Loading...
Planning Commission - 03/19/1974 AGENDA EDENPRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1974 7:30 PM CITY HALL 0 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 7:30 PM I. MINUTES OF MARCH 5 , 1974. II. REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS. 7:35 PM A. Pbvised Sign Ordinance; prepared by City staff. Review by Qmmis.sion members with Mr. Sanders and Mr. Sherman from the Building Department to answer any questions. Action: Recommend approval, modification, or continue to the April 2, 1974 Meetinc 8:30 PM B. Amendment to set-back Requirements of Zoning Ordinance # 135. The Council referred the proposed amendment to the Commission for study and recommendations. Action:Recommend approval, modification, or continue study to the April 2, 1974 Meeting. 9:00 PM C. Crosstown 62 Extension, requested by Hennepin County from Shady Oak to I-494 for freeway constuction. Refer to reports and County Plans. Action: Approve, reject, or continue until the April 2, 1974 Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS.CONTINUED FROM MARCH 5, 1974: 9:10M D. 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.Refer to 3/14/74 Staff Report. Action:. A;zprove, reject, or continue to April 2, 1974 Meeting. 10:20 Pill E. Suncrest Townhouse Development, by Suncrest Homes of Minnesota. Requesting approval for the construction of 134 cluster townhouses on the 30.7 acre -site. The project is located in Edenvale's Northwest area south of-the C.M. St. P& P railroad and north of the 8 acre public park. Outlots E & F of Edenvale :3rd Add. Refer to 3/12/74 Staff Report. Action:Approve, reject , or continue to the April 2, 1974 Meeting. 11:05 PM F. Planner's Reports: l.' Recent ordinance #135 interpretation to allow restaurants in Industrial Districts. Refer to 3-12-74 Council Minutes. 2. Commercial Needs Study. 3. PUD ordinance review. III. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS: 11:25 PM A. Shady Oak PUD 71-2,Development stage application and rezoning from Rural to RM 2.5 for construction of 154 semi-luxury apartments on 11 acres about 800 feet east of Shady Oak Road and north of new 212/169. Presentation by D.H. Gustafson & Associates Inc. Refer to brochure. Action: Continue Public Hearing to April 2.. 1974. 12:OWM IV. ADTOURNMENT: MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY , March 19, 1974 7:30P.M. City Hall • MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Norma Schee, Joan Meyers, Donald Sorensen, _ Skip Lane, Richard Lynch, Herb Fosnocht. MEMBERS ABSENT: Wayne Brown STAFF PRESENT: Dick Putnam, City Planner Ed Sherman, Wayne Sanders-Building Department T. MINUTES OF MARCH 5 , 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The following changes were made to the March 5, 1974 Planning Minutes: P.2 ,P 2-should read, He has had many problems with clients being unable . P.3,Action: should read , and 1 nay , (Sorensen) . Action: It was moved by Schee, seconded by Meyers, to make the changes to the March 5,1974 Minutes. The motion was unanimously approved. H. REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Revised Sign Ordinance; prepared by City staff. Review by Commission members with Mr. Sanders and Mr. Sherman from the Building Department. Chairwoman Schee stated that the ordinance had been previously discussed that evening at a'dinner meeting and directed Mr. Sherman. to read the changes that the Commission and the Building Department had agreed upon. Mr. Sherman listed the following changes: Page.11 - Under new # 8, Review Process: the signage program will be reviewed • ' by the City staff with recommendations submitted to the City Planning, Commission for approval. Page 12 - Include,a new # 7 which will read the same as #8 on page 11. Page 13 - Include a new #6 which will read the same as #8 on page 11. Page 1.4 - Include new # 7 which will read the same as # 8 on page 1I. Page 15 - Add number 8, Signs may be placed on rear doors with 3"numerals. i Add number 9, which will read the same as # 8 on'page 11. g - Delete item (2). Page 17 - Under (b) the sixth line from the bottom should read "commence", not started, -and delete, "or preceeded with" . Page 18 - Under d (2) , the word non-profit will be defined by Mr. Sorensen. 