Loading...
Planning Commission - 04/23/1979 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday. April 23, 1979 7:30 PM, City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman , Liz Retterath, Oke Martinson, Matthew Levitt, George Bentley, Hakon Torjesen , and Virginia Gartner STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, P':nning Director; Jean Johnson , Assistant Planner; Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary u Estimated Pledge of allegiance - Roll Call _ time I . APPROVAL OF AGNEDA 7 : 35 II . MINUTES OF THE APRIL 9, 1979 MEETING, a MINUTES OF THE APRIL 16, 1979 COINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:40 III . MEMBERS REPORTS IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7:45 A. Neill Woods , The Preserve, request to rezone 12 acres from Rural to R1-13. 5 and preliminary plat approximately 27 single family lots. Located west of Neill Lake. A continued public hearing. 8:0U B. Preserve Center Addition Replat, request by The Preserve to replat Lot I Block 1 , Preserve Center Addition, zoned RM 6. 5. A continued public hearing. t 8: 10 C. To view Acres 4th Addition by Millers, request to rezone 17 acres from - to R - 3. an preliminary pl:t 7 single family lots and an outlot for future platting. 8:30 D. Shady Oak Industrial Park 2nd, by Richard Anderson, request to rezone 6. 8 acres from Rural to 1-9 Park and preliminary plat property -- into two industrial uses. A continued public hearing. 9:00 E. Eden Prairie Assemblies of God Church, request to rezone 10 acres from Rural to PUBLIC for the construction of a chu.--h. The site is located in the southwest corner of Co. Rd. 4 and Duck Lake Trail . A public meeting. Q: F. Stewart Sandwiches , request to rezone approximately 3 acres from Rural to I-2 Park and approval of variance to allow temporary outside storagce of vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton. The site is located west of the present Stewart Sandwiches building at 16101 West 78th Street. A public meeting. . - ---- — ._,._..._,,... ���Yasri•rioisrsnsQ�s�sr• WlliiY�ei�til�Nrl61dMl�W.'� Agenda Meeting of April 23, 1979 Page 2 % ec `/, • LW VUJx1�lLJJ VII . NEW BUSINESS A. Cancellation or reschedulin_g of the 2nd ineetingin May, May 8 Memo r l a a VIII. PLANNER' S REPORT 10:00 IX. ADJOURNMENT EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .approved NDAY, APRIL 239 1979 7: 30 PM, CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRFSENT: Chairman William Bearman. Liz Retterath, Matthew Levitt, George Bentley, Hakon Torjesen, and Virginia Gartner COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Oke Martinson COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Retterath moved to approve the agenda as published. Gartner seconded, nation .tarried unanimously. II. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 9, 1979 MEETING Pg. 3, para. 3, sent. 1 , -delete "asked whether the Findings and Conclusions listed in the staff report were considered statements of fact by the proponent and where he disagreed. " ; add "asked whether the proponent disagreed with any of the statements made in the staff report. " • Pg. 6, para. 6, last sent. , delete "as part of the staff report of April 5, 1979. " ; add "in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. " Pg. 7, para. 5, sent. 3; delete "country" ; add "City". MOT:UN: Torjesen moved to accept the Minutes of the April 9, 1979 meeting as published and amended. Gartner seconded, motion carried unanimously. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 16, 1979 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Pg. 3, para. 6, add "by local Girl -Scout troops" after "hand delivery of notices ." NOTION: Bentley moved to approve the Minutes of the April 16, 1979 meeting as published and amended. Retterath seconded, motion carried unanimously. III . MEMBERS REPORTS - None. IV. REPORTS AND REC"ENDATIONS ' A. Neill Woodsy The Preserve, request to rezone 12 acres from Rural to RI-13. 5 and preliminary plat approximately 27 single family lots. Located west of Neill Lake. A continued public hearing. The City Planner summarized the request, explaining' that this proposal depends on the replatting of the Preserve Center Addition of Lot, Block 1 to gain access to the north, as part of the transportation system which approved Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - Apro l s 231, 1979 A. Neill Woods. . . . .continued public hearing (continued) R The Planner pointed out that the subdivisions to the north and west have Met the Ordinance, and did not feel that variances should be granted in this development. MOTION #1 : Bentley moved to close the Public Hearing on Neill Woods. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. v MOTION #2: Bentley moved to recormend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to R1-13. 5 based upon the plat of 3/l/79 and staff report of April 17, 1979 with the following modifications: elimination of no. 3 of FINDINGS AND C04CLUSIONS of staff report; emphasis on further consideration by the staff on the 90' frt)ntage question prior to submission to the City Council ; and a strong recommendation that no variances be granted or this subdivision. