Planning Commission - 02/27/1989 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, February 27, 1989
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; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
*NOTE: THE TIME LISTED BELOW ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER,
OR LATER, THAN LISTED.
(7:35) A. TECH TEN, by Hoyt Development Company, Inc. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 4.3 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 4.3 acres into 1 lot for construction of a 56,000 square
foot industrial building. Location: Southwest corner of Golden
Triangle Drive and West 74th Street. A continued public hearing.
(7:40) B. ANDERSON IDLEWILD 2ND ADDITION, by Calvin A. Anderson. Request for
Preliminary Plat of 8.56 acres into one lot, one outlot, and road
right-of-way with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals.
Location: South of Technology Drive, west of Highway #169, north of
Lake Idlewild. A continued public hearing.
(7:45) C. LAKE HEIGHTS 3RD ADDITION, by Lake Heights Ventures. Request for
Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 3.11 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 3.11 acres into 6 single family lots and road
right-of-way. Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, west and
north of Preserve Boulevard. A public hearing.
(8:45) D. BLUFFS WEST 7TH ADDITION, by Hustad Development. Request for Zoning
District Change from R1-13.5 and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 4.66 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 26.3 acres into 11 single family lots, 2
outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: North of Bluestem Lane,
north of Bluestem Hills 5th Addition: A public hearing.
(9:45) E. PRESERVE SOUTH, by BRW, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres, a Planned Unit
Development District Review on approximately 18 acres with waivers,
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial and
• Open . Space to Regional Commercial on 9.07 acres, Zoning District
Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 9.07 acres, and Preliminary Plat
of 13 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 25,248 square foot
theatre complex. Location: East of Highway #169, south of Medcom
Boulevard. A public hearing.
Agenda
February 27, 1989
Page Two
(10:30) F. HIDDEN GLEN IV, by Frontier Midwest Homes Corporation. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 68
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review, with waiver for
density, and Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-9.5 on 7.5
acres, and Preliminary Plat of 7.13 acres into 26 single family
lots. Location: South and east of Highway #101, west of Dell Road.
A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, February 27, 1989 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard
Anderson, Robert Hallett, Charles
Ruebling, Ed Schuck
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Christine Dodge, Doug Fell,
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don
Uram, Assistant Planner; Alan Gray,
City Engineer; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Schuck moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Agenda as
published. Motion carried 4-0-0.
II . MEMBERS REPORTS
Chairperson Bye congratulated Commission members Hallett and
Ruebling on their reappointment to the Planning Commission.
Bye stated that Doug Sandstad had been appointed to the
Planning Commission by the City Council . Bye thanked
Commission member Schuck for six years of dedicated service on
the Planning Commission.
III . MINUTES
MOTION•
Hallett moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting held Monday, October 24, 1988
as published. Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION•
Anderson moved, seconded by Schuck to approve the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting held Monday, November 28, 1988
as published. Motion carried 4-0-0 .
Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 27, 1989
MOTION•
Hallett moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting held Monday, February 13, 1989
as published. Motion carried 3-0-1. Schuck abstained.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. TECH TEN, by Hoyt Development Company, Inc. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 4.3
acres, and Preliminary Plat of 4 . 3 acres in to 1 lot for
construction of a 56,000 square foot industrial building.
Location: Southwest corner of Golden Triangle Drive and
West 74th Street. A continued public hearing.
Uram reported that Hoyt Development Company had requested
the proposal be withdrawn at this time due to difficulty
with obtaining a lease agreement with the prime tenant and
to allow time to re-evaluate the remaining overall
development of Technology Park .
MOTION•
Anderson moved, seconded by Schuck to close the public
hearing, returning the item to the proponent without
prejudice . Motion carried 4-0-0.
B. ANDERSON IDLEWILD 2ND ADDITION, by Calvin A. Anderson.
Request for Preliminary Plat of 8 .56 acres into one lot,
one outlot, and road right-of-way with variances to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals . Location: South of
Technology Drive, west of Highway # 169, north of Lake
Idlewild . A continued public hearing.
Uram reported that obtaining the trail easement around
Lake Idlewild had not been resolved at this time; however,
he anticipated an agreement within 30 days.
Bye asked Uram if the continuance of 30 days would be
within the time limit allowed before the plat would
automatically go into effect if the continuance was not
based on a mutual agreement between the City and the
proponent. Uram replied he would check into this
immediately.
MOTION•
Anderson moved, seconded by Schuck to continue the public
hearing for Anderson Idlewild 2nd Addition to the March
27, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-
0-0 .
C. LAKE HEIGHTS 3RD ADDITION, by Lake Heights Ventures.
Request for Zoning District Change from RM-6. 5 to R1-13 . 5
Y � fi � 1 � � �i., '�Iri- _yJl _ ! 17 1 � ..-7.r�1•i i i j - i .
r. ,I -`it ��r'�, •`�� • _ ilk _� � .�7 t �i _ -.�, .-�r r _ i �� ,
1
Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 27, 1989
on 3.11 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3.11 acres into 6
single family lots and road right-of-way. Location:
South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, west and north of
Preserve Boulevard. A public hearing.
Franzen reported that the original plan approved in 1979
included 30 single-family units and 30 multi-family units .
Franzen added the western portion of the development had
been rezoned single-family in 1984. He said the proposed
site was located in the northeastern corner of the
property and had been previously approved for 20 townhouse
units.
Lori Johnson, Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson, Inc. ,
representing the proponent, stated that the proposed site
was 3.1 acres located at the intersection of Anderson
Lakes Parkway and Preserve Boulevard. Johnson said the
proposed site was currently zoned RM-6.5 for 20 townhouse
units . Johnson added the proposed development was part of
the overall Lake Heights Development plan approved by the
City in 1978 . Johnson stated that two outlots were
depicted on the original plan. She said that outlot A
located in the northwestern corner of the property had
been rezoned and developed as single-family units .
Johnson stated that the proponent was proposing a similar
development for outlot B located in the northeastern
corner of the property. Johnson said the proponent was
requesting that outlot B be rezoned from RM-6.5 to R1-13. 5
and to approve a Preliminary Plat for 6 single-family
lots. Johnson stated the average lot size would be
approximately 20,000 square-feet, which would be
equivalent to or larger than the surrounding lots.
Johnson stated the proposed plan was to construct 6
single-family homes surrounding a cul-de-sac with the
proposed access to the development from Preserve
Boulevard. Johnson noted the development would require a
significant amount of fill and soil correction in order to
accomplish the elevations desired for the homes. Johnson
stated the front yards would drain to the cul-de-sac and
the cul-de-sac would drain to Preserve Boulevard. She
added the backyards would drain through swales to a
ponding area in the northeastern corner of the outlot.
Johnson stated that the proponent would try to save as
many trees as possible, especially along the western
portion of the outlot. Johnson noted that there were no
trees on the property 12" in diameter and there were no
oak or maple trees located on the property.
Johnson stated that utilities for the development would be
extended from Preserve Boulevard. Johnson concluded by
stating that the proponent felt a single family proposal
to be the best land use for the site . Johnson believed
1 � i i , � � `i .,1 I _ � ti
''.1 _ .- � �ti _ r � ' _ � � � ,
' I � ,-i � ..I � I. rl
r r I „ 1 ,��„ II I 'I I _11 � ! ,! a + i 1 .� I
i ,i � 1 1� id I i _ i I 1 t I .t.'-1 , , �� � �. I� _ '1
- -1 i � I rl � I I� ' � I I � _
T ,
jl � � i�, �. � � �� �, ,jl i � ', � I ,
� � � I il'.1 I11� � � � I �I�i,i � _ i it � - ' _ -I .
.1114 , I I. , � �� � _ �I, � III - I -
. �1 _ !II � I' � 1 ,�i -� II I ' - 111
'� l i 1� ,�I I � v I�' �� n� I i I, I _ i i
I j -� -I i � - � �� I ' I I I -
rl Iil �-'fl1'{ II� Ilr '.1" "1 _ I. ' � - ,. I'
,� II i -1, � 'i I ' 1 I
1 , i i � �1 ',i y' i,, i� _ � '
e 1 � I 1 'Q� I 'i�+ � I � I I, I
I - I_ � ,, I � ,I- � I
-, , ! a , I I -I � �, I,
I,- — 'I ' i I r_ I I � �_� I ' , � '-, � � � I -� :r'-, �'' -
,I� � i III,�� I_ 1 1,
,,. ., I � � I , . I,� � � � , � � ,
III i i � � � I _I r �t, ��,r, ' - •
Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 27y 1989
• the decrease in density and rezoning to single-family
would provide a development which would fit in with the
existing neighborhood.
Franzen reported that the Lake Heights Addition was guided
low density residential on the Comprehensive Guide Plan,
yet was zoned multiple-family. Franzen said this was
accomplished with density transfers within the
development; one area has a lower density in exchange for
a higher density in another area. Franzen noted that at
this time the overall Lake Heights Addition was at a lower
density than the 2 . 5 units per acre. Franzen reported
that the proponent was requesting an R1-13. 5 zoning
district, which would require a minimum lot size of 13,500
square feet per lot, a 55-foot minimum radius on the cul-
de-sac, and an 85-foot frontage on the straight-of-way.
Franzen noted the project did meet all of the zoning
requirements.
Franzen reported that Staff was concerned about the site
distance at the access point on Preserve Boulevard.
Franzen stated that the development's sign was currently
located in the right-of-way and should be relocated to
provide adequate sight distance.
Franzen stated that the grading plan submitted would
require the entire outlot to be graded, which would result
in the removal of a significant amount of vegetation.
