Planning Commission - 01/03/1974 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 1974
7:3 0 p.m. , 'Eden Prairie Village Hall
INVOCATION - - - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - - ROLL CALL
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairwoman Norma Schee, Wayne Brown, Don
Sorensen, Richard Lynch, Don Tes1ow, Joan"
Meyers, M.E. Lane
COMMISSION STAFF: Dick Putnam, Village "Planner
1. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 1973., MEETING.
II. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS
A. Flood Plain :Ordinance for comment and review.
III. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A." Basswood dl site for apartments located in The Preserve. Request rezoning
to RM-2.5 for 255 units on 17 acres. Staff Report. and discussion of plan
with suggested modifications.
. r
B. " Evaluation of Mr. John Suback's request for liquor license and restaurant
development located at corner of Martin Drive & Baker Road in Edenvale. .
The site would be rezoned from I-2 Park to C-Com. Community Commercial
if the license as granted. Staff Report.
C. Hennepin County Highway Department, Crosstown 52 Extension from Shady:
Oak Road to I-494 and revised system plan. Update on Staff work-regarding
environmental impact analysis.
IV. ADJOURNMENT. -
• MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
THRUSDAY, JANUARY 3, 1974 7-30 p.m. Village Hall
14214BERS PRESENT: Norma Schee, Donald Sorensen, M. E. Lane , Richard Lynch
MEMBERS AB:;ENT: Joan Meyers, Wayne Brown, Don Teslow
STAFF PRESENT: Richard Putnam, Village Planner
'I. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 1973, MEETING.
The -minutes of the December 18, 1973 meeting were approved as published.
A. THE NTriT MEETING WILL BE HELD I'UESDAY, 1/15/74.
II. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS:
A. Ordinances Submitted for Comment and Review:
1. Flood Plain Ordinance: Dick Putnam, Village Planner, provided the answers
to the Committee's questions regarding the Flood Plain Ordinance.
Questions Raised:
1. Is the 100' set-back reasonable?
Sorensen and Schee went along with a variance that could be handled
administratively. The 100' definition would be used, but modifications
based upon topography, etc. ., would be used to vary the 100' front
quideline.
2. Would it be better to amend the map occassionally where --flood plain
modifications occur or the ordinance itself?
Any change. in the Flood Plain Zone will require that the ordinance
be am-On.ded. The map is part of the ordinance.
3. Should there be a variance section in ordinance for procedures?
A variance section in the ordinance for procedures is spelled out.
• on page 12.
4. Page 16, item. 3, should be checked with the Village Attorney for his
opinion.
It was determined that the "Assessor's Market Valuer' should be
substituted for the wording "the Managers."
5. There is nothing the Village can do regarding that question.
6. Should the map be dated and cross dated with the ordinance so it is
kept current?
Yes.
7. What specifications should there be for the holding pond?
The Village Engineering Dept. suggested those of Ordinance 93.
8. The question about assigning development rights to each acre of the
flood plain.
The Village Planner indicated that it is a good idea, but that it has
not been tried anywhere.
ACTION: Lane moved, Schee seconded, the passage to change the wording concerning
items 1,3,4. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote, (4-0).
T_II. REPORTS AND RECODO ENDATIONS:
A.' Basswood dl site for apartments located in the Preserve, Request rezoning to
RM-2.5 for 255 units on 17 acres.
The Village Planner agreed with the original proposal but disagrees on the
rearrangement of the 2 housing types.
Mr Hess felt that a connection to the school is necessary. Also, there is
now a different view of the economy; 2 housing types are needed because they
4 Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 3, 1974
are easier to market and provide the renter with a choice. This reflects the
grouping of sites e and dl together from the original concept.
It was also noted by landscape architect, James Robin, that the grading would .
be less severe for the large buildings than with a cluster development on the
hillside.
Opposition to the additional 75 units was raised by Mr. Sorensen for reasons
of safety and size. He wished to return to the original approval and reduce
the size of the buildings.
Basswoods felt that they were bei�g penalized in that the wrong number of acres
is being used in computing the units and that the church area should be included
in the computation for density.
Sorensen stated that the unit/acre change from 6 to 7 gives approximately
45-75 additional units, producing a density that would be too high as currently
depicted in the plan submitted. He believed that a reduction in unit numbers
would solve, more satisfactorily, the points discussed in the staff report.
George Carter believes that it will be an economic necessity in 1974 to design
a certain number of units, and urged that the project go forward as presented
for saleability. He indicated that suitable relocation of the major buildings
could be worked out with the Village Planner. He then asked the Commission to
go along with them, stay with the proposed density and permit Basswood to go
infront of the Council as soon as possible.
