Planning Commission - 01/27/1975 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, January 27, 1975
7:30 PM City Hall
Invocation --- Pledge of Allegiance --- Roll Call
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Sorensen, Norma Schee, Joan Meyers,
Roger Boerger, Dick Ferrick, Richard Lynch, Herb
Fosnocht.
STAFF MEMBERS: Dick Putnam, Chris Enger, jean M. Egan
I. INRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSION MEMBER DICK FERRICK.
II. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 13 , 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
III. MEMBERS REPORTS.
A. Chairperson Sorensen.
1 . Planning Commission representative to Board of Zoning Appeals.
B. Mrs. Meyers.
1 , discussion of Council liaison.
C. Other Members.
IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
A. 4/5 Mini-Sector Study, further discussion of the study team's report dated
Jan. 6, 1975, presented at the Jan. 13th Planning Commission Meeting.
Suggested Action: Recommend to the City Council approval of the 4/5 Mini-
Sector Report as prepared by the study team, or a modifi-
cation of the plan. Or continue, or deny.
B. Linden Pond, by Edenvale Inc. , requesting rezoning to RM 6.5 for the single
family area, preliminary plat approval, ( for 28 single family lots on 11 .8ac.,
and 80 multiple units on 8.2 ac.) , and approval on Outlot R lying north of
the single family area. The site is located in Edenvale's northwest area.
Staff report attached.
Suggested Action: recommend approval, continue, or deny.
C. Titus Inc. & Flying Cloud Land Company, proposal for commercial uses on
7.8 acres located north of W. 78th Street and west of the new Eden Prairie
Ring Road in the MCA. Requesting rezoning from R1-22 to C-Hwy and
PUD 74-10 . Presentation of staff report and discussion of alternatives.
Suggested Action: continue to the Feb. 10, 1975 meeting to allow discussion
of alternatives with adjacent landowners.
D, Chestnut Phase III, by New Town Development-, requesting development phase
approval and rezoning to permit - medium density garden apartments ( 200 u.)
Suggested Action: Continue to the Feb. 10 , 1975 meeting for a staff report.
E. Community Development Act-discussion of joint powers agreement with
Hennepin County to obtain 1975 funds for the City of Eden Prairie.
F. M.C.A. Development Ordinance, discussion of process and ordinance content.
Planning Commission Agenda Jan. 27, 1975
page 2
V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS.
A.Eden Prairie Center Addition, by Homart Development Company, requesting
preliminary plat approval for approximately 114 acres,as a revision to the
final plat of the Eden Prairie Center, to be comprised of 6 lots. The site abuts
the east right-of-way of T.H. 169/212 and the south right-of—way of
W. 78th Street. Engineer's report to be =, distributeld.
Suggested Action: recommend approval of the request, or continue, or deny.
B.Final Signage Plans for the Homart Eden Prairie Center. Presentation of signage
concept.
Suggested Action: recommend approval .of the signage program, modify,
or deny.
VI. PLANNER'S REPORT.
VII. ADJOURNMENT.
_ . MINUTES Approved
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, January 27, 1975 7:30 PM City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Don Sorensen, Herb Fosnocht, Joan Meyers,
Norma Schee, Dick Feerick, Roger Boerger, Richard Lynch
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Dick Putnam, jean M. Egan
I. INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSION MEMBER DICK-FEERICK.
Mr. Sorensen introduced and welcomed Mr. Dick Feerick to the Planning Commission.
II. MINUTES OF THE jANUARY 13, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
P. 1 , III. B. , The motion - carried unanimously.
P. 3,6th F, should read- Meyers suggested developers contribute to the safety
improvements and road up-grading along T.H. 5 which would be
necessary_ to accommodate any new development. Contributions by
landowners for new and existing development was also discussed.
2nd P from bottom should read - He added that if there is a taking in the form
of down zoning they would expect damages.
P. 4,B. , 1st P,should read- . . . it is on the Council's January 28th agenda.
C. , heading should read- and recommended landhold agreement,
4th•1P, should read - Mr.- Semrad replied that they do not inte nd to do all
the building and that all` the building will be custom building.