Franzen said the City Forester, Stu Fox, had looked at the
proposed site and reported that the trees were boxelder
and basswood trees approximately 3 to 10 inches in
diameter . Franzen noted the vegetation growth on the site
had occurred since 1975. Franzen stated that while it was
true that according to the City's Tree Replacement Policy,
none of the trees would be considered significant, the
Staff also took a careful look at the vegetation on the
proposed site and believed the vegetation was unique to
the site and that the natural features provided a plus to
the property. Franzen suggested the grading plan and the
location of the building pads be changed to save some of
the natural vegetation.
Franzen stated that Staff had compared traffic generation
between a multiple-family and a single-family development.
Franzen said that a multiple-family development would
generate 160 trips per day with 16 trips during the peak
hours, while a single-family development would generate 60
trips per day with 6 trips during the peak hours.
Franzen reported that in 1979 an EAW Report had been
prepared regarding the original Lake Heights Addition and
that after public hearings, review by the Planning
Commission, Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
-
r
i'1, s I_
1 , r;N l < �i .�(.liti �._ �r It I I
if I
. _ '�Ir _ `_� .I Ali ' � i , a 1 �• "
., �, -,1 � - 2 I y � •, �I ,�r it � �� �(,
j -j
'il � Ir �- ' 1_•fj1 ;. '. 1 ';, I i _, rr.( t, - _ -i 1 _•,j, � t I
Cl
I
1 r�.ri - ,•. -, � V1 � i ! � r 1 � 'J � r - ,I 1.
Planning Commission Minutes r February 27, 1989
• Commission, and the City Council, the City recorded a
finding of no significant impact for the subdivision.
City Engineer, Alan Gray, stated that the Engineering
Department had reviewed this plan regarding drainage, soil
correction, and street access.
Gray stated that the proposed development was within the
Eden Lake watershed district, which had been severely
impacted by the flood of 1987. Gray said that the
drainage system had been designed by Barr Engineering in
1970 and because of the 1987 flood had recently been
reviewed by the Engineering Department to determine if the
system was adequate for today's needs. Gray stated that
the Engineering Department concluded that based on the
City's design standards the drainage system would handle a
11100 year storm design" . Gray stated that there was only
a small amount of water storage on the proposed site and
that the loss of this storage would not impact the
watershed. Gray said that an opportunity existed to
create an emergency surface water overflow system;
however, this would require lowering the level of the bike
trail, which was a concern voiced by the neighborhood.
Gray added that Staff recommended a surface water overflow
be created at elevation 815 to 816 to provide a safety
factor for the homes. Gray said the cost to develop the
overflow system would be inexpensive and recommended the
overflow system be developed even if this proposal was not
approved. Gray commented that a blockage of plywood had
been located in the drainage system for this area after
the flood and added that it had been difficult to
determine the impact this obstruction had on the flooding
of 1987 . Gray said that he presented the information
about the blockage at this time to hopefully develop the
residents confidence with the adequacy of the current
drainage system.
Gray reported that soil corrections would be extensive.
Gray stated that soil borings indicated depths of
approximately 20 feet of peat and muck soils. He added
that deep excavation would be necessary to construct
adequate building pads. Gray commented that several
developments in Eden Prairie were constructed on this type
of fill. Gray stated that Staff recommended the building
pad sizes be increased to a depth of 60 feet and a width
of 75 feet. Gray added that the proponent needed to be
firm on the size of the homes allowed. Gray commented
that unless a deck was part of the original plan it would
be difficult to add with this type of soil . Gray stated
that the excavation and soil correction costs would be
expensive and was concerned if the home market could
• absorb these costs.
t.j I i"
• I +1 � � I I .1 � - .. - � -1 1. 1, - � I 1 1 . -'1' Y''i ! = i� _ r I 1_.
' � !r�1i11 I' 111 � 1•i ' { „jtl �i�l f� � _ �_ Ile�' i _ 1 t _ � � 1
• .A'�1r f ,`)1_,-1 : 11., 17 ,1�11 A, � .7. _+ � -i - 1�- 1 � 1 .
ii � i_I'=!�tl I I � �.[1, 1 ;It- ,� " ,1 - :+ I-,([!.1' ' . I_' •. _ I
!� 1 il•1 II ' ll'_'E.11 .I,II' I , . 1�_i _ I 1 !
_�11- -i I. Y ' , � t i +_ _ � li � 'i -.f J� �• i I�AI -
Planning Commission Minutes G February 27p 1989
• Gray stated that Staff recommended street access from
Preserve Boulevard. Gray said that the possibility
existed for Anderson Lakes Parkway to be expanded to a
four-lane facility with medians and signalization. Gray
added that access from Anderson Lakes Parkway if expanded
could leave the neighborhood with a right-in and right-out
situation. He said that traffic volumes would be low from
this type of neighborhood.
Anderson asked Franzen to clarify the City's Tree
Replacement Policy for the residents. Franzen replied
that the City Council had directed the Planning Staff to
develop a specific policy approximately three years ago
due to the increasing number of single-family developments
proposed in the wooded areas of Eden Prairie. Franzen
added that the City Council wanted to develop a way to
preserve the aesthetics and natural beauty of
neighborhoods developed in the wooded areas . Franzen
stated that the policy was developed based on the City
Council 's direction that not all the trees needed to be
replaced, but a pre-determined percentage of trees should
be replaced. He said the City Council had indicated that
a tree loss of 35% or more would represent the loss of a
wooded character and; therefore, a formula was developed
to calculate the number of trees to be replaced to provide
the wooded character of the property. Franzen added the
• formula was based on forestry standards of a 12" diameter
or greater . Franzen stated that currently each developer
was responsible to provide a tree inventory for the
proposed site, which included; the type of the trees, the
size of the trees, and the location of the trees on the
property. He said that based on the tree inventory Staff
would make recommendations to save trees where feasible.
Franzen noted there were no significant trees located on
the proposed site; however, Staff was recommending the
revision of the grading plan to save as many trees as
possible.
Anderson asked Franzen to explain the procedure followed
to develop the Tree Replacement Policy. Franzen replied
that Staff had been directed by the City Council to
develop a policy. He added that after Staff had
researched the issues and developed the policy, the policy
was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission,
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission, and then
was forwarded to the City Council, along with comments
from the Commissions, where it was approved by the City
Council . Franzen said that the Tree Replacement Policy
has been forwarded to the City Attorney where it is being
written in the form of a City Ordinance and will then go
back to the City Council for adoption as an Ordinance.
Anderson asked Franzen if the City Council had directed
Staff to develop a similar policy regarding the
_x
own
I _I. t. D, Iti {�.
" l "+l7 f -t .,�.i �_,._,—f _ , p_I r,�.afi S _ - — :►1�1 � rL—t
-lit b 1_7n
t = "r ,_ q V
�0 ;nun
ten 0
I 1,
I
t•r i �?t�l, tt ,� - 1 ,II � ' __ � .I it ' _t f_, _. - 1
-_Iaoil 0-°I _ I a- 4, r++"x ' •� (I ly f C .
I _ 1 J' i_ i' I i►'ir � � I � r ! +' - i - � I _ , 7�11
Planning Commission Minutes 7 February 27, 1989
. preservation of the hills and wetlands. Franzen replied
that Councilmember Anderson had expressed a concern
regarding the preservation of the hills and wetlands .
Franzen added that Staff was currently working on a policy
which would examine the remaining pocket areas of small
wetlands, small stands of trees, high points in the
community, and views in the community. Franzen said the
policy would deal with how these areas should be
developed. Franzen said the policy should be before the
Planning Commission this Spring.
Anderson asked Franzen to clarify the density transfer and
why the proposed development currently proposed was based
on a Developers Agreement from 1978 . Franzen replied the
plan was originally approved in January 1979 and that
January 1979 was also the date of the EAW Report. Franzen
added that it took over a year to get the Developers
Agreement signed, making the official date of the plan
1981. Franzen said there were two parcels on the property
zoned for multiple-family, outlot A and outlot B. Franzen
said that Lake Heights Addition had taken the lower
density of the single-family residential, added it to the
higher density multiple-family areas, and still had a
density below 2. 5 units per acre; therefore, a
Comprehensive Guide Plan change is not required.
• Anderson asked Franzen if development had not occurred
within two years after the Developers Agreement was signed
the property could be rezoned back to Rural . Franzen
indicated that the Council has the option to reconsider
rezoning back to rural . Franzen stated that Developers
Agreements were used to protect neighborhoods, and to
assure residents that what was approved by the City
Council would be what was actually developed.
Ruebling arrived at 7: 50 PM.
Bye informed the residents that this proposal would also
be reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, & Natural Resources
Commission regarding the bike path and trailway systems.
John Wood, 8980 Knoble Court, representing himself and
approximately 113 residents which had signed a petition
requesting that the City Council rezone the property
Rural, stated that he had been chosen to make the
presentation due to his construction background as Vice
President of Construction for M.A. Mortenson. Wood stated
that the existing neighborhood was comprised of young
families, primarily young professionals . Wood said that
residents had been drawn to Eden Prairie because of its
natural beauty, the quality of the parks and public
services, its reputation for fine schools, and the quality
of the City's residential developments. Wood believed
I „ I, I. 1,_ I II• • I � � 1 IC� ,
I
I • � t I I i , I I I i I� � I _ f I 11 , � , _ I , _, - 1,I I I,
lk
;t I
- 1-
�/
t
11 I
Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 27q 1989
ID viewed
was a thin line between progress and excess and
viewed this development as an excessive proposal .
Wood believed that resident of Lake Heights Addition I and
II had been misled by the developer and City Staff
regarding outlot B. Wood stated that he as well as other
neighbors had been told by City Staff that the proposed
development site was an outlot, a swamp, basically was not
suitable for construction, and was not intended to be
developed. Wood added it was after receiving this
information from the City that many residents had decided
to purchase their homes in the neighborhood.
Wood presented the following concerns: 1) the tree
clearing, 2) the extent of excavation and fill required,
3) the new drainage pond, 4 ) the flood condition and water
table levels, 5) the environmental impact, 6) the
developers disdain for the residents concerns, and 7 ) the
effect on existing property value.
