Planning Commission - 02/05/1974 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
TUEDAY, FEBRUAR Y 5, 1974
7;30 P. M. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY HALL
COMMISSION MEMBERS! Chairwoman Norma Schde, Wayne Brown, Don
Sorensen, Richard Lynch, Joan Meyers, M. E. Lane
Herb Fosnocht.
STAFF PRESENT: Richard Putnam, City Planner
INTRODUCTION: OF NEW COMMISSION MEMBER HERB FOSNOCHT
I MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 1974 , AND WORK SESSION JANUARY 29, 1974.
II. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .
7.40pm A. Basswoods site dl, by Mark Z. Jones Assoc. , a 18 acre site proposed .for
rental apartments located south of the school/park with in the Preserve.
Request: 1. P.U. D. Developm-ent stage approval for 253 units.
2. Rezoning to RM 2. 5.
Refer to:
1. Staff brochure Dec. 1973 (light brown
2. Staff report Dec. 26, 1973.
3. Minutes of Council Meeting Jan. 15, 1974.
4. Revised plan Jan. 24, 1974.
5. Amendment to Staff report Feb. 1, 1974.
Action: Approve, reject, or modify revised plan.
8.35pm B. City Sign Ordinance, revised ordinance regulating all signing except
bill board advertising.
Request- recommendation to City Council regarding revised sign
ordinance.
Refer to- minutes of work session .Tan. 29, 1974, revised ordinance. .
Action- approve, or reject revised ordinance.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
9.15pm C. PUBLIC HEARINGS :
Summerwoods II, by Zachman Homes Inc. , a 13. 5 acre site proposed for clustered
single family homes. The site is located in Edenvale on Outlot U Edenvale
3rd Addition Northwest area, ( directly south of existing SummerwoodN.
Request 1. P. U. D. Development Stage Approval.
2. Rezoning RM 6. 5 .
3. Preliminary plat approval for 13, 5 acre site.
Refer to:
1. Staff Report of Jan. 31, 1974.
2. Brochure January 1974.
Action: Approve, reject, or continue public hearing.
z
�1
.. Planning Commission Agenda -2- Feb. 5, 1974
10•101,-i)m D. Lake Eden Heights, by Eden Land Corporation., single family plat:of 192
lots located in the Edenvale South P. U. D.
Request. 1. P.U D Development stage approval. .
2. Rezoning PM 6. 5 for single family lots.
3. Preliminary plat approval.
Refer to-,.
1. Resolution #810-Edenvale South P.U. D. -approval.
2. Revised plan Feb. 1, 1974.
3. January 2a 1974 Council Minutes.
Action- Continue Public Hearing until Feb. 19, 1974 Planning
Commission Meeting.
III. Work Session.
A. Commercial Service Study , discussion of study intent and process
No action.
B. Planning Reference File, questions on segments of file additions of
material.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
4 MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION "
TUESDAY FEBRUARY 5, 1974 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Norma Schee, Joan Meyers, Herb
Fosnocht, M.E. Lane, Don Sorensen.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Lynch, Wayne Brown.
STAFF ' PRESENT: Richard Putnam, City Planner
INTRODUCTION:' Chairwoman Sc'_nee formally introduced Commissioner
Herb Fosnocht. Mr. Fosnocht previously served on the
Planning Commission -and was reappointed in January
1974 for a 3 year term.
I. A.MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 1974.
The following changes were made to the January 15, 1974 Planning Commission
Minutes:
Page 1 part I =the spelling of (mayor and Skio
part IIIA. should read-she has done and moved that . .
part IIIB. -should read-Schee then moved for a . .
&add - The motion was approved by an unanimous vote.
part IIIC. -should read-Mr. Sorensen moved for an unanimous ballot.
& add- The motion •was approved by an unanimous ballot.
Page 2 I st P -should read -The Hennepin/Carver County Study Committee,
2 nd P -should read -Mr. Sorensen asked if the City could rescind its approval.
P. e 3 6 th P -spelling of (Betty Johnson)
& Action should read- Meyers then moved . .
