Planning Commission - 02/14/1977 A G E N D A
Eden Prairie Planning and Zoning Commiss-ion
Wnday_ February 14_ 1977
7:30 PM City Hall
Invocation --- Pledge of Allegiance --- Roll Call
COWISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Don Sorensen, Sundstrom, Schee, Bearman, Lynch,
Fosnocht Pauly
STAFF 14EMBERS: Dick Putnam, Jean .iohnson, Chris Enger
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MINUTES OF THE J ANUARY 24, 1977 FETING
III. 14E B;ERS REPORTS
A. Chairman Don Sorensen.
B. Council Representative Pauly
C. Others
IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Eden Prairie Industrial Park-public/private planned unit development .
B. Walnut Addition,by Dirlam Properties. Request to preliminary plat and.
rezone 7. 7 acres from R1-22 to RM 2.S and RM 6.S for double bungalows
and apartments. The site is located in the northeast corner of Valley
lk View Road and Co. Rd. 4. A continued public hearing.
C. Garrison Forest, by The Preserve. Request to preliminary plat and rezone
16 acres fray Rural to R1-13. 5 for S1 single family detached housing
units. The site is located east of Amsden Hills and West of Co. Rd. 18.
A continued public hearing.
D. Woodland, by Edenvale. Request to preliminary plat and rezone 31 .5 acres
from Rural to RM 6.5 for 77 single family lots . The site is located in
Edenvale's Northwest Area. .A continued public hearing.
E. Norseman Industrial Park 2nd Addition , by Wt . Helle, request to prelimin-
ary plat and rezone 16 acres from Rural to Industrial . The site is located
south of Co. Rd. 39 approximately 400 feet east of Washington Avenue. A
continued public hearing.
F. Prairie East 3rd Addition, by Hustads. Request to preliminary plat and
rezone 50 acres from Rural to RM 6 . 5 for 88 single family lots . The site
is located west of Co. Rd. 18, south of Prairie East 1st and 2nd Additions.
A continued public hearing.
G. Purgatory Creek Study discussion of Purgatory Creek .
V. PETITIONS AND REQ ESTS
A. Tudor, eaks ,by Covenant Living enters-Minnesota Inc. ,request to rezone
--from Rural to RM 2. 5 , RM 6.S and Service Coamtercial Area H of. The t
-- Preserve Comercial Plan for an elderly health dare retirement develop-
Went . The site is located in the southwest quadrant of US 169 and
Schooner Boulevard.
Agenda--Planning and Zoning Commission Feb. 14, 1977
P• 2
V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS, continued
S. golf Vista, by Edenvale . Request to preliminary plat and rezone from
Rural to RM 2.5 approximately 14 acres for apartments and double
bungalows. The site is located in the northeast corner of Valley View
Road and Golf View Drive. A public hearing.
C. Edenvale Industrial Park Outiot F, by Edenvale. Request to preliminary
plat and rezone 7 acres from !-General to I-2 Park. The site is located
North of Martin Drive, East of Corporate Way and West of Commerce Way.
A public hearing.
VI. OLD BUSINESS_
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT
I X. ADJOURNMENT
31
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLASNING CCHMISSION
approved
Monday, Februa-y 14, 1977 7:30 PM City Nall
*CMWRS PRESENT: Chairman Sorensen Sundstrwa S chew, Lynch, Fosnocht, Pauly
MEMBERS ABSENT: Beaman
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Carl Julli.e, Party Jessen, Jean Johnson
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Lynch moved, Schee seconded, to approve the agenda as submitted. The notion
tarried unanimously.
II. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 24, 1917 FETING
P.2,Discussion: •I . spelling of handled
last P should read line was drawn and if the line would be compatible
with future residential development.
• P.3,2P should read . . . at the northwest corner .
Amendment: should read . . , Sundstrom seconded, .
P.S,SP should Bread-Fosnocht asked, considering existing surrounding land uses,
why the applicant felt the proposed land uses are appropriate for this site.