Wood stated that while the City standards did not consider
the trees on the property significant, the neighbors
valued the trees. He added that the trees provided a
security and sound barrier from Anderson Lakes Parkway and
the adjacent ballfields. Wood believed the trees enhanced
the beauty of the neighborhood.
Wood questioned the validity of the information provided
to the residents by the developer regarding the extent of
grading required. Wood believed the Engineering Staff
Report lacked information regarding how the excavation and
fill would be handled. Wood presented a plan which he
believed more accurately represented a realistic grading
plan, which would require that 20 feet of dirt be removed
from the entire site . Wood noted that the existing grade
for the site was approximately 814, after 20 feet of dirt
was removed the elevation would be at 794, which was
approximately 18 feet below the normal water level. Wood
questioned how the developer proposed to provide the
compacted, engineered fill suitable for building
construction, when the fill would potentially be deposited
in 18 feet of water. Wood was concerned about the
condition of the earth when the homes were constructed.
Wood presented letters from residents in the Eden Lake
Addition, which had similar soil conditions to the
proposed site, and had also been assured by the developer
that proper soil correction had been done . He added that
several of those residents stated that their sump pumps
run continuously. Wood was concerned about the potential
for water in the basements of these proposed homes .
• Wood stated that the developer 's engineering staff had
indicated the water storage pond depth would be 1 .6 feet;
however, based on his calculations, Wood believed the
' r - - -I i r r • i - _� - ( r i t �_I t r i i
,• . . {r ,� Irl.i i _j�;_ I r r c rl � ,-I '�-i I'r ii � _ :'.tllf-�!�_.r!•
r_� { r -,I•}, r-,It ,. r,r �,11� � 't rC�' - ;'in - � , l ��I y'
r
7 L
I: r i I'Y _ ._ I 1, r y• -r t_ _ �.y I-� I r I I ,-I ,, ,, - -, , �� , .
r 111 � ) 1 •r ��I[ rl:'3, 1 � 7 1 � ,r,l I ..fi., _ rr1 � i 'T�I -
' , I ,_ J�r1 � '_rr � r ( ri _, 1 I � 11 �' r .• {� ITfr r-� I I r
I �- - I I r ., r� Irr - ,� •,• I � _ .I--�-). _ r -,�, � I I
r I � I I r , i --} I I -{ i I ,I r ,• r I I_ r r, 1 1-1 J i .�'-)�' I I_I
i - li' � � it r I � � I I � t-r �. �•r � t - 'i � r -i
r r ii -, i frr rI. I"1 I �•- i �t � +,r r � � r i '
it I r. �•, I ' � I il; I{�rl 1 �{-If• �. '- i rl. I _�11 � � I ;j,1-
I 1`• r� I r � _ I I- J r_l-. r I i i� r I r �I 1 1_ n _ I �r 1 1_
r it Ii1•. i{ - rI it'J ' T - 1 J I i.i; � � ,-rr. Y r
. I ,-I i t � I 1'r r i . [i � . i ' r r j ,- 'i i •r l t r .l i, ! I _
Planning Commission Minutes g February 27, 1989
accurate depth of the pond to be approximately 4 feet.
Wood considered the pond to be a safety hazard, questioned
who would maintain the pond, and also questioned the ponds
appearance.
Wood believed the outlot provided a natural amenity to the
neighborhood and believed the site was ecologically
sensitive. Wood was concerned about the quality of fill
and its effect on the watertable. Wood noted that the
developer had already started to bring in fill last year .
Wood stated that the developer continued to bring in the
fill after protests from the residents and did not stop
until City officials notified the developer 'that a permit
was required. Wood noted that a significant amount of
fill had been deposited, and stated that he was concerned
that the fill was not suitable for construction purposes.
Wood stated that approximately 20 residents had attended a
public meeting with the developer. Wood believed after
attending this meeting that the developers only motive was
to make a profit. Wood believed the developer had
misinformed the residents regarding grading and the depth
of the pond. Wood stated that when the developer had been
asked who would enforce the covenants to guarantee the
quality of the homes, the developer had replied that he
would enforce the covenants as he had done in our
development. Wood stated that he had not been able to
find an example of any covenant being enforced. Wood was
also concerned about the current home market being able to
support quality homes constructed on a floodplain next to
be busy street, which lacked any natural amenities. Wood
believed the developer would be forced to reduce the price
of the lots and lower the quality of the homes in order to
make a profit. Wood was concerned that the quality of the
proposed homes would not be consistent with the existing
neighborhood and consequently would lower the value of the
existing homes. Wood was concerned that the developer
would not follow through with any of his promises . Wood
was concerned that the neighborhood would develop a
reputation of having water problems in the basements,
which would also lower the value of the existing homes .
Wood concluded by presenting photos of the proposed
development site taken in 1987 after the flood.
Bob Arnold, 8994 Preserve Boulevard, stated that Wood had
addressed sufficiently the neighborhoods concerns;
however, he wished to reinforce a few major issues .
Arnold stated that he too had been misled by the builder
to believe that outlot B would not be developed and that
this information had greatly influenced his purchasing his
home . Arnold asked the Planning Commission to seriously
consider the credibility of a developer which had misled
several potential buyers just to make a sale . Arnold
wished to address the tree replacement policy and
t 't I r _ � r .-.jr •11' I i �j. I, ! i r ,
• { - 4 �1 r, r,r , _ _ _ I yyrt- r - __ _ i lti,r-
I
' Ir�i I r {' I11• irr r I-J � t i r { i I
�j j i'
r,
i
s _
1_ 1' ' _rl I I i .i4 I ... , il• � - - it I-, i j-I ,I.
# r-„ _ r I i _r •I I flt.' .I •r r I {.lr I i � .{ r i "t I I
tl� ,l_i � I � i � ,Ii-11r I 111 YI•t ., i '_ � .�,-, ` _ "1 r - rr'I -
Planning Commission Minutes 10 February 27, 1,389
• suggested that the base line should be based on the
original state of the property. Arnold added the area had
taken on a completely different appearance. Arnold stated
that he was concerned about a developer whose only concern
was profit and had no consideration for the aesthetics of
the neighborhood. Arnold concluded by stating that he and
his wife considered this to be a very grave issue as
homeowners and appreciated the Planning Commission
consideration of this item.
David Peterson, 8977 Knoble Court, stated that all of his
points had been made.
Marian Peterson, 8977 Knoble Court, addressed the housing
density in the area and presented photos of the existing
developments. Peterson stated that she personally had
counted 1037 units within .8 of a mile . Peterson believed
that the density of this area was ridiculous and that at
some point development in this area needed to stop.
Peterson believed this proposed development was a logical
stopping point because the land was swamp and was the only
attractive property left in the neighborhood. Peterson
stated that the developer had sold a portion of the
property to build twinhomes and believed that if the
developer had not sold that property he would have had
enough land to build 6 single-family homes without
• disturbing the trees. Peterson believed the land had been
misrepresented by the builders and the City. She added
that she had called the City and had also been told the
property would not be developed. Peterson concluded by
requesting that the Planning Commission not approve the
project.
Alison Gulden, 8972 Knoble Court, presented to the
Planning Commission a handout addressing the parental
concerns regarding the proposed development. Gulden was
concerned about the presence and the depth of the proposed
pond. Gulden believed the pond would draw the children in
the neighborhood to its site out of natural curiosity.
She added that because the pond was unfenced and the depth
exceeded the height of many of the neighborhood children,
the pond presented a potential drowning hazard. Gulden
did not believe that the lake across the street presented
a hazard because it was supervised by the homeowners
adjacent to the lake.
Gulden was concerned about the dept of the hole to be
created by the excavation of the dirt . She believed that
if a child fell into the hole the child would not be able
to get out without assistance and could possibly sustain a
severe injury and/or fatal injury.
it 1 �_:�. _� .I � I {trlli _ I I _t_. .i' j � I �t".! �•'' �
it
I '
•1!� _I .i k t' I i 1�1�_� '! i I I,-i � I I t_.b t-. � - - I _3'j '
7_I gi I ,.,,� , �.�� Ir;. it t�i.5 I t1 . 9. ,1' � .•.J�-,�' . . �{ , -,j.,.
1 wf
I inn ,
I it ' 0_ d - I �_•- 1 ,ll - I
�1�- i_i 1 � --tl:,• I t"I'. : ! itl'I I „ ( r,y t
I f_�r j 1 i r; - �'. ,�� r ( ,•I I j t "I _ ; r{ ,_. .. { ; I ` .I I_I •
II(O
• .-i � II I' . �,�I,-t II' t I ' '1 rI .-� i ._f*.• ,I. � r�.I � Ii�tl t
rijq
ul 1r r. 1 tl ,� 'i'II !(1 t KII •iI IIr 1
' "ir1 t .•! i� > I l..- �-�, „I��.rll .{ t'' i- - I � I�l� � I I
�, i ��, � 'li I _ i_ I t _I ,,AI ..r•{ 'r i i � � i ! t. i _rl il' 7 t � i
to Ino
]t
•
Planning Commission Minutes 11 February 27, 1989
Gulden was concerned about the quality of fill brought
into the site and stated that the fill which had already
been brought in contained broken glass and cans.
Gulden was concerned about the proximity of the existing
bike path to the construction site. Gulden stated that
the bike path was heavily used daily by the neighborhood
children and residents. Gulden was concerned with the
number of trips necessary to bring in the required fill.
Gulden stated that because of the low level of the land
and the water content of the area, the potential hazard of
fog existed. She added that many mornings the fog had not
lifted by the time the children were using the bike path.