P. 6, E, Action: The motion carried unanimously.
P. 8,VIII,A. should read- the Council suggested the objecting persons meet
among themselves and the staff.
IIj,MEMBERS REPORTS
Chaitperson Sorensen.
I . The requirements of the state statutes regarding the Planning Commissions
connection with the Board of Appeals was briefly discussed.
Motion:
Schee moved, Lynch seconded, to recommend recommendation # 2 of the
1-21-75 memo and the following reworded recommended action -
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Eden Prairie
authorizes the Planning Commission representative to speak for and
act on the behalf of the full Planning and.Zoning Commission concerning
appeals or petitions before the Board of Appeals and Adjustment.
The representative may request review by the full Planning and
Zoning Commission, or any member of the Commission may request
a discussion of a pending petition before the Board of Appeals .
Planning Staff assistance will be -provided to the Planning and
Zoning Commission representative.
Sorensen inquired if the commission would like an oral report or agenda
and minute mailings from the Board of Appeals. The commission desired to
have the agendas and minutes• mailed to them,
Vote: The motion was unanimously approved.
2 . Discussion of Packet Delivery.
Sorensen suggested the agenda information be delivered to the commission
members 9-10 days prior to the meetings. Lynch felt delivery.- 9-10 days
before would be adequate Boerger felt that a minimum of 7 days would be
adequate.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- Jan. 27,1975 ,
Fosnocht suggested the packets be delivered 2 Fridays before the meeting,
thereby having delivery 9 days prior to meetings.
-The planner apologized for the recent late delivery and said the staff was •
unaware the delivery man sometimes holds the Planning Commission packets
Thursdays and delivers them on Friday when he distributes Council packets .
Motion:
Lynch moved, Boerger seconded, to adopt as procedural policy that no item be
placed on the agenda unless all necessary documents, proposals,aid reports are
delivered to the Planning Commission members at least 9 days prior to the meeting ,
sai restriction may_be waived after a majority vote. The motion carried unanimously,
3. Report Format
Sorensen suggested the commission adopt a, report format whereby items
.would be covered systematically, and a summary.at the beginning of long ieports'_- _
and a check list would be added for each report. Sorensen said the intent would
be to provide a better basis for evaluation and equal treatment of proposals. Meyers
felt a summary would be helpful, but a check list may be difficult since reports
differ. Fosnocht felt that a check list would be beneficial. Schee said the
Planning Reference File'was intended to be a means-of a• check-list to assist in'
evaluation. It was agreed that 2 appointed commission members would work
with the staff regarding a format.
B. Mrs. Meyers.
1.Discussion of Council Liaison
Mrs. Meyers reminded the commission that-the Council will be considering - the
item at the February 4th meeting and summarized the alternatives reviewed at •
the last Planning Commission meeting.
Feerick asked what functions an ex-off icio member would have. Boerger replied
that such members are similar to the present system but they have no voting power.
Boerger said he believes the commission needs the interchange of the liaison .
Schee stated she would not favor any alternate from what presently exists.
Fosnocht agreed. Discussion followed regarding other problems of the liaison
members such as possible undue influence and the difficulty of the role.
The commission authorized Mr. Sorensen to draft a resolution expressing
their concerns and position. It was unanimously carried. The commission
then suggested the resolution be included in the minutes.
10HEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Eden Prairie has been
appraised"that the City Council is currently considering the modification
and7or cessation of the, council representative's membership, role and function
on the various advisory commissions of the City, and
WHEP.EAS, the Planning Commission is ccgnizant and appreciative of the
concerns of the City Council in this area, including the demands on the time
of the council -liaison nember, the possibility of conflict of roles inherent
in the dual function of the council member,and the possibility of excessive
influence on the cormissionst deliberations and decisions arising out of
the council member's position, and
WHEREAS,' the Planning Commission, while not depreciating the importance
of the various and sundry other matters the City of Eden Prairie must deal
with in order to fulfill its obligations to its citizens, strongly believes
that land use, and its attendant ror,.i fi cations, is the most significant and 4
far reaching responsibility the City must address itself to,given the•present ,
state of the City's developaent, the constant pressures for change which will
be continually experienced by the City in this area in the near term foresee-
able future, and the City's lung standing commitment to the preservation of
its amenities and the creation of a viable and heterogeneous societal frame-
work, and •
Planning Commission Minutes -2b- Jan. 27 1975
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considers that the full membership and
participation of a councilperson in its deliberations and decisions is essential
to its functioning for the following, amongst other, reasons:
1.) To provide a fuller exchange of information regarding each body's
actions and reasonings than can be accomplished by a perusal of
each body's minutes. (Minutes by their nature are but resumes
and often are not a true representation of the depth or total
-
lity of the items considered.)