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6- 0. MOTION #3: Bentley moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated 3/l/79 based upon the staff report of 4/17179, with the above mentioned modifications. Retterath seconded , motion carried 6-0. B. PRESERVE CENTER ADDITION REPLAT, request by The Preserve to replat Lot 1 , Block 1 , Preserve Center Addition, zoned RM 6.5. A continued public hearing. The Planner explained that this area is zoned for townhouses , and that the technicalities of the Anderson Lakes Parkway and Preserve Boulevard intersection are being worked out and are subject to review by the Planning Commission and the City Council when an actual project is proposed for the area. Mr. James Hill , planning and Engineering Consultant for the proposal , agreed to work with the Engineering Depart--rent in worm.i ng :gut t+c Ica 119inent of the Anderson Lake- Parkway and Preserve Boulevard intersection. He explained that they were splitting the exict;^e rnad and providing right-of-tray for Preserve Boulevard , and that this isV the reason fcr their present request for repl atti ng. MOTION #1 : Torjesin moved to close the Public Hearing on The Preserve Center Addition Replat. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION #2: Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the replat dated March 1 , 1979 based upon the staff report of April 17, 1979 with the folio-.9 y mWifications: elimination of no. 3 of FINDINGS AND CON- CLUSIONS of the staff report; no variances be granted on Outlot A; and addition of no. 5 - the Planning and Engineering staff work out the realign- ment of Preserve Boulevard and Anderson Lakes Parkway to make an acceptable interchange. sec:,ivdaa, zwt- ion carried 6-0. C. TOPVIEW ACRES dTH ADDITION, by Millers, request to rezone 17 acres from to R - 3. an pre imi nary p i at 7 single family lots and an outl of for future platting. A continued Public gearing. Mr. Jerrold Miller presented his plan for the area , and explained that they felt the park should bp located In T©pview Acres. He spoke for his neighbor. 'approved . Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 23, 1979 C. Topview Acres 4th Addition. ._.platting (continued) easement for the purpose of control'or protection of .the area, and to also Pequire the cash park fee. MOTION #3: Levitt moved to recommend "o the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated march 21 , 19i9 based upon tLe staff report of April 16, 1979, including the inclusion of no. 5 to the FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS as listed in MOTION 12. Bentley seconded, ,motion carried 6-0. A 5 minute break was called for by the Chairman. D. SHADY OAK INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND, by Richard Anderson, request to rezone 12.9 acres fromRural to 1-2 Park preliminary plat propearty into two indus- trial uses. A continued public hearing. The Planner explained that the City's consulting engineers are in the pro- cess of doing a feasibility study on -the construction of Shady Oak Road. Mr. Richard Anderson presented background of his first Addition of four building sites, and summarized his present request. Torjesen inquired whether the proposed alignment of Shady Oak Read is consistent with the way it will connect with Valley View Road. The Planner responded affirmative, and that we do hays the dedication of Valley View Rd. The floor area ratio was discussed, and the plan complied with the Ordinance. Bentley inquired what the policy of the City was for sidewalk construction in this type of Zoning. The P1 nner explained that in. an industrial park there are usually no places to walls to, therefore they are not proposing sidewalks at this. time. The City does have adequate right-of-way. Bearsan asked whether there were any large trees in the area. Anderson res- ponded negative, MOTION #1 : Bentley moved to close the Public Hearing on Shady Oak Industrial Park 2nd. Rettaerath seconded, motion carried 6-0. POTION 02: Bentley moved to recom end to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park based upon the revised plat of April 23, 1979 and upon the staff report of April 17, 1979. Gartner seconded, motion Carried POTION M Bentley moved to recoaaaer►d to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat based upon the revised plat of April 231v 1979 and staff report of April 17, 1979. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. Wri� _ Y'Y iglu Planning Commission. Minutes 7 - April 23, 4978 Beaarman left the mec ing at 10:05 PM, with Vice-Chairwoman Retterath conducting the remainder of the meeting. STEWART SANDWICHES request to rezone approximately 3 acres from Rural to 1-2 Park and approval of variance to allow temporary outside storage of vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton. The site is located west of the present Stewart Sandwiches building at 16100 west 78th Street. A public meeting. The Planner discussed the background of the proposal , explaining that one of the reasons this request was withdrawn after first submission was because of Fuller Road. Stewart Sandwiches, along with the other industries , have presented the City with a 100S..petition for the construction of a service road from Fuller Road west to