Loading...
Planning Commission - 02/22/1993 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 9 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1993 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Ken Clinton, Cynthia Clish, Katherine Kardell, Karen Norman, Doug Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner. STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: All Members Present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0-0. U. MEMBERS REPORTS �HI. MINUTES MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Bauer to approve the Minutes of the January 11, 1993 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 4-0-3. Klish, Kardell, and Norman abstained. MOTION: Klish moved, seconded by Norman to approve the Minutes of the January 25, 1993 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 7-0-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CARMODY VILLAGE by Centex Real Estate Corporation. Request for PUD Concept, PUD District Review on 27.15 acres and Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 27.15 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 27.15 into 18 lots and 4 outlots and street right-of-way. Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway/Purgatory Creek at the Carmody Drive Intersection. Dan Blake, representing the proponent, presented the plans for an 184 multifamily units. Blake stated that the adjacent land uses were high density. The land was currently being farmed. • Centex would be the developer and builder. The proposed plan consisted of 184 units in 18 buildings. The buildings will consist of either 8, 10, and 12 units. The buildings will be two 1 story with an attached garage. The architecture will be similar to another project being constructed in Mendota Heights. The proponent will dedicate 6.5 acres of land for a park area which will be designated public open space. A public street will line up with Carmody Drive and a private loop street will be constructed within the project. Exterior lighting will be provided on all buildings. An additional parking space is provided in front of each garage and an additional 24 parking spaces will be provided for guest parking. Blake stated that the lowest building will be at an 840 elevation. Blake added that there will be a minimal impact on the wetland area and any filling in the wetland area would be inspected and approved by the appropriate agencies. The overall density is lower than required. Densities will be higher in some locations and lower in others to provide the area for the City park. Blake presented four samples of exterior materials. Sandstad asked if there would be a homeowners association. Blake replied yes. Kardell asked if the northern most pond would be a N.U.R.P. pond. Blake replied that at this time it had not been determined if this would be the location for the N.U.R.P. pond. Franzen reported that this area had a lot of housing variety; from single family to clusters. Ten units per acre could be constructed on the site. Eight units were eliminated because of the road design. There will be very little site impact because the density for the project will be located on the farm land. Franzen reported that the project met with the Purgatory Creek Master Plan. Staff recommends that landscaping be increased along Anderson Lakes Parkway. A N.U.R.P. pond would be required on the site. Franzen stated that Staff recommended approval of the project. Blake requested that Item 3 in the Staff recommendations be removed from the report. Franzen replied that the building was in compliance with height requirements and Item 3 should be removed. Clinton asked how the private street would be maintained. Blake replied that the street would be maintained by the homeowners association; the same as the driveways and sidewalks. Clinton asked if Centex would run the association. Blake replied that Centex would run the association until the time when almost all of the units are filled and then it would be turned over to a board of directors of the homeowners. Franzen replied that historically a private road can go into multiple unit development and added that this was not a new or unique situation for Eden Prairie. Brian Hansen, 13738 Carmody, was concerned about the traffic along Carmody Drive. Hansen questioned adding this many units so close to Carmody Drive. Hansen stated that cars are parked on both sides of the streets and he was concerned for the safety of the young children in the neighborhood. Franzen reported that a traffic study had not been commissioned for this project. He added that Hansen was correct about the increase in traffic. Franzen stated that the overall population of Eden Prairie had increased significantly over the last several years and in turn traffic overall naturally had increased. Franzen noted that this project was not being built to the full capacity allowed by the City. Franzen believed that the majority of the traffic would go east on Anderson Lakes Parkway and could also use Chestnut. Franzen added that traffic would increase • somewhat on Carmody Drive because of the additional homes. Franzen stated that if the City 2 believed that there would be a significant increase in traffic a study would have been commissioned. Hansen stated that the traffic had increased because of the multiple housing develops close to Carmody Drive. Franzen believed that there would be an increase in traffic even if this project was not built. Hansen asked if anything could be done about parking on both sides of the street. Franzen replied within the development the parking on the private street would be regulated by the homeowners association. Wissner asked why there were so many cars parking on the street currently. Hansen replied that he did not know why; but, believed that the street was to narrow to allow parking on both sides and provide a safe environment for the children. Kardell noted that while the Planning Commission could not control the parking