P.6,4P, spelling of Marco
Lynch moved, Sundstron seconded, to approve 'the mineites as submitted and corrected. `
The motion carried. unanimously.
Fosnocht inquired if tha Planning Commission wished to set time limits as guides
due to the agenda this evening. The majority of commission members agreed.
Motion :
Fosnocht moved, Schee seconded, to allow S minutes for staff presentation , 10 minutes
for proponent's presentation and 1S min4tas for commission/audience questions and
discussion.
Discussion:
Mr. Enger suggested the commission allow 10 minutes for the staff presentation of
Purgatory Creek information. The commission agreed.
Sorensen hoped the commission would allow for flexibility in the time allotments.
Vote: The motion carried 4 :0- 1 with Sorensen abstaining.
III . MEMBERS REPORTS
A. %hairman Sorensen
I . Sorensen, reTerring to the Jan. 11 , 1977 Council Minutes , asked if the
Council was aware the cocnis.ion and the Parks, Recreation and Natural '-
VMS ..�.. .............�o.o.. re:..,m;aBnUed different order of pr.inrity On the
CDBG funding items. Pauly replied affirmative.
2. Sorensen referred the commission to the Planning and Zoning Institute -
- to be held Feb. 24 & 2S and suggested seers contact the staff ' f they 4
are interested in attending. '
B. Council Representative Paul
1 . Pauly reported the Council desires baving a recrmmerdatien ea the Eden Prairie
Industrial Park PUD and rezoning by the CounciY 's March 1st matting. .
C. Others
un�st om -reported he , the city planner and other city staff attended the second
half of the Community Based Services Board. He statod Eden Prair=e's mechanism
were cited as modals and a report from the weetings will be distributed when
completed.
rcrv�• ;b 'Rs:"'�"" f'�^'_' y� y�y. ' >exg':•r t *_-�,s ty..r ,s,`.'r•• t
•�`';t"' —� 7�*�''�,��. '�a�. �_.. ���%SE^"`��+,'Lt� M'•'�'c�.'I`'�i �,, z;:... .,!V� d� .,'.'�'�"ie>, �ti pan �`l. a .. 7�� y'i�`. -'is-
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- FEb. 140 197/ 7
�V. REPORTS AND RECMWNDATIGNS
A. Eden Prairie Industrial Park-public/private planned unit development
Mr. Enger referred the commission to the background material and the recent staff
report dated Feb. 10, 1977.
Mr. Jullie, City Engineer, zelt the proposed roar: alternatives could alleviate access
problems. He reviewed the alternatives and their associated costs and stated the
traffic problems will exist whether the property remains I-2 or is zoned I-General .
He suggested any new development take access from Co. Rd. 4 except the northern
most parcel and those adjacent to Fuller Road, and building locations should not
preclude any of the road alternatives being constructed.
Sundstrom inquired why a direct road from Fuller Road to Co. Rd. 4 is not shown.
Mr. Jullie stated the trees, topo and residential development make such an alterna-
tive less desirable than others.
Pauly raised concern relative to Alternative B & C's proximity to the 4/5 intersection.
Mr. Jullie responded they are setback adequate distances.
Sorensen inquired if the staff had received further communication from the property
owner in the corner of the 4/5 intersection. Mr. Moe, Spring Company, representing
Kamstra Communications Inc. (owner or the property questioned) , stated they desire
to retain the property's zoning of commercial and Standard Oil plans to build this
spring.
Sorensen asked what type of screening restrictions would be enforced. Mr. Enger
stated City Ordinances 135 & 178 regulate screening to the height of the material
stored, and if the commission chooses perhaps other criteria could be suggested to
be included in the pud approval.
Sorensen then inquired what width buffer around Lincoln Addition is proposed.
Mr. Enger replied the buffer, unless otherwise specified in the approval , would
be according to existing ordinances . _
Jim Justus, representing Andrew Justus ,stated they desire access for their property
to Co. Rd. 4 and do not favor Alternatives A and F.