2.) To promote consistency in carrying out council determined
policies and to impart the Council viewpoint to Planning Cori-
mission deliberations.
3.) To heighten understanding-of each body�s concerns and positions.
4.) To minimize applicant's anticipation of arbitrary or capricious
action by having a politically responsible person on the Plan-
ning Commission.
To lend additional stature and credibility to Planning Commission
reco 'andations and decisions, which historically has contributed
to a minim number of appeals or court-challenges.
• WHEPEFOPE, the Planning Ccmmission of the City of Eden Prairie hereby
unanimously urges and recommends that the Mayor and City Council not alter
the concept of full merbership and participation of a council person on the
Planning Commission, which has served the citizens of Eden Prairie so well
over the years."
C. Other Members.
1.Mr. Fosnocht.
Mr. Fosnocht reported that hb is serving on an advisory commission for the
Hennepin County Transportation System Study. The purpose of which is to define
the issues involved, develop a long range plan through the year 2000; & study the
functions and extensions of roads , transit facilities , bikeways, etc.
Sorensen - thought - that such information would be valuable and should be
distributed to the commission. Mr. Fosnocht agreed to do so and said he
would keep the commission updated .. on the study.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- Jan. 27, 1975
IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
A. 4Z5 Mini-Sector Study, further discussion of the study team's report dated
Jan. 6 , 1975 , presented at the January 13th Planning Commission meeting.
Discussion began on page 34 of the report. '
�Sr eser sic u� fr�rdn,'�fid«tin vr��f�3 c�trd7rrenti bnaer aifdrnat6 A regarciiiig
highway service and convenience shopping in 3 corners of the intersection.
The planner explained that presently there is the DX Station in the southwest
corner, concept approval for commercial in the southeast corner , and the study
team's proposed neighborhood commercial for the northwest corner.
Meyers felt a need existed to define the different types of commercial according
to square footage. The planner said general definitions are given on pages 42-43.
Meyers questioned the wording in the last sentence on page 37 The planner
said the sentence should read " rather than the MCA. "
Sorensen noted that the Guide Plan diagram on page 41 shows commercial
within the 4/5 Study Area located furtlier north,near the library, instead of the
northwest corner of 4 & 5 as proposed by the study team.
Meyers reported that a number of people , at the 4/5 public hearing before the
Council.oppose T.H. 5 being upgraded to a level greater than exists today.
The planner felt some of the peopl e in the study area favor T.H. 5's upgrading
for.safety purposes . He added that the study team is recommending that T.H. 5
be a major ( 4 lane ) arterial.
Fee-rick asked if the staff's proposal would defer the construction of 212. The
planner said the upgrading of 4 & 5 could defer the construction of 2.12 , but
that the status of 212 is indefinite.
Sorensen felt there should be some definition of low & medium densities'referred
to in the diagram on page 44. The planner felt description of building types #
would be adequate at this time
Sorensen asked'if another access other thanon to T.H. 5, for the 18 acre site
along T.H. 5 was possible. The planner said a frontage road or some other
system may be possible.
Lynch asked if Mr. Riegert's proposal would fit in .an industrial category. i
The planner said it would be a matter of interpretation. Meyers asked if the i
study team would recommend no rezoning in the 18 acre parcel unless T.H. 5
is upgraded or signalized. The planner said the City might make that recommenda-
tion, but implementation may b3 difficult.
Sorensen inquired into the status of the Pemton property in the southwest corner.