Page 4 2 nd P -should read- to the Council the allocation of funds for . .
part B, P5 -should read- Meyers then moved . .
& it should read - because it prohibits kennels in _j ural
Page 6 3 rd P -should read. - as playground equipment and for exiAting ,park developmex
4 th P should read Ferriss and Hustad have both indicated committed land .
6 th P -should read Ordinance 134&135
.Page 7 6 th P -should read- Mr. Brill and his Wife have employed him as their
attorney for their recently acquired business since December 1973. .
part C, P2-add on, Mr. Godin claimed 84+ acres in part development:
Page 4 part B, P5-should read Ordinance 134,'15C7.
Action: Sorensen moved, Lane seconded, to make the changes to the
January 15, 1974 Minutes. The Motion was carried by a vote of 6
ayes, and 1 abstain(Fosnocht).
.B.MINUTES OF JANUARY 29, 1974 WORK SESSION.
Meyers moved, Sorensen seconded, to approve the Work Session ' Minutes
as published. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes and 1 abstain,
(Fosnocht).
Planning Commission Minutes -2- Fe4 5, ..1974
II. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
A. Basswoods site dl, by Mark Z. Jones Assoc. , a 18 acre site proposed for
rental apartments located south of the school/park within the Preserve.
Mr. Putnam outlined the recent amendments which reflected- new items from
the January 29, 1974 Work Session. Considering the overall Preserve
area it was questioned by Putnam whether the facilities, (including Recreational
fields and rinks), can be reasonably placed on the Church/School site without
creating problems with adjacent sites. He suggested that movement of the
property lines might provide a better arrangement for the future facilities on.
the School/City park area.
Mr. Sorensen raised questions concerning the drainage,. and the field's
N-S orientation and size. Putnam responded that the area drains through ponds
down to Anderson Lake..
Mr. Putnam listed 5 significant recreational areas: The Preserve, quasi-public;
Lake Eden Heights, public park; South NSP Public Park; Preserve School Park
Site, public park, and the South Preserve OPen Space, quasi-public.
Mr. Paul Shcee, said that a development program for that shhool is nearing _
completion , and that it is difficult to respond, to long-range programs at
this time,
Mr. Putnam said that when land is acquired through public dedication that
development moves ahead of the school site planning and it is, difficult for the
School District to know if the dedicated site will work.
Mr. Hess, of The Preserve, said that they have tried to resolve these matters
with the City and School and that to them the North and South boundary lines
are fluid and they are willing to work with the School design team for a suit-
able sulut.ion.
Mrs. Schee asked if the site had to be an elementary building or if it could,be
a Junior High. Mr. Putnam answered that space-wise the site, may not meet
state requirements for a Junior High and presently it is tight for even a
elementary building. Schee then inquired about the possible movement of the
east line of the church site. D./Ir. Hess responded that sewer easements were
already present along that line. He hoped that the parking could be a joint lot
between the Church and School.
Mr. Putnam said that after reviewing the Basswood proposal with the City Staff
problems may exist in the number of parking spaces provided. Putnam felt
that garage vacancy rates vary considerably (50-80%) over the entire year,
with them being the highest in the summer. In Basswoods there are 253 units
with 506 parking spaces, (tin-lout), if only 8016 of the inside spaces are used
5'3 spaces would be vacant, or reducing the total on site.parking by 53 .spaces.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- Feb. 5, 1974
Alternatives could either be to add more spaces or encourage garage use by
including the garages in the rental rate or long-term leases.
Mark Z. Jones disagreed with the vacancy rate stating that they've been
utilizing all their underground garage spaces. They encourage, next to re- .
quire, renters to take garages on a 1 year lease basis. If a problem of a
non-car owner arises they release the garage to another renter. He said that
from an aesthetic standpoint they don't want to increase the outside parking
spaces.
Mrs. Schee asked Mr. Jones how many cars per unit he expected considering
the lack of public transportation in the area. Mr. Jones estimated that there
would be approximately 12 cars/unit, adding that they have never had the pro-
blem of too many cars. Mr. Putnam expressed concern ' that a problem in
parking might arise when units are rented to 3 singles. Schee added that .
given the transportation situation in' the area and the income group that would
be attracted she would, expect that both the husband and wife would have a car.