Bob McDonald questioned if th,e city will be granting pud approval only, o: if the
properties will receive zoning. Sorensen replied the council may grant zoning to
those who have applied.
McDonald then expressed concern that 5-6 toad alternatives will restrict building
locations and 1-2 alternatives should be sufficient . Sorensen replied it may be
difficult for the city to determine the most appropriate road alternative until the
land uses are known.
Motion:
Fosrocht moved, Schee seconded, to recommend to the City Council that the Eden Prairie
Industrial Park PUD be developed under a city administered PUD, administered and
controlled by the city as per Alternative D in the Jan. 17, 1977 staff report.
Discussion:
Fosnocht stated he did not wish to formalize a road location in the notion because,
as staffed by the city engineer,there is not enough information todate to determine
which road alternative is best.
approved c
Planning ;Commission Minutes -3- FEb. 14 . 1977
Worensen suggested, prior to the council ' s meeting of March 1st, the staff and
property owners should meet to attempt to work out further details of the pud.
Motion Amendment:
Sorensen moved. 5undstrom seconded, to amend the motion to provide that the criteria
for pud and zoning include a definite buffer site and plantings secured by an
adequate and enforceable bond, and the screening should be agreeable to tt'hme - &trif.
The motion amendment carried 4 :0:2 with Lynch and Schee abstaining.
Vote : The motion as amended carried unanimously. -- — - --
Glen Reed, WPC, asked if his property could have outside storage according to the
action taken . Sorensen responded the commission is making a recommendation to the
council and the council will make the decision on the pud and zoning.
B. Walnut Addition, by Dirlam Properties. Request to preliminary plat and rezone
7. 7 acres from R1-22 to RM 2.5 and RM 5.5 for double bungalows and apartments .
The site is located in the northeast corner of Valley View Road and Co. Rd . 4 .
A continued public heai.ing.
Mr. Enger stated the staff report recommends denial of the request . s::ggests the
plan be modified to double bungalow and single family.
. Dirlam showed the commission 3 new alternatives :
a. two 4 unit apartment buildings, remainder in double bungalow.
b. all double bungalow, 2 cul-de-sacs.
c. double bungalow and single family ( similar to staff recommendation) .
Sorensen asked MR. Dirlam if he desired amending his original request by one of
the alternatives. Dirlam responded negative and asked the cornnission to respond to
the alternatives.
Fosnocht inquired if Dirlam wished to withdraw his original request . Dirlam stated
he is not formally withdrawing his original requc�t .
Lynch, referring to page 6 of the staff report, asked for clarification that the 1/2ac-re
lots could be developed without city sewer and water. MR. Enger stated,based on the
existing ordinance, land that is zoned R1-22 can be developed without city services .
Mr. 4-rne, 7332 Franklin Circle, stated the city shhould not allow any development on
1/2 acre lots without water and sewer.
Mrs. Rose, 7336 Franklin Circle, asked what process the application will follow.
Sorensen replied the Planning Commission will make a recommendation on the request ,
then the request and recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council where the
decision will be made or the zoning and platting.
Mrs. Rose then asked what advantages and 41sadvantages there are to extending Augusta
Lane. Mr. Enger stated the city staff sees no particular advantages or disadvantages .
O. Conley, 7305 Franklin Circle, asked why the staff report :id not .:ecoa-mend Alterna-
tive B in the staff report. . Mr. Enger replied Alternative B is a possibility, but the
staff believes Alternative A responds better to the request and the site's location
near an activity node.
Mr. Conley believed a market exists for 1/2 acre single family.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- Feb. 14, 1977
fi
n Peterson, 7025 Mariann Drive, stated he does not believe R1-22 is feasible
thout sewer and water and in the past 5-6 years Edenvale, The Preserve or Hustad's
ve not submitted R1-22 requests because it is economically infeasible.
Lynch asked what alternative Mr. nirlam fai►orc fir . niY_ iam strtPA 1+w wr",1.4 Fairnr
Alternative c ( similar to staff recommendation) . w
Mr. Martinson, 7312 East Franklin Circle, asked if the city has an ordinance regula-
ting the maintenance of rental property. Sorensen responded negative.
