Planning Commission - 06/25/1979 6-de,r Prair;e .Playaing Commission
Monday, June 25, 1979
7:30 P,I, City Hall
COMMISSItN! MEMBERS: Chairman William Beaman, Liz Retterath,
Oke Martinson, Matthew Levitt, Virginia
Gartner, Haken Torjesen, and George
Bentley
STAFF HEMBERS: Chris Enger, Planning Director
Jean Johnsor , Assistant Planner
Donna Stanley, Planning secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II . MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE ilz 1979
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. ^ld Farm Addition, Di.rlam Properties request for PUD Concept
Approval for multiple residential uses & community coairercial ,
rezoning from RM 2. 5 tc RM 6. 5 and preliminary plat the
property into 19 lots for four-plexes and 1 for future
community commercial .
V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS
`:I. PLANNER' S REPORT
VII . OLD BUSINESS
VIII . NEW BUSINESS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
i
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
approved
MONDAY, JUNE 25, 1979 7:30 PM, CITY MULL
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath,
Oke Martinson, Mattteew Levitt, Virginia
Gartner, Hakon Todesen
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: George Bentley
COMiMISSION 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. Torjesen seconded,
motion carried 6-0.
11. MINUTES OF MEETING OF .?UNE 11 a 1979
pg. 3, para. 3, last sentence, delete "connected" ; add "contacted" .
MOTION!: Retterath moved to approve the Minutes of June 25, 1979 as published
and amended. Martinson seconded , motion carried 6-0.
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
Gartner presented a brief status report of the Highway 212 Task Force,
explaining that the choice has been narrowed dawn to two routes from four,
and that an Environmental Impact Statement will have to be done on t1he two
routes. She requested a mients and opinions from the Corissioners to
be Forwarded to the Task Force.
Torjesen expressed the opinion that according to the neighborhood forums held
on the Guide Pian two years ago, inhere was a clear indication that public ex-
penses should be kept at a minima, therefore following the existing right-of-way
when it saves money. he asked whether upgrading HigMW S would be coouziderably
cheaper than developing a right-of-way.
Gartner responded that the Task Force was currently working on the figures for
each approach, and further agreed to keep the Comission 1nfwmeal on the pra�gress
made.
IV. OLD FARM ADDITION D i r 1 arm Properties request for PUD 'concept Approval
or multiple res entia1 uses & community commercial , r ening from R?' 2.5
to RIM 6. 5 and preliminary plat the property into 18 lots for four-ple<xes and
1 for future cowunity connercial. A Public firing.
Mr. Don Peterson, Vice-President of Di rl am Properties Im. , pramt:d L!t ppro-
posal , explaining they have been looking for an area to provi4e, 4 unit buildings.
�...a.,_..r...-.� sa�ac .-..AP.a•.a...�a��.+-4�-a��:'si�:'.�i ii�'�".'--�: �fsc�h"1+ ':s� P�=:==...;;_
approved
Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - June 25, 1973
R. COLD FARM ADDITION. .pu, c heari nq (continued)
All tots meAt the City ordinances. He explained that the site was a
former nursery, and fruit trees were left which they intended to utilize
in landscaping the site. The existing farm building is presently owned
and occupied by Mrs . Mitchell on a "life estate" agreement. He explained
further that in the old PUD plan , a neighborhood convenience center was
indicated to meet the developing needs of the area, although this Diece
is not presently included in the rezoning request. The density is decreased
from 186 units contained in the old PUD to 76 units in the present proposal .
Peterson commented then would be able to meet the Staff report recommendations
except providing a detailed landscaping plan , because they intend on using the
fruit trees presert on the site with additional landscaping added where needed.
The City Planner called attention to two letters received from concerned land-
owners : Muriel Quist, 14238 Chestnut Drive; and Morton Layer, 14240 Chestnut
Drive, expressing opposition to the rezoning of one lot for a community
converci al lot.
The Planner expressed concern with the parking for the one car ga rapes , and
neted that additional parking would be needed in the form of Extra spaces to
the rear of the units. The detailed landscaping plan is required in order
to insure the screening cf any paw-king or storage area, and adequate lighting.
