Planning Commission - 06/11/1979 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, June 11 , 1979
7: 30 PM, City Hall
COMMISSION MEMRFRS: wi i i i� w -a
m Roann 1 ; -P
...v.. . . . . ... v--. ....... , — . — .•%n..Nt.. %A VI I ,
Oke Martinson , Matthew Levitt, George
Bentley, Hakon Torjesen, and Virginia
Gartner
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Planning Director
Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner
Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL
I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II . APPROVAL OF THE (MINUTES OF MAY 14, 1979
III . MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMEN[ ATIONS
A. SCHOENFELDER PUD, request by G. P. Schoenfelder for Planned
Unitfla e1c... ent concept rn.-.i:o ll f 43 - Regional
Y .., ...:_ :...�:L_r _ 2r,.� .,JG i I 've'` 4v. :� dui r� zoned -
Corr iercial and Rural for uses of commercial , office and multiple
residential purposes. A continued public hearing.
is
B. DUCK LAKE VISTA, request by Pierce & Associates tc rezone approximately
20 acres from Rural to R1-13. 5 and RM 6. 5, and preliminary platting
of 30 single family hcmes and 2 dupTexes. A continue" public hearing .
C. SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK, request to rezone 4. 4 acres from Rural
to Office for a bank and office facility. Site is located at
present drive-up facility, 11401 best 78th Street. A public
rrsee t i ng.
V. PETITIONS AND RE2JESTS
VI . PLANNER' S REPORT
YIi . OLD BUSINESS
VIiI . NEW BUSINESS
IX . ADJUURNMENT
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING C06 MISSION
MINUTES .approved
MONDAY, JUNE 119 1979 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Beaman, Liz Retterath,
Y..at9._. . 1 !ta .% - _ n_ a• .
11ol.btI=" LCVi4L', uCuIyC DC11LICy9 nokon loriesen,
Virginia Gartner, and Oke Martinson
COMMISSION STAFF PRE:>EN : Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Bentley moved to approve the Agenda as published. Retterath seconded,
wootion carried unanimously.
iI . APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 14, 1979
The following corrections were requested:
Pg. 5, para. 5, sent. 1 , delete "Beth" ; add "Pat" .
Pg. 6, para. 6, sent. 3, add "to the" after "Access as near"
MOTION: Gartner moved to approve the Minutes of May 14, 1979 meeting as
published an' amended. Bentley seconded, motion carried unanimously.
4II . MEMBERS REPORTS
Gartner reported briefly on the status of the Highway 212 Task Force.
Beaman extended the invitation to all present to attend the public hearing
on the Comprehensive Guide Plan Update scheduled for June 12th.
IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. SCHOENFEI DER PUD, request by G. P. Schoenfel der for Planned Unit
Development concept approval for 46. 3 acres zoned Regional -Commercial
and Rural fdr uses of commercial , office and noultiplf.. residential purposes.
A continued public hearing.
Mr. nick Knutson, McCombs-Knutson Associates , Inc. , addressed the flow
of traffic they anticipate from various directions , noting that very
little traffic was expected off of County Road 18 and to Valley View Road.
Knutson further addressed the concerns expressed at the former meeting
on grading and removal of trees. He explained there would be minimal
grading and the large, mature oaks located on the site would be saved. If
their request was approved by the Conn+ission tonight, they would come back
with the preliminary plat and grading plan. He explained that the land
uses on the revised plan were similar to the suggestions of the Staff,
with the exception of the three lots bordering the Valley View Road inter-
change, where they show Highway-Commercial and Regional-Service.
...��-•,."se --1z�:'�i--;1':'i�':�....�r+�u.��s'�' -3�-.-��+ar:;q��� yi! ��sYa�az �'�s'G:
F
approved
Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - June 11 , 1979
A. Schoenfel der PUD . . . .continued public hear' ,!g. (continued)
Beaman inquired what amount of traffic would be generated by the project.
Knutson responded that they were unsure.
Beaman asked about the extent of the cutting of hIll . Knutson explained
it would be approximately 8' , and the lots would have to to above street
level .
Knutson responded to a further concern by Beaman on the reason for the
proposed filling of 20% of the flood plain. lie explained that this would
be the maximum amount according to the UNR, and was needed in order to
build on one of the sites. He suggested trade-offs by the Watershed District
as a solution. They have not connected the Watershed District as yet.