Mary Upton, 16163 Edenwood Drive, asked if a totlot is proposed because small children
could not cross Co. Rd. 4 to Round Lake Park. Mr. Lirlam replied he does not feel
the project will generate many children and he is not proposing a totlot .
Motion: 1
Lynch moved, Fosnocht seconded, to recommend the proponent resubmit a revised plan to
the staff and the staff should prjpare a report on the revised plan.
Discussion :
Sundstrom suggested the lots adjacent to Esterhills Addition be consistent with the
R1-13. 5 District ;ot size.
Sorenser suggested the staff consider in their report that the request is not a pud
request and does not include trails or tradeoffs in light of the variances requested.
Vchee called question on the motion. Question carried .
Vote : the motion carried 3 :3 ( Lynch, Pauly, Fosnocht voted aye } .
Motion 2 :
Lynch moved, Fosnocht seconded, to close the public hearing considering the preliminary
plat of Walnut Addition. The motion carried unanimously.
Motion 3 .
Lynch moved, Pauly seconded, to recommend the staff reivew the revised plan submitted(c)
this evening and submit a report. The motion carried 5 :1 with Sorensen voting nay.
Mot i oi, 4 :
Pauly moved, Fosnocht seconded, to reconsider Motion 2 closing the public hearing.
The motion carri?d unanimously.
Motion 5 :
Fosnocht moved, Pauly seconded, to continue the public hearing to the commission's
Feb. 28th meeting . Motion carried unanimously.
%. Garrison Forest , by The Preserve. Request to preliminary plat and rezone 16acres
from Rural to R1-13.5 for 51 single family detached housing units . The site is
located east of dmsden Hills and West of Co. Rd. 18. A continued public hearing.
---Lynch -
Mr. Enger stated the staff is recowmending approval of the preliminary plat and
16rezoning with variances as stated in the staff report dated Feb. 2, 1977. He added
the staff is suggesting the 3 acre parcel adjacent to Co. Rd. 18 be zoned to R1-13.5
at this time.
Mr. Hess stated the rezoning of the 3 acre parcel would be acceptable.
approved
Planning Commissiu% 11inutes -5- Feb. 14, 1977
undstrom inquired if the variances are similar to others granted. Mr. Ness replied ..
he variances are the same as granted in other single firmly development in 71,e Preserve.
Notion:
Sorensen moved, Schee seconded, to close the public hearing on the Garrison Forest
preliminary plat. The motio.: carried unanimously.
Motion 2 :
Schee moved, Sundstrom seconded, to recommend to the City Council :
I . Rezoning from Rural to Rl-13.5 with the following setback and lot
size variances :
51garage to side lot 20'rear of house to rear lot line
1011-1h story house to side lot line 201side yard setback for houses built on
1512story house to side lot line corner lots, but not conflicting with
301front of building to front lot line. 301 setback on adjacent lets.
301minimu m from any bui ldi�v line on MSA,
county and State highwayl� -
(fireplac::s and overhangs shall not be considered as setback encroachments) ( access::ry
structures shall not be placed in the front yard and shall be 5' minimum from side
and rear lot lines)
2. That the preliminary plat dated Feb. 14 , 1977 be approved a= consistent
with the zoning request and the provisions ol- the engineering department i
outlined in their staff report dated
3. That the city review the concept plan for the Area 5 of The Preserve
prior to future plattings in the Garrison Forest Area. Questions of
the deer corridor connection to Anderson Lakes Park, the road right-of-
way for Arnsden Road are,; the new proposal for the convenience commercial :
as well as the land use densities should be resolved before future addi-
tions are approved.
Discussion :
Sorensen did not favor fireplaces and overhangs not being considered as
encroachment s
Vote: The motion carried 4:2 with Sorensen and Fosnoctt voting nay.
---- Sorensen -esuped chair -----
D. woodland Addition , by Edenvale, request to preliminary plat and rezone 31 . S
acres from Rural to RM 6. 5 for 77 single family lots. The site is located it
Edenvale's Northwest Area. A continued public hearing.