situation on the street a recommendation could be made to have this looked into. Franzen replied that there could be any number of reasons why the cars were parking on the street. Larry Paumen, 13613 Carmody Drive, asked why the berm would be lower in one area and then higher further down the road. Paumen also asked how the pricing of the homes would be regulated. Blake replied that the pricing of the homes would range from $60,000 to $90,000. Blake added that no one regulated the pricing of the homes and also added that the price range stated in the paper was simply an opinion. Paumen stated that he was concerned that his property would be devalued. Kardell replied that she did not feel that this would be the case. Wissner replied that Centex was an excellent developer and that the neighbors should be pleased with the product. Paumen stated that he too was concerned about the additional traffic and the safety of the neighborhood. Franzen replied that Eden Prairie Apartments was a 500 unit • development that was 50 feet tall. The size of the berming in front of the apartments was larger than what was required because the developer had extra fill. The berms for this project were smaller but would have larger plant material. Franzen added that the buildings for this proposal were only 30 feet high. Franzen stated that the buildings would be side loaded to the street. Paumen believed that there would be a lot of accidents and recommended a 4-way stop at the comer of Anderson Lakes Parkway. Franzen replied that the City did not want offset intersections too close together; the sight distance was better when at the center of the site. Franzen added that the second driveway could be looped back into the project. Paumen asked why two monument signs would be needed. Blake replied that the signs were not designed at this time and had not been studied; however, the signs would be proposed to be located on both sides of Carmody Drive. Sandstad asked if two signs would be allowed by City Code. Franzen replied that a project of this size could be allowed two signs. He added that Staff had not seen a design plan at this time. Paumen was concerned about these units becoming rental units because they could not be sold. Sandstad replied that the City did not have regulations regarding this. Norman replied that the rent for this type of unit would need to be high and did not feel that this should be a problem. Steve Mitchell, 13670 Essex Court, was concerned about traffic and safety. Mitchell believed that the proposed intersection would be a problem because of a blind spot in this area. Mitchell questioned if the berm would increase the vision problems. Franzen replied that the City • Engineer would go out to the site to make sure the sight distances were maintained. Mitchell questioned if the headlights would be a problem from the homes across the street from the 3 proposed intersection. Kardell believed that if a berm or plant material were installed that a further vision problem would be created. Mitchell questioned the price of the units stated in the local paper. Sandstad replied that the developer had stated earlier that the expected price range would be$60,000 to$90,000 and that there had been a misunderstanding with the paper. Blake replied that the exact pricing had not been determined at this time and added that price was actually determined by what the current market would bear. Mitchell asked how the pricing of these units would affect the price of his home. Blake replied that it was his opinion only that these units would not affect the price of his home because these units sold mainly to singles. Mitchell stated that his main concern was the intersection. Vicki Koenig, 8363 Windsong Drive, thanked Centex for the dedication of such a beautiful area to the City for the park. Koenig asked where the pond would be located. Blake pointed out the location of the pond on the plans. Koenig asked where the trees would be taken out. Blake pointed out the location of a row of pine trees. Bauer stated that he would vote in favor of the project as proposed. He added that affordable housing was needed in Eden Prairie. Bauer believed that an adequate transition area was provided and that the monument signs would add to the project. Bauer noted that the project as proposed provided for less units than what could be allowed. Bauer stated that the City is constantly monitoring traffic areas and the neighbors should contact the City to see what can be done. Sandstad asked if the busiest intersection would be at Chestnut. Franzen replied yes. Norman asked if a right turn lane had been considered along Anderson Lakes Parkway. Franzen • replied that Staff would look into turn lanes and other traffic control methods for this area. Sandstad recommended that the City Engineer look at the intersection at Chestnut. Blake replied that the developer would be willing to look at turn lanes along Anderson Lakes Parkway and other possibilities to control traffic as well as the City. Kardell stated that she liked the project and believed that the project would provide affordable housing. She added that the density was lower than what could be built on this parcel. Kardell stated that traffic was a concern and concurred with Norman's recommendation for the consideration of turn lanes. Clinton stated that he was in favor of the project and was pleased to see the 6.5 acre donation of park land. Clinton recommended that a traffic study be done and was also questioned how school bus traffic would be handled. Sandstad supported the project. He believed that the Centex product was a good one and would hold its value on the market. Sandstad requested that a condition regarding further study of the traffic be added to the recommendations. MOTION 1: Norman moved, seconded by Klish to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. 