Gulden presented photos to the Planning Commission which
illustrated the lack of visibility to the construction
site from Preserve Boulevard. Gulden believed that
construction traffic would present a hazard to
pedestrians, children, and car traffic on Preserve
Boulevard. Gulden also believed the construction traffic
would present a hazard related to the safe transit of
children to and from school via the school bus due to the
lack of visibility and the inability of a school bus to
make sudden stops or turns . Gulden reminded the Planning
Commission of an accident last summer between a
construction vehicle and a school bus, which resulted in
the loss of 70 lives.
Gulden concluded by stating that as parents we feel the
safety of our children is the single most important issue
to be considered with regard to the proposed development
of this area. Gulden believed that the proposed plans
called for several dangerous situations to be created to
accomplish the engineering necessary to develop the land
in question, and that the residents were compelled to
insist that these issues be given long and careful
consideration by the City.
Lonny Gulden, 8972 Knoble Court, stated that the
ballfields which had been constructed approximately two
years ago were used every night of the week during the
summer . Gulden added that the residents relied on the
trees and shrubs to serve as a sound and visual barrier
from these ballfields. Gulden stated that residents had
attempted to make compromises with the developer, but
their suggestions had only been answered with sarcasm.
Gulden believed it was the developer 's blatant disregard
for the neighborhoods concerns which had produced the
number of residents in attendance at this public hearing.
Gulden strongly urged the Planning Commission to deny the
request for rezoning.
Gary Nelson, 9055 Preserve Boulevard, stated that he had
also been told by his builder and a representative from
J�A_sl� r
I'1 ,1 1 'll 1 11� r � ' � i ., '-i. ' • _ �1� ii I�1 _ „ _FI I�_
1J�!
•�I _I , � 1lT{I _ � 1 �_� � �- — ,tt{ k r I �J i.,1C�ii' �.I� i i - � - -1 "r � 1 r r
Ijr)I
, Itr:r Ifi_ 1
1•_[�i , r i�l'I -'II � !I �� I i-I .� f IT-""' i - I � ! �{ � ! � II I
• � 'R ,t� 1 I � t i _ t i i_ ,
i� I � 4.:i 1-� I i � __?_Ifs`-1 _ �t I11', � II _ IrT_�•_� � itl� _ .
_!1_;
•.i � � I I i 1 3 �i-r' _r_i :.t I i { -�� �r �1)�a F ,'i { ��: � I i i I
t'. rr
Planning Commission Minutes 12 February 27, 1989
• Mason Homes, that the outlot would never be built on.
Nelson was concerned that anyone would even consider
building on the proposed site. Nelson believed the
property should be zoned rural.
Wood estimated that if 19 foot of fill was required for
the entire site it would take 64,000 yards of fill or
1,046 truck loads. He added that if the trucks hauled
this fill 8 hours a day, Wood estimated it would require
25 working days just to bring in the fill . Wood concluded
by stated that the residents were requesting that the
Planning Commission consider not only denying the zoning
to single-family, but to rezone the property back to a
rural designation or at the very least, leave the zoning
for multiple-family development.
Bye informed the residents that the minutes of this public
hearing would be available to the public after they were
approved by the Planning Commission at the March 13, 1989
meeting.
Franzen summarized that the majority of the residents
concerns were related to safety. Franzen believed the
concerns were legitimate ones . Franzen stated that at
this time he did not have the details of how the
construction traffic would be handled; however, another
project, with similar residential concerns, had been
successfully accomplished with signed agreements related
to hauling restrictions.
Franzen stated that another major concern of the residents
related to the aesthetics and he concurred that the trees
did provide a buffer to Anderson Lakes Parkway and
provided screening from other single-family homes and the
ballfields. Franzen said that collectively the trees on
this property did represent a tree mass . Franzen added
that it was the Staff 's recommendation that the grading
plan be changed to save more trees . Franzen stated that
to accomplish saving the trees might take a grade change,
a change in the location of the building pads, the
construction of retaining walls around the trees, or the
reduction in the number of units allowed. Franzen noted
that extensive tree loss had occurred on this property in
the past over the entire Lake Heights and Neil Woods
Additions. This area was primarily an oak, basswood
forest and many large trees were cut down to allow homes
to be built.
Franzen stated that the City Council was concerned about
plan being misrepresented by developers and builders . He
added that it was due to this concern that Developers
Agreements are signed and three sets of approved plans are
stamped by the City. Franzen stated that the developer or
builder were to post a set of the approved plans in their
1
I ' 1 1'I I -i - � �_• I - 'I .1 rl .1�' ._ ,II .11 � � II I I it -
i I I' I.. I 1_ i _� .11 � YI I •� i � _ .r'f I 1 � (7r I. 1.
'Ir _1 _ _'J � f I I'. I ill '!!.i r 1h_l _ .. _ .I;I•(r' t Irlr � I, I ,
L r I; _4,- :I I t r r _ , �. �_ 1 � "_1{„! 1 _ l i 1 _ i j�• r ',<(-I I � r�l
it i '1, t�/ Ii'I I I i -1111V 1
-
1I
Ili 'fii-� y_ r_
�' I I,� I I I I � I I ' i { 1 r I I � t.r l I I •
Ir--
,,
" 11 r 'f�. _ Ir � 1 � 111 1 � It1i 11} � II•. I
• � ,1-1 II.-'1 I I II' l�. _l� ' It {l_r I. ,It
i l
Planning Commission Minutes 13 February 27, 1989
office . Franzen commented that he could not deny or
46 verify that misinformation had been given out by City
personnel in the past; however, he added that Chris Enger,
Current Director of the Planning Department, was very
particular about the accuracy of what residents were being
told.
Franzen stated that Staff recommended that the zoning
district be changed from multiple-family to single-family.
Franzen reviewed the Staff recommendations per the Staff
Report dated February 24, 1989.
Gray concurred with Franzen that the residents had voiced
legitimate concerns . Gray stated that this development
would not be considered a typical single-family
development and believed that the Planning Commission need
to consider the issues raised by the residents relating to
the impact on the existing neighborhood from this
construction project, the safety of the neighborhood
during the construction, drainage, soil conditions, and
the financial feasibility of the project based on the
magnitude of the corrections necessary to develop the
property.
Wood asked Gray if he would explain how the dirt would be
brought in and compacted to construction standards, when
• the fill would be placed below the watertable level. Gray
replied there were two procedures acceptable for this type
of excavation. Gray said that one procedure would be to
dewater the excavation site; however, he had not seen a
soil report to be able to determine if this process was
feasible . Gray stated that the other procedure was to use
a very granular soil which would consolidate sufficiently.
Gray added that specification for the fill needed to be
determined based on which procedure was to be followed;
non-dewatered or dewatered. Gray said there were very
technical procedures that needed to be followed for either
option. Gray believed that if the Planning Commission
needed more technical information, it would be appropriate
to request that the proponent provide additional technical
data.
Bye asked that the Planning Commission first address the
zoning issue.
Anderson believed that because the Developers Agreement
was past the two year limit that this property should not
be considered multiple-family. Anderson commented that
the Staff's Report and the proponents presentation were
made based on a Developers Agreement from 1981, which
stated that property was zoned multiple-family. Anderson
• believed this to be an unfair assumption. Anderson
believed that it was technically possible to build
anywhere; however, this did not mean it was appropriate.
t •� i -Y�'� --Ii� -'I�� 1 � r � —�, - �� !( "�` �i�_ Yr-,��� a �"tt f '� .. _
I � �' 'III f (�� � ��f� i �tJr i� � i}_ � � � � •
t _ •�Y � l� J .-.. Y s11.�L �� ���i1141(jr I %. _�i{ � a-.i� ,i �f_ ,rr, t I :.�; � fit �'-I (
l I won( j 1 {s_r l 0 (_�r i r o ti t_' _ 01
c _
t O i _.. ij �� r. 7_� l,i_I IF i t
j". �11 _ I_+_I a_•a�`�'� i'-�i � '.L!', ii� � � i")"_ T� is 1, _' l:i � f .
ii _i 1
ta
or FPO , it
1(_ h
K , , 1 "-•� - - fl f
YI I1',1` rtji_ 11' ►` r�J,1 l -prY ,V� YI K i .
iI n i �+ .
Manning Commission Minutes 14 February 27, 1,989
• Anderson did not believe the watertable level would go
unchanged by this proposed development. Gray replied that
Anderson Lakes Parkway had been constructed on this type
of soil and with similar procedures. Gray added that at
this time the City had not seen any negative effects on
the watertable . Anderson stated that he was also
concerned about the construction damage to the trees.
Ruebling asked Franzen to comment on the legal issues
involved related to the 10 year old zoning and what the
legal rights were of the developer related to the zoning.
Franzen replied that this item had not been reviewed by
the City Attorney; however, he believed the property's
legal status would be a multiple-family zoning, but not
for the 20 units . Franzen stated that the site plan would
be considered null and void and would require the plan to
go through the planning process again. Ruebling believed
the zoning request should be consistent with the adjacent
zoning.
Schuck stated that the lot lines do not line up with the
adjoining properties; however, the zoning appeared
consistent with adjacent zoning.
Hallett commented that the residents had given an
excellent presentation of the issues . Hallett stated that
developers did have a right to develop their property.
Hallett believed that because there were no variance
requests and the proposed plan met with all the zoning
restrictions, the City might not be able to stop the
development. Hallett suggested that the City obtain an
unbiased, outside report related to the feasibility of a
development being constructed on this property. Hallett
suggested the results of the outside study be presented to
the residents and the Planning Commission. Hallett said
that if an outside source determined that development of
this site was not possible the City might have a good
reason to deny the project.
Schuck concurred with Hallett . Schuck believed the density
of the project was too high, the soil correction were
significant, drainage and safety issues were major
concerns, and that the tree loss should be reduced.
Schuck commented that it was not the Planning Commission's
job to limit the profits of the developer and that all
residents of Eden Prairie were faced with property
developing around them.