Mr. Enger referred the commission to the memo dated Feb. 10, 1977 outlining some off
the staff's preliminary concerns on the project. He added the staff is suggesting
rezoning to R1-13.5 instead of W. 6. S to preclude building of double bungalows
Sundstrom questioned if the extensive single family lot access to Woodland Drive is
inconsistent with its character as a collector. Mr. Peterson replied he views '
sWoodland Drive as a neighborhood collector. He further added a market exists for wood-
ed single family lots and he would like to have azi opportunity to work with the
staff further .
Notion: Lynch moved, Sundstror seconded, to continue to public hearing to the
commission's Feb. 28th meeting. The notion carried unanimously.
J approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- Feb . 143, 1977
Norseman Industrial Park 2nd Addition, by Mr. Helle, request to preliminary
plat and rezone 16 acres from Rural to Industrial. The site is located
south of Co. Rd. 39 approximately 400 feet east of Washington Avenue. A continued
public hearing.
Mr. Enger referred the commission to Mr. Helle's letter of Feb. 14, 1977 and the
BRM report dated Feb. 10, 1977.
Sidmond Helle, representing Mr. Herleiv Belle, stated the property is shown to be
industrial by all studies done by the city and they wish to receive zoning as soon
as possible so they can market the property which is presently at a very high tax
level even though it is only zoned Rural.
Pauly asked if the staff had concerns relative to the zoning or if their concerns
are about the road location. Mr. Enger replied the staff agrees with the zoning
request but does have concerns relative to road location and right-of-way.
Sorensen asked if the staff report would be completed by the next meeting. Mr. Enger
replied he believed the weport could be completed by the next meeting depending upon
staff time.
Sidnond He:le believed a logistical problem is involved in placing the road as depicted
in the BRM report.
Mr. Sorensen suggested Mr. Helle submit any further information to the staff in time
o that it could be addressed in the staff report.
Motion:
Fosnocht moved, Sundstrom seconded, to continue thepublic hearing to the commission's
Feb. 28th meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
F. Prairie East 'Third Addition, by Hustads. Request to preliminary plat and rezone
50 acres from Rural to RM 6.5 for 85 single family lots . The site is located
west of Co. Rd. 18, south of Prairie East 1st and 2nd Additions . A. continued
public hearing.
Mr. Enger informed the commission no report has been completed todate. He added
the request is for small lots and setbacks .
Mr. Jim Ostcnson stated the lot sizes range from 1U,500 to 16,000 and the variances/
setbacks are similar to Prairie East 2nd Addition. He referred the com►= «ion. to
Hustad's letter dated Feb. 9, 1977 which requests a pud status for the project .
Mr. Hustad stated he believes the project 's park dedication is solved by the
$300/lot fee charged by the city.
Kotion
Lynch saved , Sundstrom seconded, to continue the public hearing to the commission's
Feb. 28th aeeti"S. The motion tarried unanimously.
_. .. ..
Planning Commission Minutes -7- aFProv ed
Feb. 14, 1977
�G. Purgatory Creek Study, :discussion of Purgatory Creek.
g g p prepared by the
Mr. En er referred the commission too the eneral master plan model
staff since the joint meeting between the commissions . He stated the staffs pla.:
would eliminate about 80 of the lots in Hustad's plan.
Mr. Jessen illustrated the tree line, possible fence locations, trail locations
for biking and walking, and the staff's suggested lotting plan near the rim: He
felt the area is very ' important as a wildlife corridor and funds will be sought
for acquisition and development .
Lynch inquired how much the acquisition -may be. Mr. Jessen replied approximately
2 million for the 300 acres.
Pauly asked if finding would be available for road and fence improvements . Mr.
Jessen believed it would. Pauly then asked where the city's share would �:ome from.
Mr. Jessen was unsure.
Fosnocht inquired how much revenue the city might lose if the master plan was
implemented. Mr. Jessen estimated 2 .5 million.
