Planning Commission - 03/05/1974 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
" TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1974
7:30 P.M. CITY HALL
INVOCATION . . . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE . . . ROLL CALL
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairwoman Norma Schee, Wayne Brown, Don Sorensen
Richard Lynch, Joan Meyers, M.E. Lane, Herb Fosnocht.
STAFF PRESENT: Richard Putnam, City Planner
I. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 1974.
II. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. Revised Sign Ordinance : dated 2-19-74 prepared by City staff. Review by
Commission members with Mr. Sanders and Mr. Sherman from the Building
Department to answer any questions.
Action: Recommend approval, modifications or continue to the March 19, 1974 Meeting.
B. Amendment to set-back Requirements of Zoning Ordinance # 135. The Council
refered the proposed amendment to the Commission for study and recommendations .
Action: Recommend approval, modification,or continue study to the March 19, 1974
Meeting.
C. Suback Restaurant : Request to modify ordinance # 135 to permit liquor license
restaurant in industrial districts. The Council asked the staff to investigate such
a change in ordinance # 135. Report attached from the Planner.
Action: R:-commend ordinance # 135 be modified to permit commercial restaurants/
liquor establishments in industrail districts or deny the request.
D. Lake Eden Heights, single-family plat of 192 lots located in the Edenvale South PUD
located east of T.H. 169-212 and west of The Preserve. Request rezoning to RI-13.5
with lot size less than the 13,500 sq. ft. minimum and variance for set-back
requirements. Planning and Engineering Report attached.
Action: Approve, deny, or continue until' the March 19, 1974 Meeting.
E. Crosstown 62 Extension , requested by Hennepin County from Shady Oak to I-494
for freeway construction. Refer to staff reports and county plans.
Action: Approve, reject, or continue until the March 19, 1974 Meeting.
III. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS: PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Hidden Ponds 2nd Addition, request rezoning to RI-13.5 and Development stage approval
for about 200 single-family lots located southeast of Duck Lake Trail and east of
T.H. 101 . Approval will require variance from ordinance # 135 regarding minimum
lot size and set-back requirements.
Action: Approve, reject, or continue to March 19, 1974.
Jt
Agenda
March 5, 1974
page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONT.
George Maurer Construction Inc. ,request rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park for the
construction of an Industrial ware house. The property is located south of Co.Rd.##1
and east of T.H. 169-212 . Developers presentation and planners report.
Action: Recommend approval, deny or continue to March 19, 1974 Meeting.
C. Suncrest Townhouse Development, by Suncrest Homes of Minnesota. Requesting
PUD development stage approval , rezoning to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat
approval for the construction of 134 cluster townhouses on the 30.7 acre site.
The project is located in Edenvalas Northu-lest area south of the C.M. ST.P&P
railroad and north of the 8 acre public park. Outlots E& F of Edenvale 3rd Addition.
Developers presentation.
Action: Continue public hearing until the March 19, 1974 Meeting.
IV. ADJOURNMENT.
i
MINUTES
' EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1974 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Norma Schee, M.E. Lane, Don Sorensen,
Herb Fosnocht, Richard Lynch, Joan Meyers.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Wayne Brown.
STAFF PRESENT: Richard Putnam, Wayne Sanders, Mr..- Sherman,
I. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
The following changes were made to the February 5th , 1974 Planning Commission
Minutes.
page 1, R 3-should read, the state building code requires a mi.nimum of 3 feet . .
& , only 5' from'lot line. '
page 2, P 1 -should read, when adopting Ordinance 135 in connection with
large scale PUD's.
delete (25,000-$30,000)
Action should read a nay vote by Fosnocht.
page 3, F 2-should read, since the- concept plan had just been approved by the Counc
page 4, P 1-spelling of', Norma Schee
& should read, Fosnocht asked Mrs Schee what the Commission was
expected to produce from this discussion -
P10-should read, and Chairwoman Schae directed the staff to write a
position paper.
Action: Lynch moved,Lane seconded to make the :chhanges to the February 19, 1974
Minutes. The motion was carried by a vote of 5 ayes,( Schee, Lane, Lynch, .