Anderson stated that his major concern was the access
coming from Preserve Boulevard, which had sight distance
difficulties and which was directly opposite a heavily
• travelled bike path.
t j
' i � _ , � � Il.i ilit �II I.,'•4r�� r, I I• tl Y� }_I' r_ ':li � ) 1.}_ r_I �
Il,r •1i I � :i _i•_ r -_ _il„ - f' i j _ i �I I
Ir . II•i , i }'iirl _ -�II _ I1' i � I� ). � _ r ,_ .1, ._
i� l �i; I .. � I _r I �1i1 I� i lll_r � ±;'pit_ _ i �1 Iltl - I I r _ i_•)r'� +' J 'J I_L
1_• '11 i II I_ _i 1' :'�.-: I . .I� ! _ i (J a.`I'li i I},. , ...Iilltr.. '1 -
_i _ IY� 1 �I'� � I ar l r _ �ilr j_ �( II � .�t ,+I-•'1.1
I. _: li � 1 I � . �� i 1 J ..`I lip. . �( }_1� . 'Itlr_ 1•, li Irl .I. .r I
{ 1 }i �-f_l .�it i t �I I � j (;�r i- � I I �._ I I - �.-�l 1 , I`!'•.• ' I I r' r l.
�- } 111 I i-i r Ir i _ .�_� ( ._ i;,l ,1]_I � -• i 1 I_I _ _I�'_ '•I;}.� t�7 � � �� '.
}riat
t i I �l' I .'.I�( i-• i i I I � � I I, _ I' i I � 1 ,f
. 1' 11)i� 1 r �r }�, _ .' � lil 1 ir,l� i •)II ,r �(I 1 � -.
• .I l � �, I. , :1 I. . ,i, 1 _ ,' �,�li� � ,, I I }-x II_I j,, , � ,,;�
I•r,�.i II; I i } � � r 1 _ a II I r_.i ! il �!. ��r � i
I � I i ,_1� � � - 1 I r I )�•r I �I � � F � 1-r �51 � 1�I� � �t�
I � li i I � I�j•I 'ti 'i I -1 � TI `�I.' I I � 11 ( I I �, 1 � 1
r Y _
Planning Commission Minutes is February 27, 1989
Gray suggested that the following additional information
be obtained from the developer:
1. A cross section of the site to show the depth of
the excavation and its affect on adjacent
property.
2. A proposal for construction access to the site .
3 . How the material would be managed on the site?
4. An accurate estimate of excavation necessary and
the amount of fill to be brought into the site .
5. An economic analysis.
6. Answers to residents concerns.
Bye concurred with Gray's suggestions for the additional
information required from the developer . Bye also
concurred with Commissionmember Hallett that an
independent study may be appropriate . Bye stated that she
was reluctant to support the proposal in its current form.
Hallett asked Staff for comment on the feasibility of an
outside study. Gray replied that the developer should be
responsible to provide the answers to the questions
outlined above and then it would be the Staff's
responsibility to critic the developer 's responses . Gray
stated that more detailed data was required from the
developer.
• Hallett asked Gray if the developer could provide an
economic analysis . Gray replied that the developer should
have appropriate sources to provide cost estimates for the
project. Gray stated that the City could have an
independent analysis done to determine the validity of the
developer 's estimates.
Anderson believed that the unresolved issues were major
issues and could not be resolved within 30 days and;
therefore, would recommend to the City Council that the
project be denied, the property be rezoned to rural, and
that this property not be reviewed again until the City
had the wetland and hills policy in place.
Ruebling stated that his major concern was if the site was
technically buildable . Ruebling indicated ,he would like
to see more details regarding this issue. Ruebling
concurred .with residents and Staff that ways to save the
natural amenities of the property needed to be explored.
Ruebling believed that Staff needed a specific
construction proposal to react to regarding the safety
issues . He was concerned about the number of lots being
proposed and the overall density of the area. Ruebling
believed there were enough issues raised to warrant a
continuance to allow time to gather and review additional
• data.
• I ,:Irf i ir�� �t I .f ��lY, _ � I I � , . I�� I� � � � i
1
t' i .11 i � ,� c.' -�I},Y ,•tfil� t' t ,U`' I� l '. � 1 1.,11
I}
f'I
II - - � y' rl � � � , � •!ii �11 II �,L. 'I `! ,ek � I . .- I_ -� 1 ". i. •�
1
. I it_lir}IA _ _ I-I• � � - .'I ,�i_' Ir �f i �� ! � 'r I -� 1.1 ;3 . r, _ ', n
t'e�IJ' 11 �NI i I_i t i
' � _ �� ;1' •�., I - �I} I -;}' ;li r � I f i -i � i !_14 ' - n� � 1' .
! r
.eii.f _r r-j, i � f Yj'Ifr 'r .[-i � 1-, , •ll N"l� ��e I I I -I i i t� '
x
I i_f 9.. � 1-t_,__I 1- � I r, __ _j I i I.. j I J�, ��t �I 1 i � i I _ _ Ly •1 � `
{ � _ � � 11II I' — If_•r - ! A' � _ i -i�-��� � fl �,� i,'ii
-
Jft
'it t. f rfl.i,e,i
I;'
f, I �_It� '_� i l;l l)' II ` I f: '_�1, „_� 11� � i � i ° � I. � ,t 1 1j_•JI
,. I 'I. 1�'I"fills r _' s ,. i ,i_t' . ti IC .�I' � 1'I�� i i—r., le•
i Ie•'ti ' I111 11, !- I,it', .. �jf i ,I � I • , j - 1 '. _ � il� _ l,. _r
Planning Commission Minutes 16 February 27, 1989
• Bye stated that she was uncomfortable with denying the
project.
Hallett stated that he favored continuing the proposal to
allow time to gather additional information.
Ruebling asked Franzen how long it would take to gather
adequate data . Franzen replied that it would be unlikely
the information being requested could be provided within
30 days . Franzen believed several actions were possible,
including to ask the proponent if they believed this was
the best plan for the property, given the issues presented
tonight if the proponent would prefer to revise the plan,
provide convincing arguments to the Planning Commission to
justify the current plan, or if the proponent would prefer
to go on to the City Council without further review by the
Planning Commission.
Lori Johnson, representing the proponent, stated that the
developer had indicated that timing was vital and they
wished to proceed as soon as possible. Johnson stated
that the proponent was prepared to make the necessary
adjustments to the plan as outlined by the Staff Report
recommendations prior to the review by the City Council .
Johnson stated that a report had been prepared by the
proponent regarding the soil corrections .
• MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Schuck to close the Public
Hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION•
Schuck moved, seconded by Anderson to return the proposal
to the proponent with specific questions from the Planning
Commission which needed to be addressed by the proponent
and reviewed by Staff before the plan could be returned to
the Planning Commission for review.
THE SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED:
ANDERSON
1. Re-examine the access point from Preserve
Boulevard and the potential loss of lives
presented by the proximity of the access point to
the bike path.
2. Preservation of the site 's natural features. Tree
and vegetation loss needed to be minimized.
SCHUCK
• 1. Reduction in the intensity of the project. Four
lots should be the maximum allowed.
2. Protection of the buffer zone.
1,11' ) 01r •) _t- � , I' 4 iJ ! . .-II
' I '
Ift;l
hop
'1 I 1 - n 1't,i 1 _I' .I-, + ,, ,,I
II',
, i1, -, T,� _ �, I jt'I - r� { - i •.I t_� I� (1 -' 1 � r, _ ,_� nj �j��
il:_ I - •jrli i j �T _I 1 14 MOO OO 1! t1 ,� _ •�j1 T i �111_• i_�'-, _
1tOlaulnor1'_ „ III.vt j - 19 _ .0 Iwy b 0011111
;m Mum zlf,-- tt,,y" yq A_i t -rr, �11, irk I11_'] ,Ii�t "al
.( _I �
i 1111'_ 1 •t-', P" 1 I-. I,E rtJMT , I.11-1 tl:r - 1-r
- � I a "I 1r - _ ,� ,r� - 1 11r r,. _ � - I, (-; 11, • i,_ T „
_ 'r_T!"t = 11 I .1:;1.u,. _ � '_ ,� CAI -- 1TT �Ir•-!'- s1I f � ,; )
03 in 1 ; oat
ct1 t I,�'�17 r�1 I'1gT 11:<oT_i I},-17_ 6 bli+ I,_ — ,,.Ij .I
It � r-111 ( '-)i3.� ,'J'�-1�!1`.� 1r__( .��}ilf���''i I t1'""i'1I,1 )' .- t11�, .. 1i •trr. - 1i i1
I
I r p�ti �l-i[TJ'T. r_c_ '71' l'J!_tt'.I II }> li�ell,i"`� � !'1;��,:1 „ t,
_)r�,t i1-.II •�1I 'LII I' � .�''t + -1� i,"I K_rM I" Kv I
1 ia_.-i;_
of ) •l •,I i
T I;) ITT I,1,
0 Q_i
' .I I I •. I I I ' t 4 b I
r 1 (rI •:1 -.:fI ,_i 1 'r1 _ - II _ k r 1 ! _It- '',t-i' I•iT
Planning Commission Minutes 17 February 27, 1989
3. Re-examine the feasibility of access from Anderson
Lakes Parkway.
4. Address soil corrections.
5. Address the affect of the proposal on drainage.
6. Address the safety issues.
HALLETT
1. Revise the plan to promote tree preservation to
provide a visual and sound barrier for existing
homes.
2. Proponent add trees to the development, especially
evergreens to promote year-round screening.
3. Proponent be co-operative in working with existing
neighborhood.
4. Proponent provide technical data regarding the
excavation and fill procedures to be used.
5. Proponent provide accurate information regarding
the depth of the pond.
6. Staff address who and how the quality of the fill
will be monitored.
7. Proponent clarify if soil samples will be taken
after the fill is brought in.
8. Staff substantiate the comments related to Rotland
Homes water problems and if the same potential
exists for this development.