3 - Add, "and neighborhood markers,, Page 20 - Under (a) , should read Minnesota Statue annotated § 160.27. Mrs. Meyers recommended that if the Council made additional revisions that the Sign Ordinance should be placed on the Commission's following agenda. Dr. Wright, D.V.M. , then addressed the Commission. He had read the revised Sign Ordinance and did not feel that 24 sq. ft. was an adequate size for institu- tional signs. He believed that a certain amount of advertisement should be allowed without hearirsj a fee. Mr. Sorensen responded that the populous should not have to .6eav-the cost when it benefits someone specifically. Mrs.. Schee stated that the • ordinance cannot be changed to satisfy personal desires but will be handled through the appeal process . She thanked .Dr. Wright for his concern and input. Mr. Peterson, of Eden Land Corporation, considered the ordinance well written, but strongly felt that the yearly fees and inspections would be an administrative impossibility. Mrs. Schee said that ordinance 210 is the fee ordinance and the staff does not foresee implementation of the Sign Ordinance as impossible. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 19, 1974 . • Action: Sorensen moved, Fosnocht seconded, to refer to the staff for the Sign Ordinance modification in conformance with the comments made at the meeting. The motion was unanimously approved. B. Amendment to set-back Requirements of Zoning Ordinance # 135. The Planner informed the Commission that according to the Park and Recreation Commission the current set-backs,(those in ordinance 135) , are sufficient and they suggest variances when necessary in each proposal on its own merits. Mr. Sorensen thought it the concensus of the joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting last Saturday that this issue would be dealt with at the Council and Planning Commission level and until then the existing ordinance should be adhered to. Meyers responded that the Council would like the Planning Commission to deal with issues referred to them and that the Council would need_ the Commission's recommendations before revision of the ordinance. Mr. Sorensen expressed concern that once min-1mun standards are set that people will build at those standards. He opposed decreasing the set-backs. Instead the ordinance should be left as is and the power should be granted to the staff to allow variances in certain instances. • Action: S chee moved, Fosnocht seconded, to recommend to the Council denial of -the suggestion to amend ordinance 135 regarding set-backs and suggested instead variance procedures to be sought during the proposal application for specific proposals by developers. Discussion: Mr. Lynch felt that the motion would not accomplish anything. The Planner believed that it would allow the. Planning Commission and Council discretion when approving developments . Mr. Sorensen felt that discretion could be granted to the staff under desigmted guidelines. Mrs. Meyers did not consider the motion as an answer to the Council' s question and that the present ordinance is not adaptable enough to the types of property within the City. Mr. Sorensen suggested that the. matt ar be referred to the staff for the purpose of a report and guidelines of discretion to be used by staff, and that this information be to the Commission in two weeks. Vote :On Mrs. Schee's motion: Mrs.Scheds motion was denied by a vote of 3 ayes, (Schee, Meyers, Fosnocht), and 3 nays, (Sorensen, Lane, Lynch). Motion: Sorensenmoved, Lynch seconded, that the matter be referredto the staff to set forth guidelines and recommendations on variance criteria and present it at the Commission's next meeting. The present ordinance (1-35) should be retained and provisions for PUD and rezoning variance application added. Also, criteria by which the staff can grant variances on sites should be set. • The motion was approved by a vote of 4 ayes, (Sorensen, Meyers, Lynch, Lane), and 2 nays, (Schee, Fosnocht). Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 19, 1974 C. Crosstown 62 Extension, requested by Hennepin County from Shady Oak to 1494 . for freeway construction. The Planner outlined the reports and the proposal's implications upon.the .land. He stated that the City proposes a high bridge over Vine Mile Creek. The Planning Report dealt with the merits of the extension on a regional road impact level. The main cons-srn being where will the vehicles go after 494. The County foresees 30,000 trips/day on this extension by the year 1985. Long-range projections by Howard Needles shows the Crosstown/212/18 interchange as a bottleneck. Mrs. Schee . expressed conern that transportation agencies should be encouraged to develop alternate transportation services. Mr. Putnam agreed saying that alternate means of handling trips, other than personal auto, . should be planned and implemented. Mrs. Schee st.ated that an at-grade crossing at Beach Road would not be permitted by the School District. Mr. Putnam