4 MOTION 2: Norman moved, seconded by Klish to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Centex Real Estate Corporation for PUD Concept on 27.15 acres based on plans dated February 19, 1993, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 19, 1993 with the addition of a recommendation for a traffic study to be conducted and an investigation into the possibility of turn lanes. Item 3 should be deleted. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 3: Norman moved, seconded by Klish to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Centex Real Estate Corporation for PUD District Review and Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 27.15 acres based on plans dated February 19, 1993, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 19, 1993 with the addition of a recommendation for a traffic study to be conducted and an investigation into the possibility of turn lanes. Item 3 should be deleted. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 4: Norman moved, seconded by Klish to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Centex Real Estate Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 27.15 acres into 18 lots and 4 outlots based on plans dated February 19, 1993, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 19, 1993 with the addition of a recommendation for a traffic study to be conducted and an investigation into the possibility of turn lanes. Item 3 should be deleted. Motion carried 7-0-0. B. NORMANDY CREST by Associated Investments, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.09 acres and Preliminary Plat of 5.5 acres into 8 lots and two outlots. Location: South of Pioneer Trail and west of Normandy Crest. Tom Robertson, the proponent, presented the plan for 8 single-family lots which was an addition to an existing 18 unit development. The proponent concurred with the recommendations of the Staff Report. Robertson reported that the neighbors had been contacted about the project and the main issue was the road extension. The proponent had tried to maintain the integrity of the area. Robertson noted that the zoning change was to be on 3.8 acres not 2.09 acres as stated in the report. Uram reported that a memo had been included in the packet regarding the Lee Drive extension. Uram added that the most limiting factor would be the County Road 1 upgrade. Staff recommended approval of the project with the addition of Item 6: Apply for a variance for frontage on a public street for Lots 2 and 3. Paul Hawkins, 9824 Lee Drive, stated that he supported the development of the cul-de-sac. Hawkins asked how the outlot would be zoned. Uram replied the outlot would be zoned Rural and guided low-density residential. Uram noted that before anything would be allowed to happen on the outlot it would need to come through the City process. Robertson replied that no development is planned at this time. Robertson added that input from the County on its plans was needed before any development could take place in the outlot area. Hawkins asked where the wetlands were located in this area. Robertson replied that Hawkins should contact the 5 County for clarification. Hawkins asked if this proposal was higher in elevation than the existing homes. Robertson replied yes and added that the proponent wanted to maintain as much elevation as possible. Sandstad noted that a building could not be constructed on an outlot. Jennifer Scott, 10252 Normandy Crest, stated that there were 31 small children in the neighborhood. Scott supported the project and the development of the cul-de-sac. Beth Beutell, 9890 Lee Drive, supported the development of the cul-de-sac. Beutell questioned the marketing strategy and how the integrity of the neighborhood was to be maintained. Robertson replied that the price range for the homes was $265,000 to $285,000. David Ingber, 9902 Lee Drive, asked if there would be a lot of traffic noise from County Road 1. Ingber questioned the high value homes being constructed so close to County Road 1. Ingber stated that he had seen developments get half done and then the developer found out that they were not sellable and many items were left not taken care of. Uram replied that any zoning change would need to come back through the City processes. Uram added that he did not think that the houses would be in the $260,000 to $280,000 range. Ingber pointed out that Zachman had originally tried to buy the site to develop lower priced housing. Bauer replied that the Planning Commission was not approving the price of the homes. Bauer added that if the developer changed his mind, the plans would be reviewed again and residents would be notified of the change. Ingber stated that he felt better knowing that the developer would have to return to the City if any changes were desired. Kardell stated that she supported the cul-de-sac. • Bauer stated that this was a unique situation for the City to support a long cul-de-sac. MOTION 1: Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 2• Kardell move, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Associated Investments, Inc. for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.09 acres based on plans dated February 19, 1993, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 19, 1993 with the addition of Item 6 for a variance request for frontage on a public street for Lots 2 & 3 and that the clarification on the exact acreage be recorded. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 3: Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Associated Investments, Inc. for Preliminary Plat of 5.5 acres based on plans dated February 19, 1993, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 19, 1993 with the addition of Item 6 for a variance request for frontage on a public street for Lots 2 & 3 and that the clarification on the exact acreage be recorded. Motion carried 7-0-0. 