County Road 49 parellel to Trunk- Highway 5. The Planner also discussed the outside storage issue, explaining that the time frame for the Construction of the future proposed buildings has not been given, and the screening of the truck and parking area is dependent upon the future buildings, therefore interim screening should be provided. Mr. Pete Petrulo, Vice-President-Operations for Stewart Sandwiches , explained the reason for their request is growth! and assured the Commission that Stewart Sandwiches will do anything within reason to comply with- City requirements. Bentley inquired whether a request for variance on outside storage could properly be acted upon by the Planning Commission. The Planner responded that outside storage will have to be granted by the Board of Appeals, if the Planning Commission feels that an I-2 zoning with a variance is reasonable. Bentley suggested that if this variance is recommended to the Board of Appeals , that it also contain recommendation for review within a period of three to five years. Levitt questioned whether screening any kind of outside storage was possible because Highway 5 runs above much bf the .land along Highway S. The Planner suggested that more complete information on screening be submitted: - MOTION: Bentley moved to continue the Stewart Sandwiches proposal to the meeting of May 14 and request more information concerning Screening plans for the outdoor . storage area. TorJesen seconded, motion carried 5.0. V1.OLD BUSINESS The following items* werebriefly discussed: control of violations to the City Ordinances. Upgrading of Highway 5; and builder' s retponsibility to 001n up after construction. VI L NEW BUSINESS A. Cancellation or rescheduling of the 2nd meeting in May. May 26 (Memorial Oayl 14CTION: Torjena moved to cancel the May 28th (Memorial Day) meating. Bentley seconded, notion carried unanimously. PLANNER' S REPpRT - None. IX.ADJOURN KENT MOTION: TorJesen moved to adjourn at 11 :00 PM, Levitt seconded, motion carried unanimously. f approved Planning Comission Minutes - 2 - April 23, .1979 �. � Neill Moods. . . . .continued public hearing. (continued) would include the re-construction of Preserve Boulevard by The Preserve. He suggested deletion of no. 3 of the staff report of requirement of 60' right- of-way width, after further discussion with the City Engineering Department, and suggested the 502 right-of-way as illustrated in the proposed plat. The Planner suggested that no variances b-n given to Outlot A, in order to be consis- tent with surrounding developments, which were not granted variances, and that construction within this subdivision should not occur until there is another access out as also recommended in the surrou.,d 'ng proposed development of Meadow Park and Olympic Hills 6th Addition. Mr. Jim Hill , Planning and Engineering consultant, presented the plan for The Preserve, pointing out the road system, and explaining that a road would be constructed from Anderson Lakes Parkway. Levitt questioned the traffic flow through Meadow Parks from the proposed deve- lopment and felt that there would be more than 500 trips per day. Fills responded that about half of the trips would exit via Anderson Lakes Parkway, with the other half exiting via Homewai-d Hills Road. - Levitt questioned the width of the quasi public space and expressed concern with the size of the lots back into the Neill Lake easement area. The Planner explained that lots situated on the lake would be approximately rune-hale acre size if the dedicated space was included in the computation. The lots in question occur on a cul-de-sac, and discussion took place on when the implementation policy of requiring 90' frontage on cul-de-sacs would take effect. The Planner explained that this plan had been submitted prior to discussion of revising frontage requirements. Hill pointed out that Ordinance 135 does speak to definitions of width of lots , and the width will be perpendicular with the length. Bearman explain-ad that the width of the lot is measured at the street right- of-way, and that the City may be requiring that lots have frontage in order to better maintain the area as far as snow removal and parking soace. Ue project, in relation to the proposed Shoreland Management Ordinance, was dis- cussed, and it was noted that the project did meet the State Shoreland Management Act and the proposed City Shoreland Management Ordinance. Torjesen asked whether the developer was in agreement with the Findings and Con- clusions of the staff report. Hill responded that he did question no. 2, the Ordinance requirements for lot frontage and minimum sideyard, explaining that they are requestinq the same lot sizes and setback variances that have been granted in The Preserve. :approved Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - April 23, 1979 C. Topview Acres 4th Addition. - out'lot for future platting (continued) Mr. Larry Hanson, 130M Gerard Drive, who opposed the trailway proposed --—-I 'I t sag. &_� A.I.. aSA. e_ ......a... 1 .9;ja ^-C ♦1.— 1'! --%*o%d- U%*11r. pal a Ic. I iiiI al 1.11c r1oi tiica�uci 11 F 1 VFCl L'y I I��c vi a.