The Village Planner said that the original Preserve P.U.D. indicated 6.3du/acre,
498 units on 79 acres, in the Basswoods area. Putnam felt that the site design
was very important, more so than the exact number of units.
Sorensen reacted that regardless of the building form the problem of density
still exists and something should be done.
Mrs. Schee raised the question if the school board had favorably accepted the
site. The Preserve responded-yes. Schee- then added that she had understood
that the school board didn't like the site because it was too low. But it
was pointed out by Mr.. Carter that the acres were high not low: ,
ACTION: Richard Lynch moved, Lane seconded, to approve the P.U.D. site plan as
presented, dated January 3, 1974, to RM-2.5, (Multi-Family Residential).
The motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes ,(Lynch, Schee, Lane),
Sorensen no.
B. Evaluation of Mr. John Sub acks Request for liquor license and restaurant
development located at the corner of Martin Drive and Baker Road in :Sdenvale.
The site would be rezoned form I-2 Park to C-•Com. , Community Commercial if
the license is granted.
The key issue seen by the Village Planner is if the precedence should be set
for spot zoning which w;aul-d.create difficulties with other sites throughout the
community.
To prevent additions to the proposed restaurant Mr. Sorensen felt any additions
< Planning Commission Minutes -37 January 3, 1974
could be contigent on rezoning, or removal of the variance. He was also
concerned with the precedence idea, and that a restaurant seems inappropriate
at that site rather than in predetermined Commercial areas.
Jim Getz, attorney for Eden Land Corporation, suggested that a restaurant, as
a supporting service, is as appropriate in a Commercial zone as in a Industrial
zone.
Lengthy discussion regarding the interpretation of'the zoning ordinance Belt
with why is Commercial even suggested in the Industrial districts. The standard
legal zoning language is used throughout to generally describe land use. The.
Planner believed that restaurants under Commercial zoning based upon Subd. 7.1,
purpose s. .a., which states, (a) to provide appropriately located areas for retail
stores, offices, service establishments, and amusement establishments.) Also
that if Commercial uses can be interpreted to be appropriate in I-2 Pk, it can
also fit in R?YI-2.5, Public and Quasi Public districts.
Lane then moved to deny the rezonning request and recommended to -the Council
a restaurant be approved under Subd. 8.2C, (under general Industrial, "Public
or Quasi Public facilities and services required by the working and transient
population"), seconded by Lynch. An amendment was then added that the Council
have the Village legal staff review and to more clearly define what is meant
by permitted uses. .
Mr. Sorensen disagreed. He respects Mr. Sub acks ggod intentions; but does "
not believe that the Planning Commission should set a precedence of Commercial
Use in an Industrial District thus affecting the whole concept of planning. The
language in 8.2C is found in all districts except under Residential. It is
• a unique Commercial use but it would include gas stations and quick food
establishments which is against our Planning Commission.
ACTION: Vote on this pottion, 2 ayes(Lynch, Lane) , Schee*and Sorensen no, the
.matter did not pass.
Schee then submitted "the following two motions, seconded by Sorensen.
1. Recommend to the Village Council that the request by John Sub ack for rezoning
to C-Commercial for the location of a restaurant at the corner of Martin. Drive
and Mitchell. Road not be approved on the proposed site, but rather that Mr.
Sub ack and Eden Land Corporation investigate the location of the restaurant
consistent-with the Community Guide Plan which stresses the clustering of church,
neighborhood service, employment,- community shopping, high density housing
within identifiable areas.
2. By not approving this application for zoning of 'the I-2 Park site to- C-Com.,
it should not be interpreted that this should adversely affect his application
for a liquor license, but rather that an alternate site, conceivably within
Edenvale, should be explored that would be more consistent with overall land
use plans and committed development within the area.
ACTION: 2 ayes(Schee and Sorensen), Lynch no, Lane abstaining, The motions ,
(1 and 2) therefore passed.
The Commission then informed Mr. Suback that his finding another site would not
affect his liquor license.
• Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 3, 1974 .
• R .s
C. Hennepin County Highway Department Crosstown 62 extension was not discussed
because needed information had not yet been received from the Highway Dept.
. Its discussion will take place at a future meeting.
Further business discussed included the setting up of a work session for the
Planning Commission_ Members and Staff.
IV. ADJOURNMENT.
Sorensen moved, Lane seconded to adjourn at 10:40 p.m. Motion carried.