6 C. FREEBURG/PERKINS/FELTL ADDITION by Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl. Request for Preliminary Plat of three acres into three lots and Zoning Code variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Location: Willow Creek Road. • Uram reported that the Planning Commission was to review the proposal presented this evening based on its merits versus the project approved in 1989. The Commission or Staff were not here to discuss the legalities of the project. Mary 7o Feltl read into the record a history of the project. ( A copy included as part of the record.) Feltl submitted written approval of the project from neighbors which could not be present. Feltl stated that the existing home would be remodeled along with the Perkins home. Feltl stated that only 4 out of 15 lots would have larger frontage. Feld stated that Paul Thorp had been hired to develop an acceptable plan. She added that a great deal of time and expense had gone into the development of the proposal and she believed that it was a better proposal than the original one. Uram reported that this was a very complex project and that a lot of historical details could be presented. Staff believes that the new plan is better than the plan presented in 1989. The benefits to the City would be; the septic systems along Bryant Lake would be removed and abandoned; the Freeburg home would be partly demolished and remodeled; the garage and shed would be removed, which would help clean up the site; the existing tennis courts would be removed and not redone as with the original plan; the construction of the driveway to the north would be a better plan; and the tree loss on the project will remain the same as before. Uram reported that Staff recommended approval of the plan. Uram stated that Staff had met with Stu Nolan several times. Trees would be planted between the Nolan and Perkins home. Uram said that the City was concerned about the condition of the Freeburg home and needed to be sure what was proposed to be built. The Feld's would escrow money to insure the construction of a hard surfaced driveway and the retaining walls. The variance requirements for the project are the same as those proposed in 1989. Uram noted that the Board of Appeals denied the requests for variances in 1989 and the City Council overturned that decision. Peter Larsen, 6300 Wilryan Avenue, Edina, stated that in was speaking in behalf of his grandfather's estate. Larsen was disturbed about the history of the project being ignored. Larsen stated that he had a copy of a survey which listed the proposed site at 2.7 acres. He added that he had seen other figures which went from 2.5 acres to 3 acres. Larsen questioned the accurate figure. Thorp replied that he measured the property to the lakeshore and the site measure 3 acres. Thorp added that he would stand by those figures. Larsen stated that some of the lakeshore had been lost to erosion. Larsen said that he had a degree in landscape architecture and could not believe that a driveway was being proposed over the top of the hill. Larsen believed that the septic systems and the garbage around the home should be cleaned up regardless of approval for the proposed subdivision. Sandstad replied that he did not know if the City could order a drainfield to be moved. Larsen stated that he believed that each citizen had a responsibility to stop pollution. Norman asked Staff to comment on the driveway on the top of the hill. Uram replied that this was a tough site. Uram added that the road design would take the home off the top of the hill and the tree loss would remain the same as with the 1989 plan. • Feltl asked about an outlot where docks were located. Uram replied that he was not sure of an outlot. Larsen replied that for the record that area was all Larsen property. 7 Stuart Nolan, 7020 Willow Creek Road, stated that he owned the entire adjacent property to the north of the proposed site. He added that the Nolan's and the Larsen's were the only two adjacent property owners. Nolan believed that it was being presented that there were 3 lots in • existence currently and he said that 3 lots do not exist. Nolan believed that variances lasted only 1 year. He stated that it had been over 2 years since the plan was presented to the City. Nolan believed that the plat did not exist and added that if someone moves on the old plat it would be challenged legally. All of the lots north of Will Creek averaged 1.5 acres. Nolan was concerned about Lot 3 because it would only be .75 acres. Nolan noted that this area was not serviced by municipal water and sewer. Nolan believed that this proposal would set a precedent. Nolan believed that Lot 3 was too low to be buildable and that Lot 3 would be inconsistent with the existing neighborhood. Nolan stated that he had been involved when this was proposed 3 years ago. It was passed by the City Council 3 to 1 so the Perkins and Freeburgs could have a family complex and to allow the Freeburg's son to build on the property. Nolan stated that this is a new deal. Nolan stated the Uram had been helpful and very responsive. Nolan understood that the road would be moved and trees would be saved; but, he was still not in favor of the plan. Nolan was concerned that the drainfield proposed would be 30 feet from his home and 25 feet higher than the proposed home. Nolan believed that the drainfield should be moved. The lot was full of debris and garbage and believed that a specific dated should be established for this to be cleaned up. Nolan requested that the garage be taken down, the drainfield moved, a comprehensive tree inventory be taken, and financial responsibility be established. Nolan did not understand the need for the third lot. He added that he would like to have the Feld's as neighbors but, believed that the project should be done right. Nolan stated that he had not been given an acceptable reason for the need for the third lot. G: Jim Perkins, 7012 Willow Creek Road, believed that they were good neighbors. Perkins said • that the trees were there because they had been able to protect them for over 30 years. Perkins understood the neighbors concerns; however, he believed that they should consider the financial