+1c o f U%.i cae I'll 11c1 questioned the requirement to dedicate 17' of right-of-way for a total of 50 feet from C. S.A.H. 60 centerline by the County, because ' it will affect his house. The Planner explained that there have been requests for a park in the area, and the Miller site had been considered by the Community Services Department for a park site, but was not chosen. Miller explained that he has no immediate plans for the area to the north, and prefers any access be previded through the southern part of his land for trail access. - Levitt questioned the requirement of an easement when there is no park located in that area. The Planner responded that the Council is close to deciding on a park location here, and that either of the- cul -de-sacs could provide access to the park. + Various sized trails and their composition were discussed and the Planner explained the occasions where certain widths are required. . Ten feet of easement on either. side of an 8' path is recommended in this proposal . Mr. Paul Uanicich, 7145 Gerard Drive, commented that he lives between the -t —two cul-de-sacs , and has been under the impression that this was goinq to be a park, and felt that a park was needed in this area. Torjesen asked what the dedication requirement was for a developer. The Planner responded that a mini park is recomended by the City for every 50 homes in a subdivision. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission is in the process of re-drafting the Cash Park Fee Ordinance, which provides for monies to be used in park development. Bentley questioned how an easement could be approved when the location of the park site was still undecided. The. Planner felt the plan should include an easement for access. MOTION #1 : Levitt moved to close the Public Nearing on Topyiew Acres 4th Addition plat. Bentley seconded, motion carried, 6-0. MOTION #2: Levitt moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13. 5 based upon the plan dated March 21 , 1979 and staff report of April 16, 1979 with the following modification: addition of no. 5 to the FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS that an alternate plan for the purpose of a pedestrian trail be included - (a 20' easement be granted to the City in the southern cul-de-sac area) . Bentley seconded, motion carried 6-0. Miller questioned requirement of land dedication and cash park fee. The Planner responded that. the City can request land for scenic ap ed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES an6 - Aprilv23, 1979 E. EDEN PRAIRIE ASSEM2LIES OF G0D CHURCH, request to rezone 10 acres from Rural to PUBLIC for the construction of a church. The site is located in the southwest corner of Co. Rd. 4 and Duck Lake Trail . A public meeting. Mr. Richa-d Lundahl , Architect for the project, made the presentation for the Eden Prairie Assemblies of God Church, explaining their concern with the drainage from the parking lot and their intention to change the slope of the parking lot more to the east. They are proposing to light the parking lot, but definite studies have not been made. They are willing to comply with any of the requirements within reason. Levitt inquired what the field space plans would be. Lundahl responded that football , baseball fields and tennis courts were in their Master Plan , but would not be constructed at this time. They intend on landscaping the area to the south. Levitt questionzd what the tightIine was to neighbors to the .youth. Lundahl responded that it is Practically flat. Beaman questioned whether the other 50% of the land not used for the church building and parking could be used for single family homes. He pointed out ' that the soil was not suitable for the building of homes. Mr. Steve Kleiman , 16570 Baywood Lane, expressed opposition to the plan because of drainage plans , the water will not be absorbed into the Darkina lot surface, and that there will be a lot of run-off. He also expressed• oppositioer. to the game fields , with noise that would be generated , and pointed out that there is no access through the properties to the south and also no access for the children wanting to go and play softball etc. . Another resident suggested moving the recreation area away from the existing homes. Bentley inquired whether detailed grading plans had been submitted with the plan. The Planner responded negative, and suggested the proponent prepare a master grading plan along with a landscaping plan. Pastor Wesley Brooks , Eden Prairie Assemblies of Cod Church, agreed to submit the re- quested information, explaining f.i:ey would not want to grade the land in a way that would be bad for the neighbors. They had a neighborhood meeting previously, with only three residents in attendance. The Planner explained that in this type of situation, lighting could be very critical . Mr. William KcKewan, 16730 Baywood Terrace, also expressed concern with the direction of the drainage flow, explaining that as it is currently proposed, it will end up sitting in one area. MOTION; Bentley moved to continue the Public Meeting on Eden Prairie Assemblies of God Church to May 14, 1979 until qu __stiens on lighting, screeninq. ,blandscaping are answered and wi thr sUtwii ss i on and consideration of more detailed drainage lighting and screening plans. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0.