He suggested meet'ng with the property owners to the south, Mr. Carmody and
Mr. Houston. in order to plan for access for both projects.
Levitt noted the surroundinq land uses, and inquired what the proposed Guide
Plan Upeate indicated as a transition between these uses and the present proposal .
The Planner responded that it is shown as medium density residential up to 10
units per acre. He briefly su�a rized the old PUD of 1972 and how it related to
present proposal .
Levitt asked how the East West Anderson lakes Parkway fit in with this area.
The Planner explained that it would connect Mitchell Rodd to Chestnut Drive .
Torjesen asked whether a precedent mould be set as far as frontage requirement
on this type of devei ;pment. The Planner responded that each project would be
reviewed on its own merits.
Peterson explained they would like to see 90' frontage be shown on the building
pad, with a minimum of 45' frontage on the street O ght-of-way.
Torlesen questioned drive-wags to the street, Peterson responded that the
project would be similar to the nefghhoring Hipp's project, with party wall
agreements. The Planner explained that in this proposal you have drive-.
ways. ou lot iines,and oars would have to agree on how to =in-
tain the outside of the building, snow i val and etc. .
i
t.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - June 25, 1979
A. LLD FARM ADDITION. public he�arinq (continued)
Retterath noted, as a point of clarification, that the Hipp' s project did
have a Hone Owner's Association,
Gartner inquired how a neighborhood convenience center differed from the
Prairie Village Mali . The Planner explaineed that a neighborhood cc.."Werience
center was a small scale commercial center, such as a superette, or 1/10th of
the size of the Prairie Village Mall .
Bearman asked for a clarification of a "life estate" , and whether that property
Mould be intruded upon through this proposal . Peterson explained that Dirlam
Properties has an option on the property, subject tQ City approval , and Dirlam -Prop.
would inherit the "life estate" .
Bearman inquired whether the proponent had contacted the owners to the south ,
and also inquired about the price range of the units. .
Peterson responded that they have talked to Mr. Carmody; and the price range
per unit ranges in the high $50,000 to S60.000s.
Torjesen asked whether the owners to the south had been contacted regarding
access. The Planner responded that he would set up a meeting with Mr. Houston,
Mr. Carmody and Mr. Peterson to pursue this matter.
Martinson asked whether the proponent copld comply with no. 5 of the Staff
Report. Peterson responded that it was his understanding that a detailed
landscaping plan would have to be submitted to the City Before building
permit issuance. The Planner explained that the City's concern was the intent
to screen the parkinq areas, and also to receive the Planning Commission's feel-
ing at this time.
Mr. Ted Johnson, 8351 Mitchell Rai. , expressed two concerns : increased traffic
on Mitchell Road, and with the similarity of this project with the Hipp' s homes
in the manner of having to back out of drive-ways onto the street, and requested
that these be seriuu:;ly considered. The Planner agreed that Mitchell Rai. was
a problem, and explained that the State would be installing in tandem with
traffic signals, free right turn onto Highway S. similar to the pattern on the
4/5 intersection.
Mr. Robert Macke, 14236 Chestnut Drive, submitted a Petition or 55 signatures
expressing opposition to the rezoniRt� of one lot for Comm;mf°::y cone, rciel use.
k also objected tp the Hipp' s development, cownenting that some of the drive-
ways have many cars parked there, and would object to this concept in this
present proposal . He asked haw many commercial centers were nee-Jed in the
City? The Planner responded that the Guide Plan indicates that there is a
need, and that pve tly there a%•e 10 possible neighborhood convenience cen-
ters in the City, 5,W to 6,000 so. feet in size.
The residents felt that shonning was already available within a mile of their c
., area
• , �i'� '- �_ i _ TPr`'L.� .. tCaffp w2.�ry0t��'- - -..y _ _ - r �r—�. �'� ,x - .- ,' - _ ,.. —. - � ,Y..
approved
Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - dune 25, 1979
A. OLD FARM ADDITI-ON. .public hearing (continued)
Mrs. Virginia Finlayson, 8329 Mitchell Road, questioned the intent of
the Guide Plan for this area; the approval of a concept without owning
the "life estate" ;&expressed the need for unity for maintenance purposes.