Mr. Jones again stated that 12 cars/unit is expected. Schee asked if garages
would be part of the unit lease. Mr. Jones said that they don't want to require
it until the project is firmly established.
Mr. Putnam reviewed the revised Basswood plan bringing out such points as;
the separation of units, screening needed between the parking and road, there
are now 2 entrances, larger turnarounds, and the pathway system is better
defined. Though some members of the Council and the Planning Commission
have raised questions about the number of units, Mr. Putnam felt the number
of units is not a s critical as the building arra.zgement. He does feel however
that by approving the Basswood dl site-con-i traints will be placed on other
sites north of the School/Park site.
Don Sorensen asked Putnam Is opinion about the length and configuration c£:
the buildings as viewed from the proposed single-family area. Mr. Putnam
said the buildings will not be nearly as massive as the original plan and that
the varied facade would reduce the wall effect. Putnam recommended that the
rezoning to RM 2. 5 be approved based upon the revised site plan and that .
included in the ordinance recommend allowing flexibility of the School/Park
site boundary.
Mrs. Schee * asked if set-back requirements were met in the southwest corner,
Putnam replied that it was over the set-back requirements. She then asked
Paul Schee for the school`s opinion of the constraints which might possibly,
be placed upon the site . He believed that there will be flexibility on the north
line and that more will be known within a few weeks.
Sorensen questioned the availability of fill for the area and Mr. Putnam said
that about 20, 000 cu. yds. could come from the excavation in Lake Eden.
Fosnocht asked how much fill would be needed; Putnam felt that he did not
know but quessed that it might be 25-30°/o of the needed fill.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- Feb. 5, 1974
Mr. Fosnocht inquired as to the expected number of elementary-level children
for Eden Prairie by 1976. Mr. Putnam replied that the answer depends upon
how many people will buy the proposed units and the number of children/family
of the future -buyers. Mr. Fosnocht felt that it should be based on developed
plans and that predictions should not have to wait until the people move in.
Earliest possible construction of a school, said the Planner, would be in
3-5 years.
In projecting needs, Paul Schee stated that they do not expect a great influx
of elementary-age children. He estimated that the next elementary school would
be needed around 1979 and that a middle-school may be needed earlier.
Mr. Jones said that rentd units, especially the higher priced units, receive
very few shcool-age children, he estimated that there may not be over 10 in
the entire project.
Mr. Sorensen then questioned the acres and density involved in the Basswoods
area. . Mr Schwarz responded that the computer information from last week
showed 82. 9 acres and without the church site it would be 77. 3 acres.
Mrs. Schee aske d Mr. Sorensen if he would accept-Mrs. Meyer's figures
on density which were 6. 6/du. Mr. Sorensen felt that the Shadow Green Project
and this d1 site's density was too high and that if densities of the Basswoods
have now changed he would like the reason for such a change.
Mr. Hess responded that everyone has been working under the approved
PUD and Preliminary Plat and that the density now is the same as approved.
Schee informed Mr. Sorensen' that no one else calculated an additional amount
of units. ' Mr. Sorensen again asked the Basswood representatives for the
reason behind the additional 75 units and inquired as to it possibly being for.
economic reasons. Mr. Hess responded that the figure :was close to the
original proposal, having been modified slightly downward, and that no nne
on their Staff has set it as an economic factor. Schee asked Sorensen if his
question had been answered. He felt, that it had not been.
Mr. Putnam indicated that the density is about 6. 6/du.(477:70-72 acres),
which is the same as the original proposal of about 6. 4 du/acres.
Sorensen stated' that he envisioned the site .as a low-medium density area and
needs to know why there are an additional 75 units.
It was felt by Putnam that Bassw000ds was following the original approv al,
(multiple buildings), and that the number of units was about the same.
Mrs. Schee told Mr. Sorensen that she sand other members of the Commission
arrived at figures of 6. 6 /du/acre just,as the Staff and The Preserve.