Sorensen, Fosnocht) and 1 abstain,. ( Meyers) .-
REPORTS AND RE COMMENDATIONS:
A: Revised Sign Ordinance: dated 2-I9-74 prepared by City staff. Review by Commission
members.with Mr. Sanders and Mr. Sherman from the Building Department to answer
any questions;
Questions about the Sign Ordinance raised by the Commission were:
page 2, item c--"Address Sign" means postal identification numbers only whether
written or in numeric form
-Mr. Sherman felt_ that,numbers "and /or name only" could be
included,
page 2 , item.h-"Canopy_and Marquee" means a icoflike structure projecting over
the entrance to a theater, store, etc.
page 4, item v-Questions related to signs visable from exterior,of building for
informational or communicative purposes.
page 5, item dl-Questions related to the height of-signs.
page 2, item f-Questions related to "Sitting Facility Signs" .
It was determined that it should read, "to seating facilities and
enclosures at transit facility stop."
page 2 ,item d-Questions related to the'official sector map.
It was determined that the Council will be handling the official
.map approval.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- March
page 6,item c-"No sign shall contain any indecent or offensive picture or written
matter."
• -It was determined that item (c) should be omitted.
page 7, item i-Questions related to campaign signs.
-It was suggested that a separate item under (i) should allow 32sq.ft.
signs if permission was received from*the owner. This _,addition
should be placed before the last sentence.
page 7,item j=Questions related to signs being removed upon completion of
.construction, or alternately the occupancy of the building.
page 5,item a-Questions related to false or misleading information.
Ifi was suggested that the last sentence should read,"and/or land use
page 6,item b-Correct spelling of "deteriorating" .
page 5,Item a--Correctspelling-of"inconsistent.".
page 6,item e-Remove carma{;) after "temporarily" .
page 9,item w-Questions related to signs located on the interior of a building..
page 9,item t-Questions related to'the necessity of advertising on transit facility stq-
pagel.0,item'-z--Questions related to garage sale signs..--
-It was suggested that,the word "One" at-the-begining.of item (z)
be'deleted, 'the word "sign" should be changed to the plural.tense,
(signs), and that the word residential should be added after "single
family." and before 'district" .
Chairwoman Norma Schee then suggested that-it would be best to-continue the "Sign
Ordinance discussion ,at the end of the agenda or.at another time- unless there
• was discussion from the.audience.
Dr. Wright, D.V.M..., then addressed the Commission statizing that'he did not feel
that his-business was-included in the ordinance. -He has had many problems with cliew
being unable to locate. his business because_ of read changes and inadequate signing.
He felt there is a need:to differentiate- between directional signs and-advertising signs,
Mr. Sorensen viewed Dr. Wright's situation as unforiurate and perhaps there would
be a possible hardship-solution to his problem.
Mr. Putnam said that Dr. Wright was told to construct a white billboard sign,
because it would have been unwise to allow a more expensive lighted sign before
the Sign Ordinance is completed and it is not known what would be allowed.
It was then suggested by Mr. Sorensen that Dr. Wright read the revised Sign Ordinance
and submit his- comments. He added that the Commission welcomes citizen input
and that Dr. Wright will be notified when the -Sign Ordinance is again placed on the
Planning Commission's agenda.
Action;
Schee moved, Lane seconded to continue the discussion at the March 19, 1974
Planning Commission Meeting. The motion carried unanimously. .
Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 5, 197,
• Amendment to set-back Requirements of Zoning Ordinance # 135. *The Council
referred the proposed amendment to the Commission for study and recommendations.
Mrs. Meyers felt further clarification of the side and total footage allowed, e.g.that
allowed between-garage next to garage-house next to house, etc., was needed.
Mr. Sorensen did not agree with the 15 ' total because 20 ' would be narrow enough
between 2 houses. He concured with Mrs. Meyers feeling that a 20 ' .total restriction
might be better.
Mr.Bonner, of Hustad Development, inquired if the restrictions would also apply
to cluster homes; being that cluster homes are different and may require 2 side yards.
Mr. Sorensen responded that with the.present information the side-yard restrictions woult
apply to any single family housing. :
Mr. Putnam said the ordinance was adopted in 1969,. now; there are new'ideas; and
the staff hopes to revise the PUD ordinance and submit it to the Council and
Commission.