Peterson responded to the concerns: They will own the "life estate"
after approval by the City, with the contingency that they cannot build
on it without first going back to the City for approval ; and that maintenance
agreements will be submitted to the City Council before final plat approval .
Mr. Dennis Dirlam, Dirlam Properties Inc. , explained that the loan institution
they willbe dealing with will suggest these maintenance agreements and agrse-
ments be ltween the landowners before providing loans in order to keep up the
home resale value.
Mr. Darcy Peterson, 8357 Mitchell Rd. , questioned why the park and school
as shown in the Comprehensive Guide Plan had not been accomplished , and
also asked whether any resident had requested a neighborhood center in the
area. The Planner explained the history of the area from the 1968 Guide Plan,
the. 1972 PUD and the Red Rock Sector Study, The component of the Red Rock
Sector Study, which includes school , park and neighborhood convenience center
has not been abandoned. The City is looking at acquiring park land, foe which
the cash park fee presently required for development will be used.
Mr. Darcy Peterson objected to the changes taking place in their area ,
explaining that they have moved out to this neighborhood for the purpose of
avoiding this type of commercial development.
Mrs. Bryce Rowe, 14204 Chestnut Drive, inquired what the grading plans were,
and expressed concern that the development would be overlooking their homes
and would cut off any view they presently had . She also asked where the
iiorth/south road that would intersect with Chestnut Drive - . would lie.
Peterson responded the road would be very close to Chestnut, and that the
grading will confo►in to the existing ground , with no yrading done outside
the grading lines shcwai on their plan.
iorjesen inquired about the appropriateness of the placement of Periwinkle Way.
The Planner explained that the Staff is studying that alignment- and they
have noted it rhouid be aligned with one of the streets from Atherton Townhouses.
Mr. Ed-grin Sheperd, 14242 Chestnut Drive, expressed concern that a neighberhood
commercial center, in relation to the development of Starring lake as a park,
would attract more business from the people using the park, therefore causing
even m re traffic problems. _
Mr. Richard Harrison, 8369 Mitchell Rd. , asked about the PUD concept stage,
and whether there were any provisions made for recreation. Chairman Bearman
explained that the old PUD called for 186 units and included a swimming pool ,
but the revised PUD was reduced ,to 76 units, with no provisionsfor recreation
or play area.
-Mrs. Finlayson inquired whether the Red Rock Sector Study was included in the
Co. rthensive Guide Plan Update? The Planner responded that the Red Rock Sec-
tor Study is incorporated into the Guide Plan Update.
.t�n3+4!,�,;d/."{J�,4�fi,,�i�,,.r, .. - , ,?`,t .s--+s-. . y•. ,.g"'7-•.. .. � - ,._,n-., -- �:anw. s. � -_o...�.s-.�-.�....
'approved
Planning Commission Minutes 5 - June 25, 1979
A. OLD FARM_ ADDITION public 'hearing t continued)
MOTION: Levitt moved to close the Public Nearing on the old Farm
Addition. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0.
MOTION: Levitt moved to recommend to the City Council approval of
the Old Farm Addition PUD Concept of multiple uses as per the material
submitted May 1979 and Staff Report of June 22, 1979 with the following
modification: Lots 10 and 11 of Block 1 be designated as outlot, With
no recommendation as to future use. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0.
MOTION: Levitt moved to recoitanend to the City Council approval of
the rezoning of 18 four-plex lots from Rik 2.50 to RM 6.5 as per the Staff
Report of June 22, 1979 and brochure of May 1979 with the following modifi-
tations : Lots 10 dnd 11 , Block 1 be designated as an outlot with no recorrmen-
'e.ation for future use; and maintenance agreements be submitted. Gartner
seconded, motion carried E-0.
;'nTIONt Levitt moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the
preliminary -!at dated May 289 1979 as per the Staff Report dated June 40.2 ,
1979 with the following modifications: Lots 10 and 11 , Block 1 be designated
as an outlot with no recommendation for future use; submission of maintenance
agreements; City Engineer approved alignment of Periwinkle Way with public
or private sccess to the north of Chestnut Drive, with re-submission of plat
if alignment alters the number or configuration of lots ; and contact by proponent
of property owners to the south to coordinate any needed accesses. Torjesen
seconded, motion carried 6-0.
