Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 06/27/1988 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 27, 1988 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Christine Dodge, Doug Fell , Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Ed Schuck STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Sue Anderson, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS (7:35) A. FAIRFIELD, by Tandem Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Medium Density Residential on 49.5 acres and from Industrial to Low Density Residential on 24.4 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 148.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers from the Code for street frontage and lot size on 148.2 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 92.7 acres and from rural to R1-13.5 on 53.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 148.2 acres into 367 single family lots, • 28 outlots and road right-of-way, review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for construction of a residential development. Location: West of County Road 4, southeast of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad. A continued public hearing. (8:35) B. LARIAT CENTER, by Edward F. Flaherty & M. Austin Smith. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 18 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 18 acres with waivers within the C- Regional Service zoning district, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 4.8 acres, Preliminary Platting of 4.8 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 18,845 square foot auto mall and a 22,180 square foot retail center. Location: South of Prairie Center Drive, east of Joiner Way, north of Medcom Boulevard. (9:05) C. DORENKEMPER ESTATES, by Alex Dorenkemper. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 46 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 46 acres with waivers within the Rural Zoning District, Preliminary Plat of 46 acres into 4 single family lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Pioneer Trail , west of Riley Creek. (9:35) D. RED ROCK RANCH, by Robert H. Mason Homes, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 9.2 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 150 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 52 acres with waivers iand Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on approximately 52 acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Platting of 150 acres into 62 single family lots, 5 outlots and road right-of-way. Location: West of Mitchell Road, east of Red Rock Lake. Agenda Eden Prairie Planning Commission 40 June 27, 1988 V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT *NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER, THAN LISTED. • MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, JUNE 27, 1988 City Council Chambers 7:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Charles Ruebling, and Robert Hallett. • MEMBERS ABSENT: Douglas Fell, Richard Anderson, and Ed Schuck. STAFF PRESENT: Michael Franzen,Senior Planner; Don Uram,Assistant Planner;Sue Anderson, Recording Secretary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Hallett to approve the agenda as printed. Motion carried 4-0-0. II. MEMBERS REPORTS None III. MINUTES A. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 11, 1988. MOTION: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Ruebling to approve the minutes of the April 11, 1988, Planning Commission meeting as published. • Motion carried 4-0-0. Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting June 27, 1988 Page 2 • B. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 25, 1988. MOTION: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Hallett to approve the minutes of the April 11, 1988, Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 3-0-1, Bye abstained. C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 13, 1988. MOTION: Motion was made by Ruebling and seconded by Bye to approve the minutes of the April 11, 1988, Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 2-0-2, Hallett and Dodge abstained. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. FAIRFIELD, by Tandem Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Medium Density Residential on 49.5 acres and from Industrial to Low Density Residential on 24.4 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 148.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers from the Code for Street frontage and lot size on 148.2 acres,Zoning District Chagne from Rural to R1-9.5 on 92.7 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 53.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 148.2 acres into 367 single family lots,28 • outlots and road right-of-way, review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for construction of a residential development. Location: West of County Road 4, southeast of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad. A continued public hearing. Franzen reported that this item was continued from the May 9th and June 13th, 1988 meetings for two reasons. 1)The developer was directed to provide information on grading,tree loss, and a noise assessment study. 