Mr. Frank Smetana, 7680 Smetana Lane, expressed dissapproval with the pNo-
posed land uses ,bthe grading plan which included cutting-,of a hill and
removing of trees. Smetana also noted a Section Number »for in the legal
description on the Tailing noti e he hed received.
Mrs. Marilyn Heath , 7665 Smetana Lane, explained that they are located 800'
from the fill that is being proposed to be cut, and would like to appeal to
the Commission for the owners of the 12 residences that feel they would be
affected and maybe forced out of the area. She suggested commercial develop-
ment close to the highway, with the residential as a buffer.
Beaman noted that according to the Smetana Lake Study, the area north of
Valley View Road was designated for high density residential .
The Planner explained that he has visited the site, and noted there is an obvious
land form that could provide an area for residential . The Staff is comfortable
with highway uses proposed by the proponent.
Levitt inquired how commercial can be put along the highway without considerable
grading. The Planner explained that they are not using the tiack' slope to the
highway.
Traffic was a major concern of the Commission, with the Planner anticipating
approximately 9,000 average trips per day, based upon general cdwercial figures-
200 trips per acre.
Enblom re-stated their concerns as 1 ) Filling of the flood plain 2)_ Removal of
tree coverage 3) Access road to the west .
Mr. Gary Kostecka, 10805 Valley View Road, commented that he was not against the
concept of the development, but was concerned with traffic increase, the
realignment of Valley View Road, and! 20% filling of the flood plain.
Gartner asked whether the owner to the north had been contacted regarding an
access. The Planner responded affirmative, but have not worked out access or
tram f rave for an access, although ooth agree an the necessity of an access.
approved
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - June 11 . 1979
B. DUCK LAKE VISTA. .continued public hearin (cont'd)
MOTION: Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the
rezoning from Rural to R'.-13. 5 for 32 single family lots based upon the
plan dated 6/5/79; Riley/Purgatory Creek Watershed District letter dated
513/79; County Department of Transportation letter of 5/8/79; Staff
report of 5/8/79 (with deletion of no. 1 ) ; and direction to the Staff
to pursue the alignment of North Hillcrest Court with the School District.
Levitt seconded, motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of
the Preliminary Plat dated 615/79 as per previous motion. Levitt seconded,
motion carried unanimously.
C. SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK, request to rezone 4.4 acres from Rural to Office
or a bank and office facility. Site is located at present drive-up facility,
11401 West 78th Street. A public meeting.
Retterath stated her former employment with the Suburban National Bank.
Ms. Michelle Foster, Governmental Affairs Coordinator for the Rauenhorst
Corporation, presented the request for rezoning of the site, explaining
that the request was in conformance with the long range plans of the City.
They are requesting two variances: a BuildIA9 Hpiuht Va;-iancP of In' and
Parking Variance o` 11 Spaces. Siihiirhan National Rank has a nurchasP anrpement
on the southern 2.4 acres, with future option on the additional 2 acres.
Foster addressed the staff report of June ?, 1979, explaining that the 11
parking spaces needed to meet the Ordinance would not be qt� d for their
site plan, and they did Seel extra parking could be accomplished through
arrangement with the Eden Prairie Center. Rauenhorst has not provided 8
spaces per thousand for ot .?r drive-in banks, as 50% of the traffic will
go through drive-in facility rather than use the parking facilities.
Bentley expressed vncertainity on whether this rezoning request was for a
4. 4 parcel or 2 acres, and since this was not a preliminary plat request, we
would be allowing an outlot. The Planner explained tha the reqnest was for
rezoning of an entire parcel without any request for su�dlvls io�i.
Thercfore, although there would be a vacant portion of the site it would not be
an outlot.
Seaman questioned taking rezoning action of the 4.4 acres wi-:.n the possibility
of two owners. Since the Suburban National Bank did not as yet own 2 _of the
4.4 acres.
