Loading...
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.