2) Modify the concept plan according to revisions recommended in the previous.staff report to reduce impact on natural features, provide appropriate transition to adjoining land uses,improve internal circulation and access, and create architectural variety. He added that the Commission requested information on infrastructure improvements required for the project such as sewer,water, storm sewer, and roads, as determined by the Southwestern Eden Prairie Phasing Study so that a proper and thorough review of rezoning and replatting requests per City Code for Phase I could be completed. Proponent stated they were in agreement with the Staff Recommendations and felt two issues were outstanding at that time. 1)The phasing of the project had. 2)The traffic impact on County Road #4. Proponent stated they desired approval for Phases I and II now and Phases III through VI at a later date. Staff was now recommending that Phase I be a combination of Phases I and II in combining some of the lots or a total of 68 units. It was necessary for proponent to know that Phase II would be built before they construct the sewer system. The system was planned to loop to the school by the Fall of 1989. Franzen stated to Commission that the question was how much of the Fairfield project can be approved for rezoning prior to the completion of the Southwest Area Study (due in 7-8 weeks). He continued that there were unresolved issues which would impact the PUD Concept in Phases II through VI, including the alignment of Highway 212 and Scenic Heights Road through the property • and the amount of tree loss resulting from the proposed development design. Regarding traffic, Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting June 27, 1988 Page 3 the additional 68 units proposed would generate 680 daily trips representing an 8% increase in • traffic on County Road#4; and entrance to the subdivision would require bypass lanes for safety reasons. Dick Feerick, 7103 Interlachen Court, stated at the meeting of the Southwest Area Coalition held this day, it was stated that County Road#4 would be upgraded to 4 lanes in 1989 to Terry Pines Road. To extend the road to the railroad, County would consider it if a maintenance agreement was brought into the proposal. He also added that discussion was held on Highway 18 upgrade and he felt County Road#1 should be built up to four lane as well. Hallett inquired to proponent why they needed both phases approved at this time. Proponent responded that they had planned to get water to the school through Phase II, and they need to know what would be allowed so they could plan accordingly. Franzen stated that until the study is done it could not be determined how large Phase II could be, or if it would be within the Fairfield project. Proponent asked Commission if they would be willing to approve Phase II subject to it being in the study so as not to take up Commissions time with another hearing. He added that the land would not be developed for another year,therefore the traffic impact on County Road#4 would not be a problem. Ruebling inquired about the density of the project. Franzen responded that Phase I was not an issue of density, but there would be issues in Phases III through VI. Franzen stated that to eliminate some loss of trees,the road in Phase II would be moved and that would require a plan change. Proponent stated that upon approval, construction would not take place for Phase II -just preparing engineering plans, and felt there was not an issue that could not be resolved on the project. • Bye stated that proponent was asking for approval of Phases I and II with a contingent upon results of the Study. Dodge felt there were too many loose ends in the project for approval beyond Phase I. Hallett indicated that he was comfortable with Phase I only at this time with approval of other phases to be considered after the Study is done. He added that there may be too many R1-9.5 lots in the project and was concerned about the lots not being used for starter housing. Franzen stated that the staff recommendation was a joint decision by Planning and Engineering in the review of this project. He would present the contingency option to the Engineering and perhaps they could live with that recommendation. Ruebling inquired to proponent if they would prefer to wait until Phases I and II could be approved rather than just Phase I. Proponent responded that a partial approval would be acceptable, but they were concerned about the delay and the approval by City Council. Bye stated her reservations with regard to the Study not being completed, and recommended proceeding with Staff Recommendations to approve rezoning of Phase I to expedite the project. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Hallett to continue the public hearing regarding the Planned Unit Development Concept, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development District Review,with Waivers,Zoning and Platting requests with respect to Phase 2-6, • and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Fairfield development to the July 25, 1988 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting June 27, 1988 Page 4 Planning Commission meeting, pending receipt of additional information from the Southwest Area • Study as would impact this property and pending redesign of the Planned Unit Development Concept to provide for greater minimization of tree loss on the property. Motion carried 4-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Hallett to close the public hearing regarding Phase 1 of the Fairfield development proposal with respect to Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5, and Preliminary Platting of approximately 30 acres into 68 single family lots,as outlined on the attached preliminary plans. Motion carried 4-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Hallett to recommend to City Council approval of the request of Tandem Properties for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 for approximately 30 acres for Phase 1 of the Fairfield development proposal, based on revised plans dated June 24, 1988,with revisions according to Attachment C and the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 24, 1988, and predicated on developer extending utilities to the Cedar Ridge School site. Motion carried 4-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tandem Properties for Preliminary Plat of approximately 30 acres for Phase 1 of the • Fairfield development proposal, based on revised plans dated June 24, 1988, with revisions according to Attachment C and the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 24, 1988, and predicated on developer extending utilities to the Cedar Ridge School site. Motion carried 4-0-0 B. LARIAT CENTER, by Edward F. Flaherty and M. Austin Smith. Planned Unit Development Concept on 18 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review,with waivers, on 18 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 4.8 acres, Preliminary Platting of 4.8 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 