Mr. Roy Terwilliger, President of the Sulpirban National Bank , explained that
the r&vessary paters will be a iOnrd with Newsart -se cmm as note i hl e
The planner explained that the Suburban National Bank wants rezoning of
**tire parcel according to the site plan, and if they wish to pursue building
tw or two buildings on the site, _ they wow 1 d return to the Planning Commission
or City Cowsci 1 .
approved
Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - June 11 , 1979
44C. SUBURBAni NATIONAL BANK . . .puu i -ic meel i ng (continued)
MOTION: Bentley modified original MOTION to move recommendation to the
City Council of the request 6 l the Suburban National Bank to rezone 4.4
acres from Rural to Office for a bank and office facility, based upon
the original plan dated May 18, 1979; receipt of the signed request by
the fee owner; and staff report of June 7 , 1979, with the deletion of Items
1 and 3 and addition of recommendation that any change ;n the site plan or
addition of another building would require Commission review prior to
the issuance of a building permit. Gartner seconded, motion carried
6-1-0, Bearman voting "nay" .
V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS
VI . PLANNER' s REPORT
VII . OLD BUSINESS
IIII . NEW BUSINESS
I X. ADJOURWENT
MOTION: Retterath moved to ddjourn at 10:15 PM. , Levitt seconded, inotion carried
unanimously.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - June 11 , 1979
A. SCHOEhfELDER PUD,. .continued public hearing (continued)
Mr. Rick Sathre, McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. , explained that they
were aware of the need for review by the Planning Commission and the
Watershed District regarding thA grading
The Planner explained that prior to any development on the project, an
Environmental Assessment Wcrksheet would have to be done, along with the
preliminary plat. Access of service road to Valley View Road would have
to be worked out with the County and City as part of the preliminary plat
request, in addition to coordination with the landowner to the north in
order to make sure that the road system would work. He explained that
the request tonight was for approval of land use only.
Bearman requested that the letter received from the Minnesota Department
of Transportation dated May 23, 1979, regarding the stated need for roadway
improvements in this area, be made a part of the Minutes of this meeting.
Torjesen expressed concern that in approving the request submitted, the
Planning Commission will be also approving the filling in of flood plain .
Dearman felt that if the PUD land use plan were approved, the proponent
could come back and ask for rezoning of a portion of the site. He noted
that if a mistake were made on lot 1 , it would be very difficult to correct
f the rest of the lots.
Levitt inquired what the size of the lots were anticipated as. The Planner
responded that they are indicating lots of 2 to 3 acres, with Regional -
Service uses such as a restaurant, Target or K-Mart, or health and sport
facility. He explained that Highway-Commercial size lots run smaller,
about an acre, and mould be appropriate for uses such as a fast food restaurant.
Be;-stley felt it was impossible to separate PUD approval and grading , and it
would be difficult to deny a different use if the proponent requested it after
the PUD approval .
Torjesen noted that the Guide Plan Update indicates residential , and felt
that approving the concept would create a situation where there would be no
residential as canted for in the Guide Plan Update. He asked wrhethe. in the
Guide Plan stage, the access should be workable or be just a schematic plan.
The Planner responded this PUD plan is more specific, as far as land use, but
he does not feel an access has been shown in a workable place through the grading
plan, and feels that it should be.
Knutson explained that they have met with adjoining owners.
Mr. Paul Enblom, 10610 Valley Views Rd. , landowner to the east, explained
that they have not decided how to use their land, and are not in agreement
with the proponent' s intended use of the site. The Planner explained that
access to the east would be desirable if the property were to be developed
as high density residential .
approved
Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - Jun- 11 , 1979
A. Schoenfelder PUD. . continued_ public h earinj (continued)
Torjesen asked whether it would be appropriate to address the ouestion of
the realignment of Valley View Road, and whether the developer was aware
P.-C i� TL.. r17 ...,.....�. .........•..J aL- & •.L _ t __ _ �_ a�
.04 I U. „1C , 1 a111ice �a{����uc�l wla u wic N i aria i ui he i•rd 1 1Y- amen C are very
general presently, and it is not ircluded in the capitci improvement. plan
. in the next 5 years , bLt if developmelit of lots becomes more nf__a reA1ity,
we can work more closely with owners affected.
Kostecka expressed concern that his property would be taken to the benefit
of the developer for the road alignment of Valley View Rd. -
MOTION: Torjesen moved to close the public hearing on the Schoenfelder
PUD Concept. Retterath seconded, motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Torjesen moved to recomiend denial to }h^ -r;•j --I- ,, -. - of the
Schoenfelder PUD Concept as per the staff report of May % , '1979 , Hinnesota
Department of Transportation letter dated May 23, 1979, and for the following
additional reasons : 1 ) Guide clan Update proposes residential use in this
area, and the proposed plan contains no binding committment for residential
2) Amount of site alteration necessary as far as hills , trees and filling
of flood plain 3) Lack of traffic infarmdtion 4) Alignment of Valley
View Road. Retterath seconded, motion carried 6-0-1 , Ceai „ouii du:�ta:r:rg ,
B. DUCK _LAVE VISTA, request by Pierce b Associates to rezone approximately 20
acres from Rural to R1-13. 5 and preliminary platting of TZ single
family homes.. A continued public hearing.
