot frontage
variance for one lot to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, based on plans
dated May 2, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
June 6, 1986.
Motion carried--6-0-0
C. EIGHTEEN PARK BUSINESS CENTER, by Investment Services Group, Inc.
Request for Zoning District Change from I-5 Park to I-2 Park on 2.85
• acres with Preliminary Plat of 2.85 acres into one lot for
construction of a 37,000 square foot office/warehouse. Location:
West of Washington Avenue, South of Flying Cloud Drive. A public
hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 9, 1986
Mr. Tony Feffer, proponent, reviewed the site characteristics and site plan
features with the Commission. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and
recommendations of the Staff Report of June 6, 1986. Planner Uram noted
that an additional condition regarding the provision of adequate space and
location for the Gustafson sign from the adjacent property should be added
to the Staff recommendations. He explained that, upon notification of the
public hearing, it had been pointed out that the sign for the Gustafson use
would likely be obliterated, or forced into a variance situation, if
provision was not made at this time.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked when the City would require that the
additional parking area be constructed. Planner Uram responded that Staff
recommended that it not- be built until necessary, and that the parking
spaces were not necessary at this time. Planner Enger pointed out that the
area was gravelled currently, not green space; therefore, there would be no
green space given up at the time of construction of the parking area.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked about the requested variance to be reviewed by
the Board of Appeals for floor area ratio. Planner Enger responded that the
maximum allowable floor area ratio for the I-2 Park District was 30% and
that proponents were requesting 35%. This request was based on the floor
area ratio for both lots involved in the development and considering the
existing and proposed structures. Mr. Feffer stated that he believed that
• the floor area ratio for the existing structure was under 30%, but that for
the proposed building it would be greater than 30% based on the surveyed
amount of property. He stated that the overall floor area ratio for all the
property would then be 30% by proponents calculations. Staff did not
concur.
Planner Enger stated that Staff would review this with the proponent prior
to Council review in order to determine which figures for lot and structure
area were accurate.
Ruebling asked if the building was 18 ft., or 20 ft., in height, based on
conflicting information. Mr. Feffer stated that the plans had been changed
to reflect an 18 ft. building height. Ruebling asked if this would have any
affect upon the landscaping requirements for the development. Planner Uram
stated that it would and that the Staff recommendation would be adjusted
accordingly.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked for questions, or comments, from members of
the audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
• MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Investments Services Group, Inc., for
Zoning District Change from I-5 Park to I-2 Park for 2.85 acres for Eighteen
Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 9, 1986
Park Business Center for construction of a 37,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse,
based on revised plans dated June 6, 1986, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated June 6, 1986, with the added provision that the site
plan be amended to provide adequate space for the Gustafson sign near the
driveway of the property prior to Council review.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Investments Services Group, Inc., for
Preliminary Plat of 2.85 acres into one lot for Eighteen Park Business
Center for construction of a 37,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse, based on
revised plans dated June 6, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated June 6, 1986, with the added provision that the site plan
be revised to provide adequate space for the Gustafson sign near the
driveway of the property prior to Council review.
Motion carried--6-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
• None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Anderson, seconded by Ruebling. Acting
Chairman Hallett adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
•