9 . Address the building pad sizes .
• IO.Staff address the City's legal position.
ll.Staff present background information on the hills
and wetlands policy.
12.Address safety concerns related to construction
traffic.
RUESLING
1. Provide information to verify that the development
Is feasible.
2. Provide specific grading plan. (Will the entire
site be graded or just the area for the street and
the building pads?)
3 . Provide data to determine if the project is
economically feasible.
4 . Provide specific plan to save or replace the
trees.
5. Proponent to provide information to assure the
safety of the existing neighborhood. Staff to
obtain information from the police department
related to safety and construction traffic.
6. Provide a construction plan to include a projected
timeframe and a construction traffic proposal .
•
r
r r i t I i - .e f i f 1 t,�,r'�, r� 1 l i i 1 •( J J I � I ' I � I
ij
i l l i_i
! 1 r U,1 !_i_,R, j ' r i rid � ,.) l;,i 1 •
i ' yyr!
I 1 1 I I ! i rr{
• ' _i t- _ I rti -i III r I � r{ r _ � i I l "i �51i r1. � I.�i _
ii.� l ' .� ,1_� j_• 1 Trir, :I i l+, i ��if ii,!..
1 if 1-,i!I,. .I
.1t��5`,
1 1 ti i 1 Z;•i f ti f f!
•
Planning Commission Minutes 18 February 27, 1989
BYE
1. The City's record to include the neighborhoods
material presented to the Planning Commission
tonight.
2 . A neighborhood meeting planned.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION•
Anderson moved, seconded by Schuck to recommend to the
City Council that the property be rezoned to Rural based
on the Developers Agreement of 1951.
Schuck asked where this motion would leave the City's
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Ruebling stated that the Comprehensive Guide Plan did not
deal with zoning, only with land uses . Ruebling believed
that the zoning done several years ago was not necessarily
appropriate today. Ruebling questioned if this was the
appropriate time to request the property to be rezoned and
if the process should be initiated by the Planning
Commission or the neighborhood. Ruebling stated that the
public hearing tonight was to consider rezoning the
property from RM-6. 5 to R1-13. 5 and questioned if another
public hearing before the Planning Commission would be
necessary to consider the zoning change to Rural or should
the process bypass the Planning Commission and go direct
to the City Council . Franzen replied that another public
hearing would be necessary for the City Council to be able
to take action. Franzen stated that to his knowledge this
had not been done in Eden Prairie before and that there
were no guidelines established as to who could and/or
should initiate the process. Franzen stated that there
were many unanswered questions related to properties which
had been zoned for many years and never developed.
Hallett believed that the Planning Commission should
receive input from the City Attorney before taking this
action. Hallett was concerned about possible legal
ramifications to the City.
Bye believed that both of Commission member Anderson's
recommendations had value; however, they were not issues
to be considered hastily and believed the Planning
Commission needed more information.
Ruebling was concerned because the due process to change
the zoning to Rural had not taken place.
Anderson withdrew the motion. Schuck was acceptable to
the withdrawal .
t
I-1'J R
I-+ �I _ j,_+ - fro
ILI 1 11 �
cI q
to fit.-t i 1 n
_ 11 +m" o.',," to l., _ 1 .1 IV _,ti++ +_ + t "0 -` oil -i 11-
_1 , 00 V i, �� +_ 09i�ll tYP i . l 1 l -, i iqo ." !
Y-Iq - { j.
,1 11 . E 1 Illy
+ :1�11I. . _ - l`+tt, 117-' + 0 _`1 . )!'jIt+ I f+, y r ,I+ -+
r I - I t a 1 �� . 1 �1 _' S 3 y I 1_i+1 1_.-1
i�Lk1A j ,il t -1 -.�I � I-A-+igo
1 'tl;
t
Pop - n_+I
, I � � � ; 1��11 -1; �,1_I II�, 1 � t , ,l , ,,�I�J 1_.�t_, `1Ii,•1(� `�I+ ,, � �.
t-
I,1 I � I!", _ Y i f r l 1 "i,l,� l � 1 � '•'�l i
14- 1"'
tit +1 e'_ I_ � _ I i f U D V i , _ i{ h o-o r If 'I .,( }+
"- t. , n n1of J IM t
_dJ yy I I l,`1'�+ i,_ " , +1 1 -I -I _ t P l l
• � ..j 1. 11� II._ �i� _I � it 1-Y1_.�1 � , , 4 � .t 1+{�� I' �i{
' ..11�IA_1 1 •, 1
Planning Commission Minutes 19 February 27y 1989
• MOTION`
Anderson moved, seconded by Schuck that the proposal not
be reviewed by the Planning Commission again until the
City's Hills and Wetland Policy was established.
Anderson believed that at the very least, Staff should
advise the Planning Commission if this parcel would be a
property affected by the Hills and Wetland Policy.
Hallett was concerned about delaying this project based on
a proposed policy, which had no definite timeline for
approval .
Anderson believed that asking this developer to wait for
the Hills and Wetland Policy was no different than asking
numerous developers to wait for the Southwest Area Study
to be completed.
Ruebling concurred with Hallett. Ruebling believed this
to be a completely different situation from the Southwest
Area. Ruebling stated that the southwest area had a
massive area involved and dealt with several major
development issues. Ruebling believed that the Planning
Commission was taking sufficient action by requesting the
additional information and making a judgement based on
that additional information. Ruebling believed these were
two separate issues and that each should be allowed to
follow its own process.
Motion denied 1-4-0. Anderson voting "AYE" .
Hallett asked Franzen when the policy would be completed.
Franzen replied that Staff was not operating under any
timeline . Franzen said that the information had been
gathered; however, a first draft had not yet been written.
Hallett encouraged Staff to complete the policy as soon as
possible.
D. BLUFFS WEST 7TH ADDITION, by Hustad Development. Request
for Zoning District Change from R1-13. 5 and R1-22 to Rl-
13 .5 on 4 .66 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 26. 3 acres in
to 11 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-
way. Location: North of Bluestem Lane, north of Bluestem
Hills 5th Addition. A public hearing.
Wallace Hustad, proponent, stated that this proposal was
for an 11 lot subdivision along the extension of Bluestem
Lane. Hustad noted that the extension of Bluestem Lane
had received City Council approval through the Brown Land
Company's Bluffs proposal. Hustad said the road was
currently under construction and should be completed in
June, 1989. He stated that the entire 26. 3 acre project
would be completed in three phases and that the current
.I' 1`�•. I i_' i J n(I I +l'I ! I ' .III 1 ,j i 1,� I t_ 1 -s',_
t
14 ' I _ _ -1 l r, r lC� � I It ,It r �, j tl � � •It � i I i � { � I.!^{
• � � i I t_�, � t � , III I .r,�t ..l11 t ,� 1 .I � fr_1�3-ti il� � � 4 lily,_ `1�,���1;�
1 ,1 =1it
{'rl l itli• ' ' I .i T f:-,t%_f }"; T t .� � � A f r-, �YI'�{ >I"� . I il,t'1.lil,-. I ', t
'!� f ( .l i_ I _ .� ir�. y 's,r� .1�R }-, '•jl _' I `tl l' I �T,-. 111 � .i - �� ,:I .! jj,. T _� .i' l�l
IAt_ai'7 { 1 _ I� r I ,tf •I�] fIt_ i ;I s 1 � ' Ir '{ 1
_ r I M.e I. ' i � 1 1 1 I �I � I'' I t Y 1 { _.L,. i I:_ I.1- I' I i _I t �r;I s _I �,,I I •
±trtrl , _:I,1 i. � �II I � i•I t Ir I �<, tG. Ip _ i ,
rl � tl: it _�s� I;, I'� I•r,�•I-I: I) I - I I 1[;4f1 r 1 I
I �t i I I „t•_ � Ijt,r I I �j _rji I II'.({ II'r _ - _�, -i i _ I
I�I., 'I�rl_.r� � {-Il I i _ . �i t r I _ �' �a_�'i I 3t I V _ I. _ 'I• ,
11'. .•l� li Ili: i I',"I ifl) �I � ' ' I 't � ii _ it 'I-11„�� it
I f{Ytrt. .. � r_._� li_� 1 1 {I•; It _. � 1 } �� _, _ �.' 11J:IIt _r i } ! �_ �i
It � _ �I �Ilrt�r i �•�.. r� � . r IJ rl �'. trl 1 tll � 'e' _��' .{1,1 '
1
1 k
t "I i •_I 1 '( �, tit �r�i _ ,_ Illy � Illy I � � It, i � I 1 I� � err l
11. ! 1 . i,r { '�; 1 • I � ,� .._ � -tr,a'('i III-. �� jlr� _ l _ I
' i,l I, � Ii � r f •III � _ !� _ � � I_' ! ;I _ � "1, I' -
i
Planning Commission Minutes 20 February 2:7, 1989
request was only to plat the 11 lots adjacent to Bluestem
Lane. Hustad stated that the average lot size would
18,300 square feet, considerably larger than the 13,500
square feet required. He added that the density of the
project would be approximately 2 .2 units per acre.
Hustad stated that it would be difficult to provide the
78-foot building pads per the Staff recommendation on all
of the lots. Hustad noted that the 3 lots at the neck of
the cul-de-sac could not accommodate the 78-foot building
pads, a 60-foot building pad would be the maximum size
feasible . Hustad added that larger homes would not be
feasible on these 3 lots due to setback restriction.
Hustad said that he did not intend to grade the building
pads fully and would prefer that the builder adjust the
home size to the lot. Hustad assured the Planning
Commission that if any additional trees were lost due to
the increase in building pad size, Hustad Development
would replace them.
Hustad stated that utilities were already available.
Hustad said that the calculation for the tree replacement
was acceptable; however, he asked for the City's direction
as to where all these trees were to be placed.