Pauly felt the project would require community support to be successful, and doubted
that a bond would be passed.
Lynch asked if the Hustad plan would protect the wildlife corridor. Mr. Jessen replied
personally does not believe it would.
Mr. Enger stated this area of the creek was identified in the Brauer Creek Study as the
most unique in the city maid that the city would most likclf not have to spend
this amount cf money or purchase this much land in other sectors of the creek .
He believed public management is the best solution to preserving the creek valley
and controlling its ?.ise by the public .
Mr. Hustad stated he believes the staff's master plan will eliminate 90-100 lots and
that the lots nearest the creek have the highest amenity. He stated they would be
drawing final plans and that perhaps could develop the same number of lots With less
encroachment. He believed the creek valley will be enjoyed more by the individual
lot owners than it will be by the public.
Notion :
Lynch moved, F4uly seconded., to recommend to the City CouLcil that this property can
best be preserved under private ownership.
Discussion :
Fosnocht hope a 'middle of the road' approach would be found and doubted if the city
would pass a bond to finance the acquisition and development . .
Pauly believed, given the economic situation, private development would be the best
and attach restrictions and covenants to protect the valley.
Sundstrom believed the public will cross-cross the valley with paths as the result of
oot and motorbike traffic. He stated he is against the motion because of the damage
the creek valley that- may occur with private development. As this is the most unique
area of the creels, he .believed it should be protected for all to enjoy instead of a .
few homeowners.
Scher excused herself from the meeting.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -$- Feb. 14, 1977
orensen believed incalcuable damage could be done to the creek corridor if the
public iisl.Gras4 Ab ,iuL urotvcted. He disagreed with the motion, and felt a solution
should be sought and strict controls would be needed whether public or private develop-
ment occurs.
Don Peterson, 7025 Mariann Drive, suggested the city not allow building wherever 10%
slopes occur and purchase the vistas.
Fosnocht doubted that private development would protect the amenities of the creek
valley and that extensive damage could be done by motorbikes, dogs, etc.
Vote: The motion carried 3:2 with Sorensen and Sundstrom voting nay.
V. PETITIONS AND REQJESTS
A. Tudor Oaks , by Covenant Living Centers-Mn. Inc. , request to rezone from Rural
to RM 2.5, RM 6.5 and Service Commercial Area H of The Preserve Commercial
Plan for an elderly health care retirement development. The cite is located
in the southwest quadrant of US 169 and Schooner Boulevard.
Mr. Elliot George, project coordinator, stated Covenant Living Centers-Eden Prairie is
not a nursing home but a retirement complex of self care units, businesses, recreation
and one wing of health care rooms. He stated the buildings will accupy 112 of the
5 acre site and the remainder , which is in floodplain, they h^r-. to develop some
e of recreational uses for the residents.
Sorensen asked if all of Area H wound be purchased for this project . Mr. George
stated 2 acres would remain in The Preserve 's control for commercial .
Sorensen informed Mr. George the commission had already viewed a presentation of the
project and the planner has keep them abreast of recent governmental reviews .
Mr. George informed the commission they have once again submitted the project for
approval to the Metro Council Health Board.
Motion
Fesnocht moved, Pauly seconded, to continue the item to the commission's Feb. 28th
meeting for a staff report . The motion carried unanimously.
B. Golf Vista, by Edenvale Request to preliminary plat and rezone from Rural
to RM 2.5 approximately 14 acres for apartments and double bungalows . The site
is located in the nortbeast corner of Valley View Road and Golf View Drive.
A public hearing.
Mr. Enger referred the commission to the memo dated 2-10-77 which outlines the stat"P s
preliminary review of the project . He stated the units are consistent with the pud
approval , -but the staff has concerns about thenumber of parking spaces provided, -the
number of trees to be removed, end the maneuverability of the hill given the slope of
the entrance road.