Sorensen again asked for the reason behind the additional units. Mr. Hess
stated that there was not an increase in density area in the original Preserve
and later Bassw000ds P.U. D. Mrs.. Meyers stated she knew that the density
was a serious concern with Mr. Sorensen, but that she also arrived at a 6. 6/du
figure.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- Feb. 5,' 1974
Action: Meyers moved, Schee'seconded, to approve the revised Basswoods
dl plan with the Staff Report dated February 1, 1974, as to the
flexibility of the School/Park site.
The motion carried by a vote of 3 ayes(Meyers, Lane, Schee), 1 nye
(Sorensen), and 1 abstain(Fosnocht).
Mr. Sorensen--Is reason for a negative vote was that he believed the project
when compiled is inconsistent ' ' with the original concept approval and that
no reasons have been given for the density increase.
Mr. Fosnocht stated that his abstaining was because he has not been involved
in the project. He did not understand why there was a differenbe between Mr.
Sorensen's figures and those of the Staff,Preserve and other Commission
members. He said that the Planner should clear up the question.
B. City Sign , Ordinance, revised ordinance regulating all signing except bill
board advertising.
Mr. Sorensen asked if action must be taken tonight since they had just received
the revised ordinance that evening.
Ed, Sherman, City Fire and Building Inspector, replied that there was pressure on
them to complete the ordinance.
Schee felt that the Council may have some -input and that it could be postponed.
Questions about the Sign Ordinance raised by Bill Bonner of Hustad
Development were:
Section3, p. 4- as to who would be the deciding body and the
time involved for a variance.
Item m Any free-standing sign within 25 feet of any intersection
of street right-of-way lines and/or driveway entrances
shall have a minimum vertical clearance of six feet
above the centerline of the pavement.
Mr. Bonner said that all their signs would be in violation of item (m�:
Item(o)-size and set-back restrictions on traffic directional
signs.
The Commission members had questions relating to:the requirements and fees on
the neighborhood I. D. signs, and the restrictions on the traffic directional
signs.
Developers from the audience expressed the concern that an ordinance does
not deal with directional signs in large residential projects.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- Feb. 5, 1974
Mrs. Schee then asked Mr. Sherman to consider the views expre ssed by
the audience and the Commissioners in revising the Sign Ordinance.
Action:
Sorensen moved, Fosnocht seconded, to postpone 2 weeks from to date the
Sign Ordinance and have it placed.on the next agenda.
The motion was approved by an unanimous vote.
C. Summerwoods II, by Zachman Homes Inc. , a 13. 5 acre site proposed for
clustered single family. homes. The site is located in Edenvale on Outlot U of
Edenvale 3rd addition Northwest area, (directly south of existing Summerwoods).
Mr. Peterson, of Eden Land Corporation presented the project of 40 lots on
13. 5 acres served by a loop street ; off Woodland Drive. The western extreme'
of the site is heavily w000ded and the north side is bounded by a hedge row.
Presently there is a pathway to the Hipp's project and there will be pathway
conctruction along the northern hedge - row to-Briarhill. The site has a
50 foot right-of-way. Mr. Xullie, City Engineer, desires a 60 foot right-of
way , a 32 foot street for visitor parking, and a 30 foot set-back. Mr. Peterson
proposed a 30 foot set-back on garages and 25 foot to the building.
Mr. Sorensen' inquired if the Edenvale Homeowners Association would provide
the maintenance since there would not be a Homeowners Association in
Summerwoods. Mr. Peterson responded that Edenvale Association would
maintain the open area.and if the owners desire further improvments they would
do it themselves.
Mr. Sorensen � sked Mr. Zachman about the 10 foot side yards. Mr. Zachman
answered that approximately 20 feet is maintained between most houses.
Mr. Sorensen inquired if there would be a traffic porblem with the turn .
around on Woodland ' Drive. Putnam did not expect problems in that area.
Mrs. Meyers asked how moderate the price range would be in the single family
cluster. Mr. Zachman responded that it would be approximately $34, 900. 00
for a house which would include the carpeting and double garage .
