Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 03/11/1991 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMNIISSION Monday, March 11, 1991 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad, James Hawkins and Katherine Kardell STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary.- Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA H. MEMBERS REPORTS A. Swearing in Appointed/New Members B. Election of Officers M. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. FAIRFIELD 1991 AMENDMENT (91-7-PUD-Z-P) by Centex Real Estate Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 118.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review. with waivers on 25.5 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the R1-9.5 Zoning District on 25.5 acres, Preliminary Plat of 25.5 acres into 65 single family lots, one outlot and road right of way to be known as Fairfield 1991 Amendment. Location: north of Stanley-Trail, north of Candlewood Parkway. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNER'S REPORT VII. ADJOURNMENT EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION . APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1991 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, James Hawkins, Katherine Kardell, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad. STAFF MEMBERS: Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary. ROLL CALL: Ruebling Absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to approve,the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0-0. II. MEMBERS REPORTS • A. Swearing in Appointed New Members Uram swore in new appointees James Hawkins and Katherine Kardell. B. Election of Officers MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to postpone the election of officers until the next meeting or the first meeting in which the full commission was present. Motion carried 6-0-0. III. MIlNUTES MOTION• Norman moved, seconded by Hallett to approve the Minutes of the February 25, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 3-0-3. Bauer, Hawkins, and Kardell abstained. • Planning Commission March 11, 1991 Page Two IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. FAMMLD 1991 AMENDMENT (91-7-PUD-Z-P) by Centex Real Estate Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 118.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 23 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the R1-9.5 Zoning District on 23 acres, Preliminary Plat of 23 acres into 61 single family lots and road right of way to be known as Fairfield 1991 Amendment. Location: North of Stanley Trail, north of Candlewood Parkway. Dan Blake, representing the proponent, presented the plans for a 61 single family lot subdivision on approximately 23 acres. Blake believed that the plan was very straight forward and asked for questions. Uram asked Blake if the proponent concurred with the recommendations in the Staff Report. Blake replied that the proponent concurred with all items with the exception of the tree replacement calculations which would • be addressed by Staff. Uram reported that approximately 916 caliper inches of trees had already been planted throughout the original 1988 PUD, and that City currently had a bond for 214 caliper inches of trees. Uram added that based on this information, Items 1A and 3A should be deleted from the recommendations. Sandstad asked for details on the buffering plan. Blake replied that a berm would be constructed for the length of Scenic Heights Road similar to the one on County Road 4. Blake added that extra depth has been provided on the lots adjacent to Scenic Heights road to accommodate the berm. Hawkins asked if the berm existed at this time. Blake replied no. Hawkins asked how erosion would be prevented. Blake replied that erosion should not be an issue because of the distance between the two roads and the grades. Hawkins then asked how water would be provided to the berm. Blake replied that the individual homeowners would be responsible for maintenance of the major portion of the berm. Hawkins asked Staff what the city's position was related to residential irrigation of berming. Uram replied that an irrigation ordinance had been vetoed by the City, and Blake was correct that the majority of the • maintenance would be the responsibility of the individual homeowner. Planning Commission March 11, 1991 Page Three Hawkins asked Blake to address the natural area on the property. Blake replied there was a wetland area which was left in its natural state. Hawkins stated that it appeared that some of the lots would be in this lower area and questioned if high water calculations had been done. Blake replied that the calculations had been studied. Hallett asked if there would be a homeowners association which would be responsible for berm maintenance. Uram replied no, it would be individual homeowners. Hallett believed that this area could look terrible without an irrigation system. Blake replied that the landscaping would be done with sod, and that Centex would maintain the berm while the lots were being sold. Hallett asked why the plan had been changed from what was proposed two years ago. Blake replied that the present market proved that this type of home was selling well at this time. Blake added that currently the larger lots were not selling as fast as previously scheduled. • Norman asked if there would be a homeowners association. Blake replied no. Sandstad stated that covenants and maintenance agreements were in place to assure the maintenance of the property. Blake added that this covered maintenance on the lots. Uram stated that covenants and maintenance agreements were enforced by the property owners. Hawkins asked if all utilities were currently installed. Blake replied yes. Norman asked if the City could recommend that a homeowners association be established for this subdivision. Uram replied that in this case, the City would not recommend an association. Hawkins asked if the sewer easement would cross any of the proposed lots. Blake replied that the easement ran north and south and followed the street. He added that only two lots would be affected. MOTION 1: Hallett moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion • carried 6-0-0. • Planning Commission March 11, 1991 Page Four MOTION 2: Hallett moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Centex Real Estate Corporation for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the overall Fairfield PUD on 118.2 acres for development of 61 single family units to be known as the Fairfield 1991 Amendment, based on plans dated March 6, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 8, 1991, with the exclusion of items lA and 3A from the Staff Report. Motion carried 6-0- 0. MOTION 3: Hallett moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Centex Real Estate Corporation for Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers, and Zoning District Amendment within the R1-9.5 Zoning District on 23 acres, for Fairfield 1991 Amendment, for development of 61 single family units, based on • plans dated March 6, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 8, 1991, with the exclusion of items lA and 3A from the Staff Report. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 4: Hallett moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Centex Real Estate Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 23 acres into 61 single family lots, one outlot, and road right-of- way, to be known as Fairfield 1991 Amendment, based on plans dated March 6, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 8, 1991, with the exclusion of items lA and 3A from the Staff Report. Motion carried 6-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS Bauer asked how the City Council had voted on the cul-de-sac issue reviewed by the Planning Commission. Hallett stated that he had attended the meeting. Hallett added that the proposal had been approved with the long cul-de-sac. He added that it appeared that the City Council was somewhat confused as to exactly . what the Planning Commission action had been; had we approved the plan with Planning Commission March 11, 1991 Page Five conditions or had we denied the proposal. Uram replied that the original vote had been 3-2 which would have resulted in denial; however, after further discussion, a second vote was called and the result was 5-0 in which the item passed. The Planning Commission questioned if it should change its approach to reviewing cul-de-sacs in the future. Uram replied that the Planning Commission had.a policy to follow regarding cul-de-sac review and that the approach for review by the Planning Commission should not change. VI. PLANNER'S REPORT Uram explained information packets given to the Commissioners. VH. ADTOURNMENT MOTION: . Norman moved, seconded by Bauer to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 PM. Motion carried • 6-0-0. f