Hustad asked Staff to consider the possibility to plat out
the total roadway for Purgatory Road and to designate the
right-of-way at this time, but asked that the entire road
not be required to be constructed at this time .
Hustad asked for clarification regarding the sidewalk
plan. Hustad asked how far the sidewalk would extend
north along Purgatory Road and if there was an existing
sidewalk along Bluestem Lane.
Franzen reported that the project was consistent with the
Comprehensive Guide Plan and the surrounding zoning.
Franzen stated that Staff was comfortable with the 60-foot
building pads; however, it had been Staff 's experience
that homes of this value usually produced larger homes
and; therefore, the Staff wanted to determine at this time
if there would be any impact to the trees if the larger
building pads were required. Franzen noted that the
larger building pads would only impact an additional 4
trees . Franzen stated that it was vital to have the road
right-of-way designated for Purgatory Road and that the
stub between the houses actually be constructed at this
time. Franzen stated that the 29% tree loss had been
calculated over the entire 26. 3 acres . Franzen said that
it would be impossible to replace the total number of
trees on the 11 lots. Franzen added that a reasonable
amount should be placed on the 11 lots and described
several possible alternatives defined in the Tree
Replacement Policy for location of the remaining trees .
I I I I � � I I I _,I� .r' •i��j 1 ,C �� I t � .__ I_ I ._ r_T i i _ ,-I . ,I
I II,' ri t,r I � _.i _ I '.�E• 111 �xl+, � d �_ , . II _ +JfI t. l
"1_j i I k P't�I I I 1 f i f l i b '-t l,,_I Y ,I Y t, r - I -T �i •
Ir i t f� I +,�t i;l I i Y fit', i, f I �'v .rr� _ l ,_• _ - 1, � "..-1 c I' _ � -,iI.
l l 00l _t*_ I_I I I Si{i lt� I _ i I f; I•-{ I .I ' I Y a i kI I n
J•' i L '-11'J Ji_II_I t, r'4nll J L, rt+Jd +='_irl }
I, Ilr_+, q E+rf 1., ! if"! F 0,
;,. �te1' "+}_" .l di i-1�'_'h I. _ i r m W ` °- -
�tl I I 'fil JOC Q I _t }I11"IH _ '111 U1I_I K 1•_.li J U !-. 1r 1 _I'li
1 i'_ -bl f.l_f.j Al i .19_ i _J�1,.1 Tll,.�r I i11� � # rl l j•:
J. I "11r r It_I � If _ -. I . Irk-I tr,• t Iti t � . .: � -. ��• Y
_ jl� .,r I•r � � T I f= ill I_I r_,� I IrT Yli�� ifi - - � III I ,jam
ri_F +I. rt _ ) i•_t _.11 1 fu li_'f �1]s � i,,.i._,11:
. I I_ _ III rr-t - � -k.i.. I I J I_ } �. _ :+ �I. '_� - •
I I -i , Il-• ' ) i � �1 ._, _ „ .'l..! -.kpon __ n" bill" -' .a t
Irl - - Kan Ma" ti }.e llt" 7}_,.Tfl, 't If fI I r
`I . l I t.i i_i _ " IOU I
Irl 7 tip I it + r'_Ilj I lt - 1
( _ � .��+� + 1 i.i �„I 1_r � t;f,r .'I I, I t � � i i I , I_ I,I� 1,_ l �,fifi• I, ,Ili
Li .+.'+A l
r(i
c+tl t
' ll-'il i_ ,'till I ItIY I_,'1 I -i1 -1, I I _rx I i �7i1 tII I;.fr
•J _
v j f LAI I I I I 1
{ Iwo � I I I I I' ,I 1 .I I,. '
,. It' Irtf Ir ' in_I 1_Ir_.7' #Illl_11(_ 1 "'� l Lf
_I :j •i,, , ;I 1 j' 7r r. i ..It_I f _� 11• . . 't
j ' 1"61 hnn in ,- I _IJ .,ir ji,,1 '_ti,
.t I ] !- j Iv ivy,
_II-I gill I 1=.bra i �1Y� I r70 I i L' MTtI rl low ,,
' I I a�. 11" - f k. I -.1{_f + .t.I i I l 11 - ._ �1 I,�I�r•t ,_i I-r I ! I (�{ I I 1� _
irj ',I� j I y ! 1 it i1 f '-f � „� , - �( I I •_ _
' � I II ', , III I , ..'I I -. I � _ 1 •'� Ill ( f- -' i'1
Planning Commission Minutes :21 February 27, 1989
Franzen concluded by stating that Staff recommended
approval of the project per the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated February 24, 1989 .
Bye asked Franzen for clarification on the sidewalks.
Franzen replied that the exact location and details for
the sidewalks would be addressed at the Parks, Recreation,
& Natural Resources Commission meeting.
Hallett asked what had happened to all the trees on this
property. Hustad replied the trees had been lost during
road construction.
Hallett stated that he supported the recommendation to
have Purgatory Road constructed between the houses and the
remaining roadway designated.
Ruebling believed the placement of the roadway system was
critical and asked how firm the commitment was to proceed
as the plan depicted. Franzen replied that Purgatory Road
would have to match a touch down point of the Purgatory
Road to the north. Franzen added that he did not
anticipate the location of the roads to vary significantly
because the lot patterns were based on the road alignment.
Franzen stated that Staff wanted to make sure the
preplanning of the roadway system occurred now to assure
that the balance of the property to the north would not be
precluded from developing in an orderly way. .
Susan Boutin, 11407 Creekridge Drive, stated that she did
not want sidewalks extended on the east side of Purgatory
Creek . Boutin stated that she had asked the City Council
in 1985 and again in 1986 if sidewalks would be installed.
Boutin stated that it was after being assured by the City
Council both times, that she installed $2,000 worth of
landscaping, which would be severely impacted if sidewalks
were constructed now.
Bye stated that Boutin's comments would be forwarded to
the Parks, Recreation, & Natural Resources Commission.
Bill Deutsch, 11905 Runnell Circle, asked for
clarification on what portion of the area on the map
mailed out to the residents was involved with this
proposal. Franzen replied that only 11 lots were being
considered at this time and that the proponent would come
back at a later date to rezone the remaining acreage .
Deutsch asked if he would be notified when the balance of
the plan returned to the Planning Commission. Bye replied
that he would be notified if his property was within 500
feet of the project.
�,�I;,I _'« .:',�.� �' ; -;;: f,-, ! ,I i lli '1 I - Ali _. •1 tI �� .
� -
� � f.[w it it � Ili, i{ �r! Ir, ,�r I
r�_ �1 +It4 _�tl� -'���- :f .i � lj•T7 tlt.�'f�1. '_tt1 3�_! ii_ � } A
1 v'{ -do !lam}''' 1 bylaw I t ,ti J_rt 4 1t
0 -.'r}•.;,t jl . ' WWI _•t' _
11 0i fD 1 }tll__j 1I 1 . A _ W ' 1
;"j i_I {l+:.9! ;}
01 1"",
1 16 61.e0A 00 J_r'_ _', d
Al _I:i11 1 SAWul {, AI1' S } i k— b I 5 0
41,E r_, ;rill j s rl.r. —I" 1 J,_`,v ' d•I'1yI.' _. t ri,,
101 A i ', AD D u in t l 1_I 40 I"r j 1� I L 1 1
f _,• i, y ri i"t z�, �t i ��f. i �1:1 i � ' I_1 a 1 j�r I t l _ �
t 1 •,11�1�, .r.i i _11.� � t_. 1!•_1V � ,i�"i � I . i' i Sr-,}_! � .
wj ,
r
i I - � � 1 �• rt it N rl'-i� ' I � { I i1' r I I. 1..1 1 t�� :!_III
4� i i i•� , � i r' #, ! 1}� 1, ,t1 . 11. . ,it,",'; 11 1 � J' .'
On-- I'll:_
101
lj I r i ! ' 1 ! r".I t i i it '1 i l l , I:-i y 1 '_r 1 i. _U1
1 r J , i l i,-1. }t I
' II I .r:, _tl _'II _ 1 t is
1. ; i fr, ,I' } ;
Wr_._r di 0 I i, 1 I 4 � 0 '
1' I� I re 1,4f 'i 1 it 1 ir'!I
', 41 .r� 1•' I
Planning Commission Minutes :22 February 2:7, 1989
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Schuck to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION•
Anderson moved, seconded by Schuck to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development
for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 and
Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13 . 5 District on
4. 66 acres for single family residential development to be
know as Bluffs West 7th Addition, based on plan dated
February 23, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated February 24, 1989 . Motion carried 5-0-
0.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Schuck to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development
for Preliminary Plat of 26. 3 acres into 11 single family
lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way, to be known as
Bluffs West 7th Addition, based on plans dated February
23, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated February 24, 1989 . Motion carried 5-0-0.
• E. PRESERVE SOUTH, by BRW, Inc. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres, a
Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately
18 acres with waivers, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
from Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space to Regional
Commercial on 9 .07 acres, Zoning District Change from
Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 9 .07 acres, and Preliminary Plat of
13 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 25,248 square
foot theater complex. Location: East of Highway #169,
south of Medcom Boulevard. A public hearing.
Miles Lindberg, BRW, Incorporated, representing the
proponent, stated that the proposed site was approximately
13 acres located south of Medcom Boulevard. The existing
land uses adjacent to the property varied from various
commercial uses to the north, to residential on the east,
west, and southeast, and an outlot to the south. The
proponent was requesting a Guide Plan Change to Regional
Commercial but was making special efforts to preserve the
natural environment and the open spaces areas on the site
as originally intended on the Guide Plan. .
Lindberg stated that the proposal was to construct a
25,248 square foot 8-screen movie theater on the eastern
• lot of the property. He added that at this time the
western lot would be utilized for proof-of-parking. The
theaters would have a total seating capacity of 1520 which
i. ri 1•i# _� r,�[, � rrl #�� ec ft j ��+171d' + i� .ti iJi
y - a
lr- OJ "„! ,i rr — itl j+iFlrA ..