Mr. Fosnocht shared Mrs. Meyers concerns, and said that from a former discussion,
(2weeks ago), he did not think that the major problem was changing the ordinance
• because therevxre acceptable solutions land a change in ordinance would mean
a loss'of,the Commission's control.
Mrs. Schee asked the building department staff if there were many variances
requested ? Mr. Sanders responded that they do receive alot of variance requests and
that the suggested minimums could eliminate most of the requests.
Mr. Peterson, of Eden Land Corporation, felt that the Building department had a
good approach to the. set-back restrictions and that. flexibility is needed to properly
locate houses.
Action: '
Lynch moved, Meyers seconded, to send the ordinance back to the staff for
additional language to cover the points presented by Mrs. Meyers and as to the
original Preserve blanket variance, and for additional-controls,and a clearer
definition of small detached singly family residential units. The motion was
approved by a vote of 5 ayes, and 1 nay (,Sorensen) .
laiiixitiy l.iU1WIU.-,a1Vi1 1V11LLULt:.:, Mclrch 5, 1
C, suback Restaurant: Request to modify ordinance # 135 to permit liquor license
restaurant in industrial districts. The Council aske d the staff to.investigate such(
• a change in ordinance # 135.
I t was the Planner's opinion on this issue that it would-not be advisable to change
ordinance # 135.
In responding to Mr. Sorensen's question about liquor license restaurants allowed
in other communities; the Planner stated that Bloomington allows them by conditional
use permits, and Hopkins and St. Louis Park exlude. liquor license restaurants
from industrial districts. He added that conditional use permits are more 'often
used in developed communities and that it would not be a good idea in newly
developing areas. It was also Mr. Perbix's, the. City attorney, contention that a
conditional use permit would not be . advisable in a newly developing area and,
that it would jeopardize ordinance. 135. It was*the Planner's understanding .
though that the Council asked the Commission to decide if it would be a permitted
use in an Industrial district,not if a conditional use permit should be granted.
Mrs. -Meyers, referring to page 5 of the Staff Report, asked the Planner what
special exemptions he anticipated if a conditional use permit was granted. The _
Planner answered that conditional use permits in any district for any reason will
be asked for and it is important the Commission stand firm on where uses are
outlined to be located. Mrs. Meyers considered the issue to be a special use in a.
• zoning class and not a conditional use permit.
Mr. Peterson, of Eden Land Corporation, said that there has been many proposals
for non-industrial use in the. area ,and that he understood the Council asked the
Commis sionlow a liquor licence re taurant could be accomplished.
Mrs. Schee questioned the advisability of amerdng ordinance .135.. Mrs_ . Meyers sai,
that the Council desires that direction from the Commission.
Action:
Schee moved, Lane seconded, to recommend denial of the approval either through
rezoning, special use permit, or modification or amendment.to ordinance 135 for
construction of a liquor license restaurant on a 2.2 acre site in the Edenvale Industria:,
Park site. -
Mrs. Schee commented that changing . ordinance 135 to permit n.on-conforming uses
would-ceriously jeopardize the affectivenass_of said ordinance as it relates to the
Comprehensive Guide Plan, limit the City's statutory power in future commercial
land use decisions, and affect the entire planning within this community.
.In further discussion Mr. Sorensen stated he shared the concern of future zoning
problems but he was not convinmd that a liquor license restaurant is a bad land use.
• He feels that the present zoning ordinance is inadequate and that its revision
should be a high priority of the staffs. He questioned the policy of the City
slanning Uommrssion Minutes -b- March S, 1974
accepting a $1500.00 non-refundable liquor license application on a site where such
zoning was not permitted and thus having Mr. Suback incur large expenses in pre-
paring designs and plannings. No similar situations should be allowed to happen,
in the future.
Lane agreed with the concerns of Mr. Sorensen.
Mrs. Schee's motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes;(Schee, Meyers, Lane),
2 abstains;(Fosnocht, Sorensen) , and 1 nay vote, (Lynch) .
Mr. Lynch's nay vote was because he felt the use could be allowed with a special
use permit.
Mr. Fosnocht'.§ abstain was because he was not involved in th a previous actions
regarding this matter.
D. -Lake Eden Heights,single family plat of 192 lots located in the Edenvale South PUD
located east of T.H. 169-212 and west - of The Preserve, Raquest rezoning to RI-13.
with lot,size less than the 13,-500 . sq. ft. minimum,and variance-for set-back . -
requirements..