said that they have suggested a connection from Beach Road to Baker Road across 494, but the couhty states that it is unfeas- ible from a cost standpoint and that signals may instead be installed at Beach Road and the Crosstown. Meyers asked if there had been any commitment from Minnetonka for an open space corridor to serve_ the area. The Planner said that a small corridor is proposed in the flood plain. • Mrs. Meyers, referring-to the 62 extensive relandscaping discussed in the staff recommendations, asked what had been alloted by the county for such purposes. The planner responded that nothing had been alloted in the first contract and that no plans-have been developed. Mr. Putnam said that standards that are met by developers should also be met by public improvements such as a freeway. Action: Schee moved, Lynch seconded, to recommend to the Council approval of the extension of C.S.A.H 62 from Shady Oak Road to 494 on the . proposed northern alignment with the recommendations of the staff report dated March 2, 1974. The motion was unanimously approved. Sorensen moved, Fosnocht seconded, to recommend that the Council set a public hearing with notifications, to land owners, and others who may request information about this matter. This motion was also unanimously approved. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 19, 1974 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED FROM MARCH 5 � 1974.: • D. 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. Because the Commission had just recieved the Engineer's and staff's reports that evening and had not had the time beforehand to c-)ver them Mrs. Schee asked to hear anyone's,concerns, but that the matter would be placed on the following agenda. The Planner stated that the staff report was picked up by a Hidden Ponds represen- tative that afternoon and that differences existed in the 10-12 acre wooded knoll area. The Planner then showed slides of the surrounding area. He believed that commercial services should be a part of the Ioposal because of the number of houses proposed in the Hidden Ponds project. Since house construction on the steep grades of block 10 will eliminate alot of vegetation the Planner suggested that a better use for these 21 lots would be for other building types and thereby preserve the rear portion of block 10. He informed the Commission that the Park and Recreation Commis- sion would allow the existing proposal if the trees could be protected by asking the developer to bond the trees . Mr. Knutson agreed that the main issue to resolve was how the 21 lots in block 10 can be developed. He said that Mr. Len Swed lund was upset with the report • because block 10 is the most desirable . area of the proposal and that no more trees will be removed than those necessary for roadway and house 'site construction'. Mrs. Schee asked if they proposed a service center. Mr. Knutson responded that they'are not.proposing a service center and that centers , may be occuri.ng in neighboring areas. Chairwoman Schee asked if there was further response to the staff report. Mr. Knutson responded that the money involved in 6 & 7 on page 7 should be open to negotiation. They will propose blocks 13 &14 as residential or school site in the prelininary plat. Mr. Swedlund said that development of those blocks could be postponed further than 1 year if the school district favored the site. The commercial services need was again raised by the Commission; Mr. Knutson responded that they propose to build a quiet development-and that the area is within reasonable walking distance to Chanhassen. They stated that the commercial service concern had not been presented to them prior to tonight. Mr. Sorensen felt that . Mr. Swedlund was sincere in his proposal and asked him to take time between this meeting and the next to find if he could view the commercial needs of the area differently. Meyers inquired as to what access there would be to blocks 15 & 16 if blocks 13& 14 • were held from development. Mr. Knutson stated that the road would be looped over to service that area. Motion: It was moved by Schee, and seconded by Lane , to continue the public hearing until the April 2, 1974 Planning Commission Meeting_ The motion was unanimously approved. Planning Commission Members -5- March 19, 1974 E. Suncrest Townhouse Development, by Suncrest Homes of Minnesota. Requesting • approval for the construction of 134 cluster townhouses on the 30.7 acre site. The project is located in Edenvalds Northwest 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. The Planner referred the Commission to Mr. Enger's staff