The planner said presently Pemton is trying to sell the property. Sorensen •
then expressed the concern that uses at the proposed neighborhood center
maychange in the future.
+ Planning Commission Minutes -4-- Jan. 27, 1975
Meyers asked for clarification of the statement within the report that the gas
tCation should be retained because of its current condition. The planner replied
he reason was because the building is attractive and it is an appropriate 'use.
Sorensen remarked that if the building has a conditional use permit, such a
use could be phased-out. . The planner said the property's lack of,commercial
zoning is felt to be an oversight : because the land immediately surroundingit
Is zoned commercial. Fosnocht said he had no obj actions to the building at this time,
but would not want to see the use expand.
Sorensen asked what type of connection had been worked out with the residential
area off of Luther Way. The planner said the access would have to be worked
out after the land use is established.
Meyers said that Dr. Savaryn suggested the 5 . 5 acre institutional/office site
be extended to the west. The planner said the 5 . 5 acre site respects the woods
and he would not recommend the site be extended to the west.
Fosnocht felt because of access problems, development e.ast of Co. Rd. .4,and
the existing neighborhood commercial located at the Red *Store, that a site
east of Co. Rd. 4 might be more suitable for neighborhood commercial. He added
that the northwest corner should be considered for an institutionalloffice use.
Boerger said the only change he would like to see in the report is a different
location for the neighborhood commercial.
Motion:
Schee moved, Boerger seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of
the 4/5 Mini-Sector Study Report as prepared by the study team with recommenda-
tions 1-5 on page 52 of the report and direct the staff to make the necessary
changes and corrections in the - text suggested by the commission.
Discussion:
Lance Nordethas responded to Sorensen's concern that other uses may evolve
If commercial is allowed, and said the Zoning- Ordinance prevents a given use
from exceeding the ' square footage prescribed.
Mr. Don Peterson said Edenvale would change their commercial concept if the
land uses as recommended in the report were approved..
Boerger called question on the motion.
Fosnocht stated that he could not "vote positive on the motion if it included
commercial at the northwest corner.
Sorensen felt the concerns expressed by the commission such as ; setbacks
from T.H. 5 , recommended lava uses, etc. , should be reflected in the commissions
motion.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- Jan. 27, 1975
The planner suggested the members list their concerns and recommended changes,
and the staff could then compile a list for the following meeting.
Amendment:
Lynch moved to exclude the land use proposed in the northwest corner and that
some other alternate be suggested. The amendment did not receive a second.
Schee suggested the commission vote on the question. The question carried.
{ Note: The' ,motion failed 1:6,with Schee voting aye.
Motion:
Meyers moved, Fosnocht seconded, to place the item on the following agenda
and request members to submitJor discussion,alternate -proposals and their
concerns. The motion carried unanimously.
B•. Linden Pond, by Edenvale Inc. , requesting rezoning to RM 6. 5 for the single
familyarea, preliminary plat approval, ( for 28 single family lots on 11.8 ac. ,
arid.80 multiple units on 8.2 acres) , and approval on Outlot R lying north of
the single family area. The site is located in Edenvale's northwest area.'.
Mr. Peterson said the area in the center of the single family area would be
open space. He stated the lots have a minimum of 85' frontage and 1 lot has
been eliminated from the original plan.
Sorensen asked what setbacks the project would have. The planner referred him to
the setbacks recommended in the staff report. Mr. Peterson said they would be
requesting 25' setbacks, for some lots.
Boerger noted that the 2 staff reports contained conflicting zonings—RM 6. 5 &
R1-13 .5 . The planner said that deciding upon a zoning classification has been.
difficult because of the inadequacies of the Zoning Ordinance. Peterson stated
that Mr. Enger is now recommending RM 6. 5 zoning.
Sorensen asked if variances would be requested. Peterson felt the PUD zoning
_• !ould--take- care_ of apv variances.
Meyers asked if Edenvale agreed to the 6 ' asphalt paths suggested in the report.
Peterson responded that they propose crushed limestone for their recreational
paths because they .are less, expensive to build and easier to construct and maintain.