Mr. Sorensen questioned why nothing-was stated in the recommendations about
the first critical area mentioned on page 1 of the staff report. Mr. Putnam'
responded that as long as set-backs and proper house designs are maintained
that there would be no problem. Mr. Sorensen , referring to page 3, recommenda-
tion 2c, asked what the rear lot line restriction would be. The Planner stated-that
the rear lot line is 20 feet in ordinance 135.
Mr. Fosnocht commented - that he has been consistent in voting against 5 ' set-back
variances, and if the Council changes the ordinance he could change his point
of view.
Mr. Putnam stated that there is a substantial commitment to Edenvale South in
Resolution 810 and that there has been a different set of standards and a substantial
commitment to open space.
Mrs. Meyers pointed out that- set-back gradations were-not included. Mr. Putnam
said that it could be added; and Mr. Peterson added that such an inclusion would not
be objectionable to them.
Action:
Lynch moved, Lane seconded, to approve the rezoning as to the Staff Planning
Report dated Marchl, 1974, and the Engineer's Report dated March 12, 1974, with
the exception that item 2, subparagraph (a) read -
• set-back from lot line depending on house style. .
k 5' on 1 story garages
10' on 12 story houses
15, on 2 stories or greater
20' on houses built on corner lots
J Planning Commission Minutes -6- Mar
The following amendments,were added by Sorensen, seeonded by Lane, under �..
• recommendation 2(a) .
.
1. that 12 residences have 5' side 20' total
2 story res. have 15' si de 25' total
accessory buildings 5' side IF total
2. strike, "along toe of slops"in item 3.
3. add to item 4 "lot-number and/or lots"
The amendment was-not approved as the result of-2 aye votes(Lane, Sorensen), 3 nay
votes, (Schee, Meyers, Lynch), and 1 abstain, (Fosnocht).
The motion.with no amendments to approve the rezoning from Rural in-PUD 74-01
to RI-13•-5 was approved by a vote of 4 ayes(Schee, Meyers, Lynch,: Lane) and
2 nay votes, (Fosnocht, Sorensen) .
E. Crosstown 62 Extension, requested by Hennepin County from Shady Oak to I-494
for freeway construction.
This matter was placed at the end of the agenda because of interested parties in
the audience waiting for discussing of following agenda items,
III• PETITIONS AND REQUESTS: PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Hidden Ponds 2n:d Addition, request rezoning to RI-J8.5 and development stage approve
for about 200 single family lots located southeast. ..of Duck.Lake Trail and east of
T.H. 101. Approval will require variance from ordinance # 135 regarding minimum lot
size and set--back requirement.
The Planner gave a slide presentation and stated that there are 40 acres in the
original approval:.(Phase I) and 110 acres in the.remaining project.
Mr. Knutson presented the project saying that the original phase was in December
of 1972, with a preliminary .plat approval of 77 lots. The proposal now-differs In
that the park area will - be all public.* 288 lots are proposed '.with the average
lot size around 15,500 sq. ft.; 10 lots are at a minimum of 12,000 sq. ft. therefore
a variance, as in the Preserve, is being requested. There are presently 2 more acres
of park.proposed than existed in the original.proposal. _
Mr. Sorensen pointed out that the listed street names were confusing.. Mr. Knutson
said that they had been • changed.
Mrs. Meyers asked how much of the park land is open and useable. She was informed
• by Mr. Knutson that it was all open and useable. She then asked if the ponds wou'
still be landscaped and finished since they are now-public? Mr. Knutson responded
that they would continue to finish the ponds as the conditions permitted. He
;Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 5, 1974
was then asked by Meyers if there would be a H.O.A. in Hidden Ponds Phase II ;
his answer was that he. As uncertain at this time. Mrs. Meyers.questioned the
. possible liability to the City if the ponds are to be public.
Action:
Sorensen-moved,' Schee seconded, to place HiddenPonds II on the #allowing meeting,
and to refer to the staff for further information. The motion was approved unanimously.
B. George Maurer Construction Inc. , request rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park for the
construction of an Industrial ware house. The property is located south of Co. Rd. 1
and east of T.H. 169-212.
