Planning Commission - 01/29/1974 - Special AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
WORK SESSION , SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1974
7:30 P. M. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY HALL
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairwoman Norma Schee, Wayne Brown, Don
Sorensen, Richard Lynch, Joan Meyers, M. E. Lane,
Herb Fosnocht.
INTRODUCTION: Of new commissioner Herb Fosnocht.
7:30 pm A. City Sign Ordinance up-dating present sign ordinances. Presen-
tation of new ordinance by Wayne Sanders and Ed Sherman,
Eden Prairie Building Department. Discussion and question,
answer session. No Action.
8:15 pm B.. Basswoods site d1 revised site plan for apartment units located
in The Preserve. Presentation of changes by Don Hess and
Neil Weber, with discussion of modifications. No Action.'
8:40 pm C. Presentation of Planning Reference File, and discussion of content
and suggested additions, etc.
D. Revbw and preview of existing planning efforts in progress and
• under way.
1. Smetana Lake
2. Commercial Study
�, 3. Major Center Area
MINUTES
` EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1974 7:30 PM CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Norma Schee, Wayne Brown, Donald
Sorensen, Richard Lynch, Council representative
Joan. Meyers, M. E. Lane.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Herb Foanocht
STAFF PRESENT: Richard Putnam, City Planner
A. Revised City Sign Ordinance up-dating present sign ordinances. Presentation
of new ordinance by Wayne Sanders and Ed Sherman of Eden Prairie Bidilding
Department. Discussion, and question and answer session.'
Mr. Sherman reviewed the intent of the new sign ordinance which brings
together many of the loose ends and ' amends the existing ordinances.
: :The Advertising Sign Ordinance would not be affected by this
ordinance,
There were numerous questions by members of the Commission regarding
various points within the ordinance. Questions into the definitions about
the bench signs, roof signs, the definition of a sign, street frontage, temporary
sign, were to be slightly modified before the next meeting.
• Item D,on,page- 6,which dealt with illumination of signs was a concern in that due to
the energy crisis signs should not burn all night' -" .It.was
suggested that some means of permitting hours of operation should be
considered. The item stating quote, " the building official in granting permits
for illuminating signs should specify the hours during which the same may
be kept lighted, " seem to permit the discretion of Council in instructing the
building official on what hours were permissable.
Page 7, item E, dealing with campaign signs was discussed at length related
to the time those signs would be up and how many 'signs would be allowed
per residential lot as well as the maximum size for the signs. It was
believed that a six week period with a five day time to take them down would
be sufficient. Also that the maximum area should be increased from 6 sq. ft.
to 15 sq. ft.
Page 9, item 'U,pertaining to diirectional•signs was discussed with"a
recommendation that these signs be grouped_perhaps at the
sector identification markers or with group signs within the residential
area rather than a series of signs spread all over.
Page 10, item Z, refering to temporary garage sale signs, it was felt that
a time limitation and size -limitation would be required,
•
Planning Commission Special Work Session -2- January 29, 191
Section 4, page 10, item A2, refering to identification signs for multi-resi-
tential projects . The suggestion was to adc�*�hat more than one identification
• sign per project may be used if that project has two separate access points
to separate streets.'' Thereby permitting an indentification sign at each en-
trance.
Page 14, item F, -there was discussion related to the sector identification
signs that they should not have a maximum or minimum square foot in area
in that this would depend upon.it's location,design, and intent. Also, that
the restriction that certain project names or church names
could not be placed • on.the sign, may not be workable.- Another section was
added that'indicated that the Council, Planning Commission, should have
reviewed the placement and design of these signs to insure the compatible
character with the areas.
Other areas on page 15 and 16 related to items;D1, 1window signs, changing
the 25-151o, and, under violation and fines between 1 & 2 the addition of-and-
-or.
These changes were suggested by the Planning Commission to be incorporated
in the ordinance for the next meeting at•which time action is expected. It
was suggested by Mrs. Schee that Mr. Sherman get in contact with Mr:.
Fosnocht who was. not at the meeting to gain his comments prior to the next
• meeting.
B. Basswoods'Site dl.'
Don Hess ,&Mark Jones discussed the modifications to the plan originally
refered back to the Planning Commission from the Councils
Also the creation of four separate
market types wiiiiin this project has resulted in smaller scale buildings
on the north end near the single-family homes, and the family related clusters
near the Preserve Center. Questions related to the health safety, and
accessto the site • and' -the handling of the recreational spaces were
discussed.
There seemed to be a general opinion expressed that the project is much
improved from -the original.-submission and that the Staff should prepare a
Staff Report on the revised plan by the.-next meeting, Tuesday, February 5,,
1974. Mr. Jones indicated that they now believe the project has improved
from a marketing standpoint due to the variety of units and reduced scale
of some of the buildings. No action was-taken.
C. Presentation of the Planning Reference File.
Mrs. Schee asked that all the Commission-members use the file as a reference
document and that suggested changes and modifications be given to the Staff
• and additions could be added, She felt that this would be a
N Planning Commission Special Work Session. -a- January 29, 1974
r
very valuable document and would be very helpful to the new and old
• Commission members.
It was suggested that a more simplified check list for development be
revised that would have key words such as access, parking, pathways,
fire.access, etc. , so that,as the Commission members evaluate the projects
they may check these areas.
It was suggested that a meeting be held with George Hite, Don Brauer anc=
Council, Park & Recreation members who are interested;to review the
Guide Plan and the process which lead to its adoption. Also to.answer
questions that members may have about some of the material in the
Reference File. • A second siminar was suggested for all the developers,
both large and small , as well as the elected and appointed offio_als, to
discuss the development process as we know it today with its positive and
negative points and seek to improve the existing process.
These sessions would hopefully lead to a modification of the existing Zoning
Ordinance and Planned Unit Development Procedures.
D. Review and preview of existing planning efforts in progress and under way.
• __ . _ The Yianner indicated
that the Council requestecl the Staff and Planning Commission begin work -
on this Study for completion within 6 months. The outline of the Study,
dated January 29,1974,-%9 be discussed in more detail at the February 5, 1974,
meeting with further refinements presented by the Staff.
It was noted in reviewing the minutes and files -on other areas that the
Commercial Study was suggested in 1971 to determine the commercial needs
of the community but was never completed.
Mrs. Schee brought up that the Major C enter Task Force was to be reformed
and that interested Planning Commission members. would be encouraged
to participate.-'-The Task:Force would develop the specific ordinance;
work as an on group in reviewing projects & continue �up- lating
development in. the MCA and as an advisory group to the Council and
Planning Commission..
The Planning Commission directed the Staff to write a letter expressing their ,
general approval of the Preserve Center Development Concept,_---- '
relating'to the riding-stable facility te--be-developed in the old-cow barns,,as-
an interim use,prior to final development.as a commercial fadi.lity. The
Commission believed.that phis use: was corn istent with the recreational
• character of the Preserve Center and that if it can meet the Sewer Board &
Pollution Control Agency requirements that it would be an excellent use. And
asked that the PCa respond to the Preserve's request for technical review
of their proposal.
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 PM Respectively submitted Richard Putnam