report and complimented Mr. Enger on the job he did on the staff report. David Fisher, 6451 Kurst Lane, asked what access were planned for the area? The Planner pointed out that a road from Edenvale Boulevard to Kurst Lane is proposed. The negative points of.such a road being the at-grade crossing at the railroad crossing, the inability of Kurst Lane to handle heavier- traffic, and traffic being routed through residential. A fire lane with a knock=out barrier is desri$ble for the proposal to give a second entrance for safety vehicles . Mr. Peterson said that the comments within the staff report are valid bathe does not fully agree with all of the recommendations, for example: Recommendation 2 . Disagree with the deletion of the northwestern unit. 6. Disagree with the necessity of sodding the slopes. Seed or mulch should be sufficient. ~ 8. Suggest that the recommendation end after the.word-retained: 10. Only 1 parkway is proposed. An easement to Birch Island Park will be set aside, and walkway identification will be • worked out with the building department. 13. Decibel rating not necessary--a berm is agreeable. 14. Cul-de-sacs`can be widened another 5 feet. 17 Mr. Peterson asked for*claifiction of# 17. - - Mr. Putnam stated that meetings, 30 days prior to building permits, 'will be held between the staff and the developer involved to clearly outline necessary items and therefore avoid delays caused by poor communication or lack of information. Minutes will be taken at these joint staff/developer meetings. Action: Schee moved, Lane seconded, to request the developer, Suncrest Homes Inc. , to develop a new site plan with accompanying documents reflecting the concerns and recommendations in the staff report dated March 12, 1974. If this is not acceptable to the developer then we recommend to the Council denial of the proposal. Discussion: Mr. Walrod and some commission members felt that the motion required the developer to agree and suggested a change in wording. Amended Motion: Schee moved, Lane seconded , to recommend development of a new site plan • with documents submitted reflecting consideration of all concerns and recommendations of the staff reports. The motion was unanimously approved.- Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 19, 1974 F. Planner's Reports: • 1 . Recent ordinance # 135 interpretation to allow restaurants in Industrial Districts . Mr. Putnam reported that the City attorney, Harlan Perbix, has suggested that Crdinance 135 be administered as is. 2 . Commercial Needs Study. Proposals will be mailed to consultants , after which the Council and Planning Commission will choose a consultant who will work with the Council, Commis- sions, and staff. 3. PUD Ordinance Re view. The Planner stated that the draft will be available soon. Mr. Bonner, of Hustad Development, informed the Commission that the developers would like to participate in the Commercial Needs Study and the PUD ordinance review. III. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS: A. Shady Oak PUD 71-2, Development stage application and rezoning from Rural to RM 2.5 for construction of 154 semi-luxuryapartmalts on 11 acres about 800 feet east of Shady Oak Road and north of new 212/169. Mr. Gustafson presented the 11 acre apartment proposal of efficiencies to - • 3 bedroom units... The site contains no mature vegetation and 1 acre of the 3 acre pond A five story concrete building with 154 units is proposed with an overall parking ratio of 2.3/unit--1 underground parking space will be part of the base rent. The rent range is approximately $200-$400.00 with a unit size of generally 800-1300 sq. ft. Mrs. Meyers asked if the pond would be devebped for recreation? Mr::Gustafson replied that it is the desire of the City and staff to leave it in its natural state. Mr. Sorensen noted that there appeared quite a number of efficiencies and 1 bedroom units. Mr. Gustafson remarked that their studies have shown a desire for the efficiency or studio unit. The rezoning request is for RM 2 .5 but the exact ' height of the building is not yet known so Mr. Gustafson was unsure of the related variance possibly needed. Questions were raised about the fire systems and Mr. Putnam assured the Commission that Mr. Sherman would make what recommendations are necessary. Motion: Lynch Moved, Fosnocht seconded, to continue the the Shady Oak F UD 71-2 rezoning request until the next meeting and to refer to the staff for further. study. The Motion was unanimously approved. • IV. ADTOURNMENT: Lane moved, Schee seconded , to adjourn the meeting at 11:50 P.M. The motion was unanimously approved.