The planner agreed that limestone .paths are less expensive,but felt they would
not serve multiple purposes, i.e. bikers would prefer using roads instead of
limestone paths .
Motion•
Boerger moved, Schee seconded, to approve the rezoning 'Lo R1-13. 5 for the single
family area , preliminary plat approval for 27 lots, and approval of outlot R north
of the single family area based upon the Jan. 22, 1975 staff report with the
correction to R1-13. 5 zoning at the bottom of the second page. The motion
carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- fan. 27, 1975
CA&ttus Inc. & Flying Cloud Land Compan , proposal for commercial uses on
. 8 acres located north of W. 78th Street and west of the new Eden Prairie
Ring Road in the MCA. Requesting rezoning from R1-22 to C-Hwy and PUD74-10.
The planner .informed the 'commission that the church would probably be
discussing the proposal at their February 3rd meeting. He added that the staff
and some of the landowners feel the north/south access road through the site
is necessary.
Meyers cited the following items she felt should be covered I-) the staff report ;
the proposed land use percentages consistency with the intent of"the*MCA,,
the amount of landscaping proposed, the adequacy of proposed insulation,
drainage into Anderson Lakes, no pedestrian linkages proposed, alignment of
driveways , the strip zoning appearance of the proposal, and the lack of a
signage program.
Lynch said some people in the affectedareado not feel the buffering proposed
Is adequate.
Sorensen asked if it would be possible , based on the MCA requirements, to
withhold approval until a larger scale development is presented. The planner
stated that the minimum acreage developable is 3 acresand the Titus proposal
-of 7. 8 acres meets that condition.
Motion:
Meyers moved,. Fosnocht seconded, to continue the item to the February loth
meeting.
.Discussion:
Sorensen asked if the staff report would be available before the 3rd of February,
The planner was uncertain and said hewculdlike to have the benefit of the church
review included in the report. Sorensen suggested, that such input could be an
addition to the report.
Vote: The motion carried unanimously.
D. Chestnut Phase III, by New Town Development, requesting development phase
approval and rezoning to permit medium density garden apartments ( 200 units ).
The planner reported that since the project's feewas received last Thrusday
no report had been prepared by Brauers . The planner added that he expects the
watershed district to submit another letter which -will deal with the proposed
filling. He said complaints from people in the first and second phases have
been received regarding parking shortages. The planner stated that the
Park & Recreation Commission would be reviewing the open space concerned.
Mr.Frank Cardarelle felt the land dedicated for the parkway and the treatment
of the .involved flood plaindre adequate for park responsibilities,and said they
do-not think they should be asked for additional park donations.
Motion:
Meyers moved, Boerger seconded, to continue the item to the Feb. 10th meeting.
The motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes --7- Jan. 27, 1975 -
E. Community Development Act, discussion of joint powers agreement with
Hennepin County to obtain 1975 funds for the City of Ed.en Prairie.
The planner reported that the staff is recommending the signing of'a joint
powers agreement with Hennepin County and the signage of the agreement
is expected at the Council's January 28th meeting.
Sorensen asked if the City Attorney reviewed the agreement. The planner
responded affirmative.
P. M. C.A. Development Ordinance, discussion of process and ordinance content.
The planner reported that the City attorney and himself had discussed the
ordinance and have come up with the outline dated January 27,1975.
Sorensen asked .if the commission would be reviewing the ordinance before the
Council directed. it to the commission.
The planner replied that'Mrs. Meyers is of the understanding that the Council
did direct it to the commission, but the staff has been unable to find that'
direction- . in the minutes .
V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS.
A. Eden Prairie Center Addition, by Homart Development Company, requesting
preliminary plat approval for approximately 114 acres , as a revision to the final •
plat of the Eden Prairie Center to be comprised of 6 lots . The site abuts the
east right-of-way of T.H. 169/212 and the south right-of-way of W. 78th
Street.
Mr. Jensen, from Suburban Engineering, said the platting would simplify the
legal descriptions of the lots.
Meyers asked when the seeding and grading by others printed on the plat would
be required. Mr. Jensen said that those directions related to the grading
contract only.