18,845 square foot auto mall and a 22, 180 square foot retail center. Location: South of Prairie Center Drive,east of Joiner Way, north of Medcom Boulevard. Uram reported that the proposal involved two retail buildings, one 22,180 sq.ft. and the other 18,845 sq.ft. which had been redesigned to give it an overall retail character in order to be compatible with the adjoining retail uses. He stated that traffic was the major consideration for the development of this proposal. The total trips generated by the retail and auto mall exceeds the BRW Major Center Area Traffic Study PM peak allocation by 42 trips. Proponent owns the 13.2 acres of property to the south,which in accordance with the BRW Traffic Study was allocated 311 trips,and he agreed to balance the PM peak trips between the two sites by controlling the use on the southern property. The only concern would be if the auto mall would develop into 100% retail use, there would be a parking shortage. At present for the auto mall,the requirement would be 79 parking stalls and if 100% retail,the requirement would be 113 stalls. • Brian Klutz, representing the proponent, stated they were in agreement with Staff Recommenda- tions with the exception of special assessment agreement for the future upgrading of Medcom Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting June 27, 1988 Page 5 Boulevard. They realized that not only they would benefit from the upgrade, but why were they • asked to sign an agreement when others have not been asked. Uram responded that as sites are developed, City would make that recommendation. Ruebling stated the extension of the road to Franlo would provide better access to the whole area and would be beneficial to the owners. Uram summarized the Staff Recommendations regarding landscaping,sidewalks, site line views, signage, lighting, exterior materials,traffic, parking, mechanical equipment screening plan,special assessment agreement, and recommended approval of the proposed project. Duane Spiegle, representing Methodist Hospital, 6500 Excelsior Blvd., SLP, the owner of 8455 Flying Cloud Drive,stated they were not interested in any special assessment to their property. They feel it would generate more activity in the area,and access to the left turn lane would be a potential traffic problem. One other area of concern was that if the road extension did occur on Joiner Way,further development would occur and the area would be opened up and even more traffic would be the result. Uram responded that this item would be heard at the City Council meeting. However, if land benefits from any improvements,there would typically be an assessment. Regarding the left turn lane,the Council would make that decision, as to whether or not it would be allowed. Ruebling commenting on the traffic stated it would be important to have more movement in the area on a long term basis. However, City Council would decide on assessment. MOTION 1: • Motion was made by Hallett and seconded by Ruebling to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Hallett and seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Edward F. Flaherty&M.Austin Smith for Planned Unit Development Concept on 18 acres for Lariat Center for construction of an 18.845 sq.ft.auto mall and a 22,180 sq.ft. retail center, based on plans dated May 26, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 24, 1988. Motion carried 4-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Hallett and seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Edward F. Flaherty&M.Austin Smith for Planned Unit Development District Review,with waivers,on 18 acres,and Zoning District Chagne from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 4.8 acres, for Lariat Center for construction of an 18,845 sq.ft. auto mail and a 22,180 sq.ft. retail center, based on plans dated May 26, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 24, 1988. Motion carried 4-0-0 • Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting June 27, 1988 Page 6 MOTION 4: • Motion was made by Hallett and seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Edward F.Flaherty&M.Austin Smith for Preliminary Plat of 4.8 acres into two lots for Lariat Center for construction of an 18,845 sq.ft.auto mail and a 22,180 sq.ft. retail center, based on plans dated May 26, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 24, 1988. Motion carried 4-0-0 C. DORENKEMPER ESTATES. by Alex Dorenkemper. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 46 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 46 acres with waivers within the Rural Zoning District,Preliminary Plat of 46 acres into 4 single family lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Pioneer Trail,west of Riley Creek. Alex Dorenkemper, proponent, stated he was 100% satisfied with Staff Recommendations. Franzen reported the proposal was a request for subdivision of 4 lots and a Rural Planned Unit Development. The major issue with this proposal is the north/south collector road providing access to the adjoining properties to the south, so in the future they would not become land-locked. At the present time, he reported that there were six alternatives and there was no concurrence among the land owners as to the best road alignment. He continued that staff was recommending the road alignment of Alternative#6 whereby fill would be required to build up the low area. Richard Vogel, 105 Pioneer Trail, Chanhassen, stated he was south of the Dorenkemper . property and Alternative#6 looked fine to him. Darril Peterson, 18700 Flying Cloud Drive, stated he felt Alternative#4 was most appropriate as it would follow the lay of the land. He felt with Alternative#6 they would be coming to an abrupt turn in a very low spot. He preferred#4 and to stay on the high ground. Franzen reported that there could possibly be a better long range plan. At present, City was trying to make sure the other landowners were not land-locked. Peterson replied that to sacrifice an eighth of an acre of land for a better road was penny wise and dollar foolish. Franzen replied that on a long range overall plan,Staff was not arguing, however on a short term this was the best alternative. Dodge inquired as to who recommended the road alignments. Franzen replied that it was a combined decision of Planning and City Engineering Department. Peterson stated when he left the City offices the week before, he was of the understanding that Alternative#4 was being recommended. Franzen responded that alternative#4 would be one of several alternatives presented to the Planning Commission. Dick Feerick, 7103 Interlachen Court, stated that this perhaps should be looked at from a topographic map and defer action on the road alignment until additional information is provided. Vogel commented that the low land in Alternative#4 was impassable most years. but Alternatives #1 and#6 were okay. Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting June 27, 1988 Page 7 Bye stated she was comfortable with Staff's recommendation, and would take all comments into • consideration. Hallett agreed with Bye,and felt the City was not locking themselves in at this time. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Hallett to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Alex Dorenkemper for Planned Unit Development Concept on 46 acres for four single family lots and one outlot to be known as Dorenkemper Estates, based on plans dated June 22, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 24, 1988. Motion carried 4-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Alex Dorenkemper for Planned Unit Development District Review within the Rural District,with waivers,on 46 acres,for four single family lots and one outlot,for Dorenkemper Estates, based on plans dated June 99, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 24, 1988. Motion carried 4-0-0 . MOTION 4: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Alex Dorenkemper for Preliminary Plat of 46 acres into four lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way,to be known as Dorenkemper Estates, based on plans dated June 22, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 24, 1988. Motion carried 4-0-0 MOTION 5: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Hallett to direct Staff,with regard to future road alignment,to consult with property owners to provide additional information on the issues raised in the Planning Commission meeting of June 27, 1988, prior to City Council review. Motion carried 4-0-0 D. RED ROCK RANCH, by Robert H. Mason Homes, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 9.2 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 150 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 52 acres with waivers and Zoning District Chagne from Rural to R1-13.5 on approximately 52 acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by to Board of Appeals, Preliminary Platting of 150 acres into 62 single family lots, m 5 outlots and road right-of-way. Location:West of Mitchell Road,east of Red Rock Lake. Randy Trevalia,V.P. of Mason Homes, reported on the history of the company and the parcel of land • that was purchased in the 1960's with the idea of development. The site consists of 150 acres and was approved in 1983 as the Red Rock Ranch PUD for 525 housing units,a mixture of low and Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting June 27, 1988 Page 8 medium density residential, and ranging from 2 to 10 units per acre. He stated that the Red Rock Interceptor sewer alignment has been completed through the property, they are dedicating 4 acres • to the City,they were still negotiating with Virgil Seivert regarding his land. Proponent stated that Seivert stated to proponent that when the tax ramifications of the sale were understood, proponent would be the first available person to have the opportunity to purchase the land. Trevalia concluded that Mason Homes development purpose is to develop intelligently, efficiently and sensitively as possible. He then presented a slide show indicating Mason Homes workmanship, sensitivity to wooded areas, and reforestation of lots, etc. John Uban, consultant representing the proponent, presented the technical design issues of the road,the north/south alignment,tree loss,and loop road access for safety when Seivert property is purchased. He spoke of townhouse development on the sloping hills. He indicated that in Phase I and 11,the grading indicated a 7%tree removal, and their intent to keep the woods intact along the shoreline. They felt they were environmentally responsible in the way they were handling this tree sensitive area. They proposed a private drive for 5 lots to reduce tree removal. Outlots had not been determined nor had trail system been defined. Franzen reported that Staff was unsuccessful in persuading the developer to make changes in the plan to reduce the impact on the site's natural features and to provide good access and circulation and proper emergency vehicle access. He stated that the recommendations by Staff are fair, reasonable and consistent with recommendations on similar projects such as Creekview and Cardinal Creek. Franzen continued that the Shoreland variance, and the waivers requested in the PUD for lots having frontage on a private road should not be considered with the tree loss estimated at 50% and poor access off a 3,000 ft. long cul-de-sac. He stated that the Shoreland Ordinance proposal cannot be granted through the PUD;but through the Board of Appeals based on hardship. In . fairness,Staff looked at this project as it did Creekview and Cardinal Creek,and felt that tree loss should be reduced to comply with to Shoreland Ordinance, provide a through public road, and better access for emergency vehicles. Sandra Russen, 8731 Summit Drive, inquired as to 1) what was the shoreline ordinance and did it effect the high or low density decision- Franzen replied that the requirement was 150' minimum width at 840.5' and proponent was meeting those requirements based on the current plans. 3) When and how would the appropriated developer's land donation be utilized- Franzen replied that 10% of the land area could be accepted as dedication and the cash park fees would be used for other land acquisition or park development. 