V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS
None.
VI . PLANNER' S REPORT
The Planner briefly explained the Yorkshire Point item which would be on the up-
coming Planning Commission Agenda.
VII . OLD BUSINESS
None.
VIll . NFW BUSINESS
None.
IX. ADJ(XJP MENT -
MOTION: Gartner moved to adjourn at 10:00 PM. Torjesen seconded, motion carried
•. :9'�i,a__ :al�- �^��^"-,n, ::x.r; y.nanca� .....�..�,,......,�,..... _.._r..�_
P E T E T 1 0 N
We the undersigned Home owners & tax payers offer regarding the rezer.4ng of
one lot for communitycommercial the following comments . That we definite)
9 Y
feel , that in as mach as there is presently one under construction less than
one mile away, dnd that we have such great shopping facilities a bit over one
mile away, and that the amoomt of traffic created by such an Enterprise will
create a problem on an already over crowded and unqualified road, and whereas
we feel it would be another unsafe and a hazardous area for the youth of the
community, and would also depreciate our present property values , and in as
much as we purchased our present hoax-sites for the purpose of ridding our-
selves of this type of commercial enterprise, offer a strong objection to
this action by the planning commission.
,&76W
Is a
0
tCWv
• r
PETETI0N
We the undersigned Nome owners & tax payers offer regarding the rezoning of
one lot for community commercial the following comments . That vie definitely
feel , that in as much as there is presently one under construction less than
one mile away , and that we have such great shopping facilities a bit over one
mile array, and that the amount of traffic created by such all enterprise w ; 1 1
create a problem on an already over crowded arH unqualified road, and whereas
we feel it would be another unsafe and a hazardous area for the youth of the
community, and would also depreciate our present property values , and in as
much as we purchased our present homesites for the purpose of ridding our-
selves of this type of commercial enterprise , offer a strong objection to
this action by the planning commission .
G ?/ fi4k
tat .
5
�333 93 ts-
X13F33
16aA�
6 ,000.1
8 �
q ,4L •
3I.,rl Z$ -
�3Gs Yy► ��
P E T E T ION
We the undersigned Nome owners & tax payers offer regarding the rezoning of �►
one lot for community commercial the following comments . That we definitely
feel , that in as rruch as there is presently one under construction less than
one mi to away and -n__ we �'+,� & .". y;^cut almopp„iy `ate i i i L ley a oil over one
mile away, and that the amount of traffic created by such an enterprise will
create a problem on an already over crowded and unqualified road, and whereas
we feel it would be another unsafe and a hazardous area for the youth of the
community, and would also depreciate our present property values , and in as
much as we rurchased our present homesites for the purpose of ridding our-
selves of this type of conw rcial enterprise , offer a strong objectio„ to
this action by the panning commission .
IYZ 3 C ,`u 1 w• t - , r _ J
/e4230
/ 1q:2
00
`��OO' -
/� i A.-jo
4Y 2-4
J. -40.
A4:7"'��ue
f�21�a c�r657 T �r� . _
•
.�,�. .�rA ir-�]cwll — s �- waw.s.-�-r F.T.sTy�-L�ler'-'���4K"-3�3��'$�Ti�.tlb 'DIY r.i i�i7i.li� ,r• y 1 _-.`
P E T E T ION
We the undersigned Home owners b tax payers cffer regarding the rezoning of
one lot for community commercial the following comments . That we definitely
feel , that in as much as there is presently one under construction less than
I�nO rt1• I n 20.0s.. �.—A ♦L& t
....� ....uy , �� .. i1iaL we Ihdvr bULh great shopping facilities a bit over one
mile away , and that the amount of traffic created by such an enterprise will
create a problems on an al ready over crowded and unqualified road, and whereas
we feel it would be another unsafe and a hazardous area for the youth of the
community, and would also depreciate out, present property values , and in as
much as we purchased our present homesites for the purpose of ridding our-
selves of this type of commercial enterprise , offer a strong objection to
this action by the planning commission.
f