Mr. Fosnocht asked where the outer boundaries were for:the.13. 45 acre site.
Mr. Zachman said that the gross acreage is measured from the center-line
of the streets which gives 3 units/acre. Mr. Peterson added that buyer ac-
ceptance has been good and the smaller lots have not been a problem besides
the easements involved.
Action:
Fosnocht moved, ' Lane seconded, to continue the Summerwoods II public
hearing to the next meeting.
The motion was carried by a unanimous vote. (7-0).
Mr. Putnam asked why the hearing was continued. Mr. Fosnocht said that he
was not sure what he wanted to do with the project. Schee asked Mr. Fosnocht if
Planning Commission Minutes -7- Feb. 5, '1,974
he had any further questions. He said that he had no further questions adding
that he would like to go see the Summerwoods project.
D. Lake Eden Heights, by Eden Land Corporation, single family plat of 192
lots located in the Edenvale South P. U. D.
During the single family construction there will be walks to the pedestrian
underpass; other walks are not anticipated unless the future residents desire
them.
Mr. Sorensen asked if they had plans for creating easements in the deeds for
Outlots E, F, K, (quasi-public) to permit public access. Mr. Peterson
said that the lots would be owned by the Homeowners Association, the same
as in The Preserve, and that the owners who pay-for it.would set their own rules.
Mr. Sorensen felt that such arrangement could exclu de non-members and
there should be an easement for.the public. .
The Eden Land Corporation Attorney wondered what the builder would say to
buyers if the buyers are expected to maintain the property but are not allowed
to exclude the public.
Mr. Putnam felt that it would be unreasonable to deny the public access to
the possible commercial area. Mr. Peterson said that the F. H. A. would
not accept it as private park with public access and that if the people who
own.it cannot restrict the public that perhaps it should be dedicated to the
public. Mr. Putnam believes that that may be the necessary option.
Mr. Sorensen feels that there should be right of public access, (ingress and
egress) , through the outlots, and through all areas in Eden Prairie, with
reasonable restrictions by Homeowner's Associations on themselves.
Mrs. Schee then asked Mr. Peterson if there were any other.items concerning
this project that they wished to discuss.
Mr. Peterson questioned the assessment policy on Outlot A's dedication.
Mr. Putnam answered that the City Engineer is presently drafting- a
statement about the assessments application to the outlot and that Mr. Peterson
will be recieving a statement soon . Mr. Putnam added that on page 10 of
the Staff Report the reduction of density statement for outlot C prohibited
them from gaining a mortgage so it would be deleted, and provisions .
concerning the conveying of money in lieu of park dedication will be added.
Mr. Peterson added that they are willing to give the site to the school but
not to any development.
Mrs. Meyers th-mgat that the final plat would have more walkways. Mr.
Peterson responded that it was a lower cost project and that more walkways
would only add money and that he does not feel that the people want them.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- Feb. 5, 1974
Mr. Fosnocht remarked that the walkways appeared irregular in shape,
(for example, between blocks 2-3) , and that a bottleneck exists by lot 16.
Peterson responded that the pathways prevent people from cutting the trees,
as theymay do in their back yard, and the bottlenecks created in some of
the pathways could be rectified.
No action was necessary and the public hearing will be continued to the
February 19, 1974, Planning Commission Meeting.
III. WORK SESSION.
A. Commercial Service Study, discussion of study intent and process.
Mr. Putnam briefed the members: on the Preliminary Work Program for
the Commercial Needs Study.
Mr. Fosnocht asked if it would be best to hire an expert to do the Study .
and not the '-task 'force approach. Putnam stated that the Council will be
the deciding body cn who performs the Study. He hoped that experts will
be used, but only as part of the team, and not as the only one doing the
Study.
Discussion followed as to who would preform the Study, (for example-experts,
community volunteers, Staff and Commission members), and Mr. Putnam
said such a decison will be made by the City Council.
IV. ADJOURNMENT.
It was moved by 'achee, seconded by Lane, to adjourn the meeting at 12:10 A. M.