4)Were there any plans for a park and/or beach front property for public use to alleviate usage of Round Lake Park because of th effect of the increase in population that this and other new developments bring into Eden Prairie- Franzen replied that final concept drawings have proposed trails and shore use for beach and/or boats. 5)Would a signal light be-installed at Mitchell and Scenic Heights Road--Franzen replied that there is no plan at this time for a signal light as the traffic impact and the roads constructed are not approved. 6) What was the minimum and average square footage of the low or medium lots and homes-Franzen stated that the surrounding homes are 2000-3000 sq.ft. Trevalia stated that proposed homes would be 29,500 sq.ft,to 34,000 sq.ft.on shore line. 7) What steps were being taken by the City and the developers to ensure that the natural serenity of the lake shore and woodlands are preserved at the optimum condition- Franzen stated that revisions to the site plan to shift development out of the woods and compliance with Shoreland Ordinance would save more trees. Bob Mjolsness, 9041 E. Sunrise Circle, stated that the preliminary plat does not show a cul-de- sac to which reference was being made. He stated that if the cul-de-sac was not put in he would be land-locked. He stated that when he purchased the property 19 years ago there was a road along • the property and now its gone and City has no record of it. He suggested City keep better records of the roads. Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting June 27, 1988 Page 9 • Virginia Gartner, 15701 Cedar Ridge Road, stated she felt Mitchell Road should stay on the same road alignment. She added that the roads were difficult enough to follow in Eden Prairie and not to make it even harder. She added that the Shoreland Ordinance is not an average requirement but a minimum requirement and that no hardship exists. The project should meet the Shoreland Ordinance. Hallett inquired if a.walkway.system was developed around the lake. Franzen replied that no trail system was planned. Hallett asked what the trail or park would hook up to. Uban pointed out on the preliminary plat the public trail connections. Franzen stated that a sidewalk would be on one side of the collector road and a trail on the other side. Hallett inquired if trail would go to the middle school. Franzen did not know if it went through to Village Wood Trail. He added for the next meeting there would be a memo from the Parks Department on overall trails in the area. Ruebling inquired to Staff what their recommendation was for Mitchell Road. Franzen stated the two alternatives-B)that existing Mitchell Road would"T" into the roadway from the south, and A)the minor collector road would"T" into existing Mitchell Road. Staff supports Alternative B. Verna O'Brien, 15709 Cedar Ridge Road, asked why medium density was sandwiched into the narrow area between the collector road and adjoining single family. Franzen replied that 2 to 3.5 units per acre was approved in 1983. • Bye stated she was reluctant to approve the project with a 3000 foot long cul-de-sac and felt that the without a linkage access, safety was not addressed properly in this proposed plan. She also added that history has dictated that more trees are lost than the developer estimates and felt 7%was not a true tree loss. Trevalia stated that 7%was the estimated tree loss for the road system and right-of-way. He stated that 20-25% would probably be the total tree loss, and reforestation would take place to accommodate the loss. Hallett stated that areas on the proposal needed more work and changes needed to occur. He respected the company but felt Staff's recommendations looked at what is appropriate for Eden Prairie in terms of access codes and tree preservation. Ruebling felt that Staff's recommendation for Mitchell Road was a good one. He felt Street E could be changed, and lots should be wider, and that the Shoreline Ordinance should be adhered to not an average thereof. Dodge asked for clarification on tree loss. Staff indicates there is a 50%tree loss and wanted it reduced to 27%. Franzen added that tree loss was looked at in three different ways: 1)what is lost for street construction, 2) house construction, and 3)those that die later as a result of construction. He added that a tree was determined to be lost as a result of construction if any grading was in the drip line of the tree. • Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting June 27, 1988 Page 10 Uban attempted to propose alternative layouts when Hallett instructed him to bring new proposals • through the Staff process and they would make recommendations to the Commission. Bye stated the Shoreline Ordinance was enacted to protect the shoreline and that intent should be maintained with this project. Franzen stated that Staff's recommendation at this time for road alignment would be Alternate B to the Staff Report,with Mitchell Road from the south to"T" into the collector road. Ruebling inquired which Staff recommendations spoke to the collector road issue. Franzen replied that A, B and E refer to the collector. Bye requested additional information as to how City came to choose the road alignment,and reason it was chosen over other choices. MOTION Motion was made by Ruebling and seconded by Hallett to continue the public hearing for 30 days, July 25th, 1988, pending revisions to the plans as recommended by the Staff Report of June 24, 1988, and the recommendations of the Planning Commission at the June 27, 1988 meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None . VI. NEW BUSINESS A. METROPOLITAN AIRPORT COMMISSION'S MASTER PLAN Franzen reported that on June 20th the Airport Advisory Commission will hold a meeting in the Council Chambers to review inventory and existing conditions and forecasts for the Flying Cloud Airport. This will be a public information forum to gather information and answer questions. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None Vill. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Ruebling to adjourn the meeting at 11:25 PM.