Peterson stated they do not plan multiple for the entire site, as approved in the
ud, but instead are proposing_ double bungalow lots along Golf View Drive as a better
buffer to the surrounding single family. He believed if the parking spaces were increased
.it would mear more trees would have to be removed. He asked the commission to allow his
to further work with the staff.
j approved �
Planning Commission Minutes -9- Fes• 14 1977
W
s . Elizer, 14324 Wedgeway Court , felt the double bungalows are on too smaii of lots
d the possibilityexists that each lnt may have up to 4 cars, some of rbich w4ll bore
to park on the street and the street is too narrow.
Mr. Peterson stated the lots are not small and each lot will have 2 double Sarages with
additional parking available in the driveways.
Mr. Stiglin, 14045 Forest Hills Road, believed the blacktopping of ali the drives I�
would create an asphalt appearance to the project and to the entrance to their single family.
a�
Mr. Kreibich, 14220 Green View Ct,felt the project would be detrimental to t%e surioes�i
single family values and a traffic problta would result.
Peterson responded that from personally spending tine during peak hours ( 2x day ) he
has counted 1 car ! 30 seconds and does not feel this project wil: cause my traffic
probelms.
Mr. White,14240 Green View Court, felt the double lots should be wider and that whom
the wiltiple is built to the south traffic problems will occur.
Mr. Rcn Lee, 14091 Sundial Court, felt the density of this project and the future multiple
would to detrimental to the single family.
eiretchen Shaw, 7001 Kingston Drive, felt the original pud for Edenvale included some
basic road systems that do not exist today and hence create traffic problems.
Steve Stephens, 14267 Wedgeway Court, felt too high of a density is being requested.
Mr. Olson, 14343 Golf View Drive, felt the site should be developed :as single family.
Peterson responded they cculd not econaacially develop this site as single family.
Hussey, 14374 Golf View Drive, felt the project should be modified to prevent future
traffic congestion.
Yr!
Paul Pallmeyer, 6736 Golf View Drive, felt a traffic study should be conducted
to determine ii' the project will cause congestion. _.
Jim Dicke 1407S Sundial Court felt the apartments should be owner occupied.
Y P uP
Tom T ennison,14314 Golf View Drt,felt the project would be detrimental to the single
family.
- Mot ion : -
L hvnc moved, Sundstrom seconded, to continue the public hearing to the camaiss:on's
Feb. -28th meeting for a staff report .
Pauly excused herself from the meeting.
t
approx}ed
I'1:=:.:::11;' i ur.17-1i �;sion Minutes -10- FEb. 14, 1977
Edenvale Industrial Park, Outlot F, by Edenvale. Request to preliminary plat and
rezone 7 acres from I-General to I-2 Park. The site is located north of Martin
Drive, East of Corporate Way and west of Commerce Way. A public hearing.
Mr. Enger informed the commission the platting request is as stated, but Edenvale
has changed the rezoning request to rezonirg of only the eastern parcel to I-2 Park.
Mr. Conrad Sorvick, 14322 Fairway Drive, representing the Fairway Woods HOA, complimented
the city on their overall planning and requested information on the above request as it
is not far from Fairway Woods.
Sorensen thanked Mr. Sorvick for his interested and stated he would be supplied with
a staff report when it is completed. ( Sorvick was supplied with the plat material)
Motion:
Fosnocht moved, Sundstrom seconded, to continue the public hearing to the commission ' s
Feb. 28th meeting for a staff report . Motion carried unanimously.
Sorensen, referring to the letter dated 1-27-77 from AaLeka , felt the use is
industrial with outside storage and should not be allowed in a Community Commercial
District .
Orief discussion followed relative to Arteka 's. type of business and the storage that
would be required.
Lynch suggested the commission request an opinion from the City Attorney.
Motion :
Fosnocht moved, Lynch seconded, to request an opinion from the City Att-Urney whether
the Artecka use fits into C-Com or if it is an industrial use. The motion carried
unanimously.
I X. AW(XIMM£NT
Fosnocht moved, Lynch seconded, to adjourn at 12 :35 AN. The motion carried.
Respectfully submitted
Jean Johnson