The Planner discussed the revised preliminary plat dated June 5th , explaining
that the proposal now contains 2 additional single family homes with a com�on
drive-way, subject to access approval from Hennepin County Highway Department.
All lots have: a 90' frontage, the "S" curve has been eased in response to
Commission concerns from the meeting of May 14th, as well as 200' of 5 ' high
fence centered on the centerline of North Hillcrest Court West.
fir. Ca rdarel 1 e, Cardarel l e L Associates, Inc. , agreed to rvrk with the City
Engineer Department in working out the alignment of North Hillcrest Cou-rt.
she high water mark was discussed, with Cardarelle assuring the Connission
that the lowest floor elevation of all of the homes would be at 919 ' .
Mr. Grant Sutliff, 7070 Eden Prairie Rd. , expressed approval for the droprinn
of the duplexes from the plan. He felt the water level has changed now because
of the new bridge being built, and requested that the County be contacted re-
garding the water level .
Mr. Dale Cattnach. 16731 Prairie Lane, asked about road system and utilities.
The Planner explained that the proponent is petitioning the City to out in
utilities and .street, and the City Engineers are working on the design.
NATION: Gartner moved to close the Public Hearing on the Duck Lake Vista
Preliminary Plat. Torjesen seconded, motion carried ul �e•• e,..vi,.:_., .
r
t _
PlanningZ.
Commission Minutes _ 6 _ approved
June 11 , 1979
C. SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK, . . public meeting (continued)
Levitt asked whPthPr thPrP wac a nra`+4,-a1 .at�s�'"�"C� yG i i-wi?
entire parcel contingent on their returning to the Commission , or leaving
2 acres of this 4.4 acres unzoned. The Planner explained the techricai
di fterence - in zorii ng the entire parcel no public hearing notices are re-
quired, and it is purely a timing option on whither they should proceed
with a larger building.
Landscaping was discussed, and Mr. Jeft Magnuson , Rauenhorst Project Architect ,
.. explained in response to questions abcut the size and calibre of trees ,
that 3V calibre trees will be planted which would r•eacn 20 to 25' in height.
Levitt inquired what was planned to control the future traffic problem at
West 78th St. and Flying Cloud Drive. The Planner responded that the inter-
section is set up for a geometric signal .
MOTION: Bentley moved to recownena to the City Council approval of the
rezoning of the specifically designed 2.4 acre site, with the additional
2 acre site requiring future zoning, based upon the original plan of 5/1809
and staff report of 6/7/79, emphasizing deletion of the two corner parking
spots at the entrance of the site (no. 6 of staff report) . Gartner seconded,
DISCUSSION:
Martinson felt the entire site should be approved, based upon the Planner' s
recommendation that it was good use of the land.
Bentley was concerned that since this is not 3 platting request , technically,
the proponent could come back in the future for a building permit. The Planner
explained that if the Planning Commission makes the recommendation requiring
the proponent to return to the Commission , it will be included in the Developer' s
p.,�r,,....,r4.
....• .,...w....._
Gartner felt then had not addressed some of the questions such as paths .
Mr. Steve Nystedt, Project Manager for Rauenhorst, explained that the paths
within. t':e Fdon Prairie Cente-r are controlled by Homart and Powers , and they
feel there will not be much traffic from the Center to this bank facility.
The planner discussed the alternate plan for sidewalks around the Center along
Schooner Boulevard and West 78th Street by Homrart to various parts of the Center,
including a spine sidewalk to this area.
Bentley asked whether the Planner was withdrawing no, i of the Findings and
Conclusions of the staff report. The Planner responded affirmative, explaining
he was not aware of the plan by the proponent
to return U the Planning Comission with- an appropriate site plan for review
arA
Retterath questioned the legal ramifications of not having a signed request by
the fee owner. Terwilliger explained that an agreement has
peen reached with Howrt by letter, and they expect to have the necessary
signature soon.
r
i