Meyers then asked for clarification of the area dividing lots 4 & 5 . Jensen
replied that a leg of lot 3 divides 4 & 5 and that it provides access for lot 3
along the.Ring Road.
Sorensen suggested the City attorney investigate whether or not lots must have
a certain amount of frontage .on a public road according to the Subdivision
Ordinance.
Motion:
Fosnocht moved, Schee seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval
of tY-e.preliminary plat submitted by Homart for approximately,114 acres as a
revision to the final plat of the Eden Prairie Center as requested and subject to
the bngtheering report.
r
t
Planning Commission Minutes -8- Jan. 27, 1976
Discussion:
r. Jensen referring to recommendation # 1 in the engineering report, said it
would be difficult for them to be' tied to the actions of another. Sorensen
asked if The Preserve was willing to work with Homart. Don Hess, of The
Preserve, had no comment. Mr. Jensen said that there has been no positive
agreement between Homart and The-Preserve. Sorensen suggested Homart
and the Preserve reach an agreement before the" item is* presented to the Council.
Vote: The motion carried unanimously. '
B. 'Final Signage Plans for the Homart Eden Prairie Center,. presentation of signage
program.
The planner said the Public Safety Department reviewed the traffic signs proposed
and recommends directional signs be painted-on the pavement.
Mr, Bill Acheson said the signage program had been cutback , but conduit would
be placed under giound for the other signs .
The planner said the staff report basically "recommends approval-of-the signage
program except the United Artist sign which appears over the maximum'
square footage allowed in the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Acheson said the Unified
Artist sign is the standard size and type used by United Artist.
• Fosnocht expressed the concern that the arrows on the pavement may not be
visible at allttnes during the Winter. Mr. Lynch agreed,and felt something.
more acceptable should be. proposed. The planner responded that the Public
Safety is redommending the arrows and depending on angle parking instead of
the usual confusing in/out signs . Fosnocht believed in/out signs would be more
valuable. Schee said she would be willing to go along with the Public Safety's
recommendation.
Meyers asked if more signs would be forthcoming,since each building site
could have 1 sign- and there are 6 lots in the plat. The planner said the 3 futLre build-
ing sites will have separate signs that will have to be submitted for approval.
Motion:
Schee moved, Boerger seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of
signage proposed in the Eden Prairie Exterior Signage Brochure dated today
with the exception of the large United Artist sign.
Amendment:
Fosnocht moved, Lynch seconded, to amend the motion to add a second amend-
ment to exclude the parking lot directional sign approval, and to hold its approval
until the developer provides a more suitable solution.
Discussion:
Feerick.asked if the Public Safety had considered marking iizst the in ' lanes.
The planner replied that the Public Safety feels such signs are confusing.
Boerger asked if signage approval was gin at this time , if only painting
of the pavement could be expected. The planner felt the directional
signing could be changed by Homart and the Public Safety in the future
if it was deemed necessary.
y
r
Planning Commission Minutes -9- Jan. 27, 1975
1
Sorensen asked Mr. Porter if he felt snow cover would obscure the directional
arrows . Mr. Porter replied Homart`s snow removal program would probably prevent
such coverage. #
f
Feerickasked if Homart had considered using just ' in ` signs. Porter said
such signs are confusing because drivers cannot tell whether they are to turn #
before or.after the signs ;
y • Y
Sorensen felt the signage brochure lacked specifity,and perhaps more information,
i
i.e. materials,, etc. , should be supplied before the commission reaches a
.decision.
Schee called question on the amendment. The question carried unanimously.
. i
Vote on Amendment : The amendment carried 5:2,with Schee and Boerger voting nay.
Schee-called question on the motion. The question carried 6•:l,with-Sorensen. voting- .
nay.
Vote on Motion: The motion carried 6:1,with Sorensen voting nay because of
the lack of detail- - provided in the signage brochure.
VI. PLANNER'S REPORT.
Not covered due to the late hour.
VII. ADJOURNMENT.
Lynch moved, Boerger seconded, to adjourn at. 1 :00 AM. The motion carried
unanimously.
Respectively Submitted
jean M Egan