side. Perkins concurred with Nolan's statement that it would not be the family compound as originally had been planned. Perkins believed that 3 lots could be developed. Perkins assured the Planning Commission that the property would be cleaned up. Perkins noted that the Feld's had gone to great expense already to plan this proposal. Clish asked if Staff had checked with the legal department regarding the 1 year allowance for variances. Uram replied that the approved proposal from 1989 is valid and it could be filed at this time. The variances do need to be used within 1 year or they are null and void. Uram stated that the variance request for the tennis court is null and void. Kardell asked if there was a signed developers agreement. Uram replied that there was a signed Developer's Agreement. Larsen questioned why there was a Shoreland Ordinance if variances were given if the plan didn't fit. Norman replied that no one along the lakeshore would be in compliance with the existing Shoreland Ordinance. Larsen stated that he did not have a problem with 2 lots. Larsen believed that the whole issue was profit. Norman asked Larsen how much lakeshore property he had. Larsen replied 158 feet, approximately 1.49 acres. Norman replied that the third lot was proposed at 150 feet which was • only 8 feet smaller than the Larsen lot. Larsen stated that there were laws which were to control the size of the lots. Norman asked Larsen how close his home was to the lot line. Larsen 8 replied 100 feet from the lot line, but he would be looking at the home. Feld replied that 50 feet of the property had boat docks and buildings down by the lake. . Nolan noted that the Staff Report stated that Lot 3 was 120 feet. Norman replied that she was asking about lakeshore frontage. Nolan replied that he did not believe that the lakeshore frontage was the dominate factor. Kardell asked Feld is they planned to build a new home. Feld replied that the existing home would be remodeled. Clinton asked what was planned for Lot 3. Feld replied that nothing was planned at this time. MOTION 1: Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. Bauer stated that he had hoped to see the minutes from the 1989 meeting. He added that he did not recall the project. Bauer believed that legally this plat could be filed. Bauer believed that the plan was better than what was proposed in 1989 and further than when there was an opportunity to improve on something it should be done. Kardell stated that the Planning Commission operated on the advice from Staff. Kardell believed that this was clearly a better plan. Kardell understood that Nolan could challenge the RLS filing in court but she was operating under the belief that it could be filed. The septic systems will be brought within code, the garbage will be cleaned up, and the tree loss will remain the same. • Kardell believed that the Feld's had gone the extra mile by obtaining a surveyor and the willingness to provide escrow funds. Clish asked if the driveway would still be needed if nothing was built on Lot 3. Uram replied that the driveway proposal was at the request of the proponent. He added that the existing driveway could be used. Clish asked how many variances were granted with the original proposal. Uram replied 10 variances. Clish believed that this proposal was a nightmare for all parties involved and would vote against the proposal. Wissner stated that she was not comfortable with the proposal at first. Wissner stated that she had visited the site and could not see any of the homes. Wissner stated that she was not comfortable with the proposed plan; however, she preferred this plan to the original one. Wissner stated that she was not comfortable with Lot 3 and stated that she would vote against the project. Norman stated that she would vote in favor of the project. Norman believed that there was a lot of space between the 2 properties affected by the proposal. Clinton stated that he was not present when the original plan was presented. Clinton questioned why this was being discussed if there was a question if it was possible to build on Lot 3. Clinton noted that none of the properties could be brought into compliance with the Shoreland Ordinance no matter what would be done. • Sandstad stated that he supported the project. Sandstad liked Nolan's recommendation that a specific date be set that the lot be cleaned up. 9 Uram stated that recommendations needed to be added to require the removal of litter and debris and that the home be located at least 50 feet from the lot line. • MOTION 2: Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl for Preliminary Plat of 3 acres based on plans dated February 19, 1993, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 19, 1993 with the following additions: Item 2.1); Establish a firm date for the debris on the site to be cleaned up. Item 2.E; Relocate the septic system on Lot 1 further away from the Nolan property. Item 2.F; The home is to be located 50 feet from the Nolan property line. Motion carried 5-2-0. Clish and Wissner voted NO. D. ST. ANDREW LUTHERN CHURCH by St. Andrew Lutheran Church. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Church on 4.8 acres, PUD Concept on 59.70 acres, PUD District Review with waivers for building height on 59.70 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to Church on 4.8 acres and Preliminary Plat of 59.70 acres into three lots and one outlot. Location: Technology Drive, South of Highway 5, Adjacent to Purgatory Creek. Pastor Rod Anderson introduced Tom Dornack, who would present the details for the plan. Tom Dornack stated that this plan had been developed over approximately 8 to 10 years. The development of a 44,000 square foot facility as part of Phase I would be contingent on the sale • of the existing church. If the church is not sold a 26,000 square foot facility would be constructed as part of Phase I. Dornack stated that MTS and St. Andrew Church would enter into a shared parking easement agreement. Phase I would consist of a fellowship hall and education facility. Phase I would be a two-story building. The total height would be approximately 55 to 60 feet to the top of the cross. Dornack said that there was still a question as to whether a variance on the building height would be needed or not. Lloyd Bergstrom stated that church was requesting a height of 150 feet for the ultimate worship center. Sandstad stated that he liked the prairie affect for the landscaping and suggested the more the better in the area to the north. Tom Dornack replied that it was still questionable how the Highway 5 plans fit into this area. Dornack replied that the plan was to grade for the whole site. Dornack questioned the need for a berm along Highway 5 at this time. Sandstad stated that he was pleased to see the shared parking agreement. Franzen reported that the DNR exempts churches from the height restriction. The City Code has a 55 foot height restriction but would not have a problem with a 150 foot height to include the spire. Franzen added that the City had a history of taller buildings and spires. Franzen noted that if the Planning Commission decided to approve the project it should act on the maximum height of 150 to include the spire. 10 MOTION 1: Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 2: Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of St. Andrew Lutheran Church for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Church on 4.8 acres based on plans dated February 19, 1993, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 19, 1993 with the change it Item LC; as part of the PUD recommend a waiver for a building height of 150 to include the spire. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 3: Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of St. Andrew Lutheran Church for PUD Concept on 59.70 acres based on plans dated February 19, 1993, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 19, 1993 with the change it Item LC; as part of the PUD recommend a waiver for a building height of 150 to include the spire. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 4: Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of St. Andrew Lutheran Church for PUD District Review with waivers for building height on • 59.70 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to Church on 4.8 acres based on plans dated February 19, 1993, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 19, 1993 with the change it Item LC; as part of the PUD recommend a waiver for a building height of 150 to include the spire. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 5: Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of St. Andrew Lutheran Church for Preliminary Plat of 59.70 acres into three lots and one outlot based on plans dated February 19, 1993, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 19, 1993 with the change it Item LC; as part of the PUD recommend a waiver for a building height of 150 to include the spire. Motion carried 7-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS Final Housing Goals and Recommendations Dave Lindahl reviewed the recommended goals as outlined in the memo dated February 19, 1993. Clish stated that the committee would like to continue to work with Staff to further refine the goals. Kardell stated that the goals were very general at this time. • Lindahl recommended that $85,000 to $125,000 be the price range used for moderate priced housing. 11 MOTION: Norman moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend support for the Housing Goals and Recommendations. Motion carried 7-0-0. VI. NEW BUSINESS Flood Plain Ordinance Revision MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the flood plain revisions. Motion carried 7-0-0. VH. PLANNERS' REPORTS VM. ADTOURNMWM MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 PM. Motion carried 7-0-0. 12 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, February 22, 1993 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Cynthia Clish, Katherine Kardell, Karen Norman, Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Community Development; Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Donald Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA H. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CARMODY VILLAGE by Centex Real Estate Corporation. Request for PUD Concept Review and PUD District Review on 27.15 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 27.15 acres and Preliminary Plat of 27.15 acres into 18 lots and 4 outlots and street right-of-way. Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway/Purgatory Creek at the Carmody Drive Intersection. B. NORMANDY CREST by Associated Investments,Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from 40 Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.09 acres and Preliminary Plat of 5.5 acres into 8 lots and two outlots. Location: South of Pioneer Trail and west of Normandy Crest. C. FREEBURG/PERKINS/FELTL ADDITION by Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl. Request for Preliminary Plat of three acres into three lots and Zoning Code variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals: Location: Willow Creek Road. D. ST. ANDREW LUTHERAN CHURCH by St. Andrew Lutheran Church. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Church on 4.8 acres,PUD Concept Review on 59.70 acres, PUD District Review with waivers for building height on 59.70 acres, Rezoning from Rural to Church on 4.8 acres,Preliminary Plat of 59.70 acres into three lots and one outlot. Location: Technology Drive, South of Highway 5, Adjacent to Purgatory Creek. V. OLD BUSINESS FINAL HOUSING GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS VI. NEW BUSINESS FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE REVISION The Flood Plain Ordinance has been revised to meet current Department of Natural Resources requirements and has been endorsed by the DNR. VII. PLANNERS' REPORTS VIII. ADJOURNMENT