The Planner presented slides d the site and said that a'meeting concerning the Flying
Cloud Airport would be held March 14, 1974.
Mr. Terry Maurer said that through their contacts with MAC Mr. Olson informed
them that they saw no problem in' the Maurer proposal in relation to what MCA
will be doing. Mr. Maurer felt that the 2 acre proposal would fit well with the exisitin
industrial-buildings. and they would accept any conditions as to utility connections.
He said that the land was bought 8 years ago and was _ zoned commercial, the
commercial zoning was removed and replaced with Rural—a law suit followed, and
they are again requesting rezoning.
Mr. Harold Schaitberger, 12880 Pioneer Trail, the adjacent land owner, in disagreeing
with the proposed rezoning said that such a use.vo uld make him a buffer for
industrial. His property line is 30' from the proposed building.
Mr. L.E. Whitner, 13050 Pioneer Trail, also present, disagreed with the proposed
rezoning of the Maurer property.
Mr. Bonner, of Hustad Development, was concerned about possible strip development
and questioned what quarantees about its extent could be given.
Mr. Putnam did not feel that industrial would be inappropriate, but with the March
14th Airport meeting, road changes might be needed if plans are implemented; and
it would be'unwi se for the Council to review.this proposal before they make a decision
on the entire area. He added that granting this rezoning would be going against
what BPI was told of-no more industrial zoning !without utilities and an apirove3 plan.
Action:
Meyers moved, Lane seconded, to continue the public hearing 6 weeks from. tonight,•
(April 16, 1974) , pending the March 14, 1874 Airport meeting and for further
staff'reports. The motion was unanimously approved.
Planning 'Commission Minutes -8- March 5, 1974
C. Suncrest Townhouse Development, by Suncrest Homes of Minnesota. Requesting
PUD development stage approval, rezoning to RM 6.5 and "preliminary plat
approval for the construction of 134 cluster townhouses on the 30.7 .acre site.
The project is located in Edenvale's Northwest area soulhof the C.M. ST. P&P
Railroad and north of the 8 acre public park Outlots E & F of Edenvale. 3rd Addition.
Mr. Peterson presented the Suncrest proposal of'134 units of double townhouses
to be constructed in outlots E&F. There will be private-streets inmost areas with
square cul-de-sacs'and 5 parking spaces/unit. The units will be of various stories
and it-is possible for people to buy or rent the' -units'. 'Site coverage will be 27%
and open space of 78%.
Mr. Sorensen questioned the reason for storm water retention ponds. Peterson answer
that it is an amenity and a good way to treat storm water. The units will be under .
$40,000. each including fire place., 2 car garage, and 2 or 3 bedrooms.'
Meyers asked if the 2 existing residences to the west would be .land-locked. Mr.
Peterson said-that they would have easement.off Kurst Lane.
Mr. Fosnocht questioned which streets are public and private'. There will be 1 public
street running N-S on the west side of the .proposal,. and the remaining streets will
be private said Mr 'Peterson.
• Action:
Schee moved, Lane seconded, to continue the public hearing until the March 19, 19;
Planning Commission Meeting pending a staff and engineers report.
Addition to Agenda:
Preserve's request to have the land use and property boundaries defined within an
-approximate 30 acre site, south of 169 and the new Major.Center Ring Route, and north.
of Edenvale South PUD,, prior to the storm sewer project and vacation of the County ditc
The Planner stated that delineation of a property line would place contraints upon the s:
and that it would be best to define the boundary with objectives not lines. Alsothe
significant tree area which exists should be preserved if the objectives of the MCA P'
are followed . Density trade-off which would allow high density building would
preserve the natural area rather than allow a parking lot or a building as proposed by
The Preserve.
Mr. Lee Johnson, of THe Preserve, felt that.they are being asked to give up'a substant:
amount of land, and that unless there is a specific line drawn their marketability is
diminished. `
The Preserve's proposal will be brought before the next Council Meeting.
IV. ADTOURNMENT: .
Schee moved, Lane seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 1:20 A.M. , it was unanimousl-
approved.
Because of the late hour the 62-Crosstown Extension was not discussed.
The Planning Commission members will be meeting, prior to the regular scheduled
Planning Commission meeting, at 5:30 PM, March 19; 1974, for a dinner meeting