I i
- �1 1 i � �r { . �'r 1}�.Tfj,�_1_11 } rr_� j _I�,�,f�{. ;"`�l' 1 `t.,li'ilY•r'rf
- k
_il' ( { ,
il' I 1 '- -
,
On
r _K
I _ II.Ir -j Ali
-!Li of
it I if 1 lil „iq" — _tf j i rli j i
ll � Ir 110
' �l � i�.i � i r i � I 1 it ll ,- •-r-� +� 1 �� �'r I +: i 1 �11 '
I lirltT l,j
> 1 -
it s, 1 ur h-5 10 Munn
il�11� 1 „ ('. � � E Ir , J I „ l- ,(�+' li ,11. � + ��1' .!!.I ♦-J 111' I
refit
.'iil t ref
—"1 0 Iltr
i iK i '_ I v i i )j t.til { Ica t11+I F i �l;Ji
14 I,!,
47,
i'
Planning Commission Minutes 23 February 27, 1989
. required a total of 350 parking spaces . Lindberg said
that Lariat Companies would retain ownership of the
building and would lease the space to Cinemart Corporation
of Dallas. The Lariat Companies would be responsible for
the grounds and building maintenance . Hours of operation
would be from 5 PM to 9 PM during the week and from 11 AM
to 9 :30 PM on weekends . It is expected that when the last
show of the evening started, the outside marquee lights
would go out and that everyone was expected to be off-site
by midnight.
Estimated trip generation for the theater was 192. He
added that 277 trips were allocated to the area. The peak
hours would be between 7 PM and 9 PM. Lindberg noted that
the previous designated land uses would have a
significantly higher PM peak hour generation.
The storm pond would be filled in on the eastern side and
excavated on the western side to provide adequate storm-
water storage. Conservation easements would be provided
to assure that the outer perimeters of the property were
not developed. He said the building layout on the
property had been changed based on the concerns voiced by
the neighbors and the Staff 's recommendations . Lindberg
said the exterior of the building would be primarily
brick . He added the building height would be
• approximately 40 feet and that a 10-foot berm would be
constructed along the southern border to provide
additional screening.
Lindberg stated that utilities would be extended from
Medcom Boulevard. Lindberg asked Staff who would be
responsible to pay for the extension of the sanitary
sewer. Gray replied that to be consistent with other
developments, the developer would be responsible to pay
for the extension.
Lighting would be provided in the parking lot as per the
Staff 's recommendations with a 20-foot maximum height and
noted that lighting affect would be equivalent to
residential street lighting.
Lindberg concluded by stating that the landscaping would
be provided as per Staff's recommendations with an
emphasis on screening the southern area.
John O'Neil, 3501 14th Avenue South, stated that he owned
property adjacent to the proposed site and wanted to know
how access would be provided to his property. O'Neil said
that he did not object to the project.
• Marc Syverson, 11912 Joy Circle, stated that he was
concerned that he lived within sight distance of this
project and had not heard from the developer or City Staff
1„ t� � [��- --ill t�� i � _ ion 00 _ 1 1 lot
�," I '11. � ,�I ( 'r" � 1 ; •�i_ ,11 } it i "3 '� 11 I �t11_,• 11'. I „ ii, l
l ,_ -.'il_tUH e •.rt �"J I_„ T[, 1
it mujihw :a P
:li 1 fl` �t?=. - )ems i, 1 1'a : -i.�...�{I 1 I ; r �l � � •�I� �.� r�,1 i
III r l C t'i too 114 ad
6 t_,1-tJOv " no Y I K ; I nip I - A - ac : . n
olt?.sun p i,_frd Aw ,q lit 16 11 il. it
1;1 .i_.i _ r�-i - ,-iQ I di "" "I 9„v :i ouq C ", -
11 , .,_l. ..lpjb, 't-'" - = q Oj It t+� _ i, 1 on btiK
illffo%: -1TI:ljn- .j i.fif -I _ 1._
' L +(� _ � 'i '_i�,�J_y�_� -i 1 1 "7 �(i k } '�}Y� �� �1 1 �i'I /�1 1 i •}'1 i �: I I t , , i I`, 1 i
W "o W%of },11M110" M kin, Al I_rufl } 'I�, _.it i t11
1 i Ct ,kJ :ill W h1.1ow 00 alf 001 0 1 s it, 1 W
fst (tm „1 �
aSl1_ i �.1, � �.rl�lt 111r1 l MIT n '1
own " 11( C v um v t 1 .-• Ii_v iiT_tt�k' J '-fV'a_1 111 7 ; a l u,]'I , - ,
it x-1 II S 11 t:l�, ;)`I 1 C" N "�1 e i o" 1 ' H
,I,�' �? 1_ '_•I_�il- -1 1 ••i , K i l 1 1 1 If.lj=1 1- , i }.. t 04.
��� i. ltt,, ,,1 � � 0_.7'- . '.1 � _ �_ �' 't-_.tff7ll , 1 ,, � •7 � �; ;_( , Il �,i,
it J
11 it , jar lii I_ ,",,'_)
i {_�li _1IC11 _ ,_l 1 (, S.s,I,1• , _r�rr� { � i il_� _rill:! ,.�W_sW,. 0
,� i �{ ' ,ir, i_ � Ia ., '.,' � „ r i1_Ij-, � •�,- ,�; �,i i �,r• � _'ti I � 1 1
1 ,1,;- It, , II Oval ;W1 on , il`. t �i i ! '. li -� I Awl
1 li ,'
jxif 1 islj� � , �,, � I-I -I .,1 �rt•_,r-, , -.
s�
:ono it.,1,T1•_,,,m1)59
,, , �_, i1 oli.lrt,�. 1i I • ,�i t �,_, t t it ,.�1�`l' i
A jok J1J,'" l
i , ` - .1gt_II,1 = il-i in
_ t 1 1 o III . .1 1 1 I_,? P _,f_t i ,• ,l I` '_'"f 1"t 1 ! 0 ,
,
Ilip ' Yq „alb , do
1
,-}t){,"I l t .0d i • 01 ,1 : i i 1 1 t}_,ii j
^ayI � . it Id, Wo r l�i .l
1 '1� 1 1,� 1_r{�I Q ) f
Planning Commission Minutes 24 February 27, 1989
• regarding the development of this site . Syverson said
that there were problems with water and soil conditions in
the area. Syverson believed this property should be
classified as a swamp and was concerned about the loss of
trees and the wildlife which lived in the proposed
development area. Syverson did not believe this property
should be zoned Regional-Commercial due to the close
proximity of residential homes and the affect of the noise
and lighting from a Regional-Commercial development.
Syverson was concerned about the isolation of the parking
lot and the potential for it to become a hangout. He also
questioned if the project was economically feasible,
related to the need for another theater in Eden Prairie,
and suggested an economic study be done. Syverson
believed that accessibility would be poor from Highway 169
and Prairie Center Drive.
Syverson suggested that more neighborhood input be allowed
prior to the design process and the presentation of Staff
recommendations . Syverson believed that all the issues
were resolved and the outcome determined by Staff before
the public hearing took place. Bye replied that notices
were mailed out according to the State statues of 350 feet
and added that many times there were modifications made to
plans at the Planning Commission level . Uram stated that
Staff had mailed notices to residents within 1000 feet of
. the proposed site in order to notify more residents.
Ruebling stated that the Planning Commission depended on
Staff to make recommendations; however, no recommendation
was final or legally binding until the City Council
approved it. Bye added that the Planning Commission
merely advised the City Council on it's opinion based on
the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan and zoning
regulations . Schuck added that many of the Commission
members had a technical background to evaluate the plans.
Syverson was concerned that the Planning Commission was
hesitant to deny a project because of possible legal
action. Bye replied that the Planning Commission wanted
to assure each developer that due process was given.
Mark Pfister, 11929 Joy Circle, stated that the residents
on Joy Circle had not been notified by the developer of a
neighborhood meeting and in fact only had heard about this
public hearing from other residents. Pfister was mainly
concerned about the potential for water level problems .
Pfister was concerned about the impact to the land from
the loss of trees, the altering of the existing drainage
pond and the construction of a large building with a
massive parking area. Pfister believed that because of
the increased development of the Eden Lake area there was
less ground surface area for the water ,to seep into.
Pfister added that the area was already sensitive to
rainfall and added that a 3 to 4 inch rainfall had a
drastic affect. Pfister was concerned about this
Il I�Ifr _,>»i�, • t 1 _ � 'I -i :_ IrI�,Ili�t ' '.�` � � �i � I. - � i
- - f- -
,�� ., , i ,� 1 �, Jf� �i• "ill - I � �'i f-,r}i_'
I�t ,lk'��-� 1 _ 1-• _ L ' .'1„ ��, I_ � - r `! T ' ;_i F'�e� -i r i r.J �_ '-•1)
�I� I I�� �I -i,1 i I �� rf�_� i 7r. I I'f. i l r � - ���, z• I.. , � '
1 •. ( _i1;' i� '�i ••,� ' i I'=, � 1 ,. 1 - �t _ ii„ [j �i i;>!1__ f I
,Old , an t 1 F,> Llr�rf li ' '" i i
f
- 00 1 1 . _ - Ovu Ir�1�
sa_,o,
1 11 '_d i'-1 i,t, , _ I
,di I-. . m i Ot1 A• �� i i I, _ 'I i., ,
J A I" l i.CT1.
I`I ,m _ 1_i ',t W in— I -I t � '1i � j ��l'r� -j! t
_ , I,_ I � t _ ,{ F 01 h low
1 I ,_ _ t _� 0 . : i WIN, inI d Iw i i Y OM W
to"! ! . L1u'_, I ""i :_. f I,l1OD i- n i r{il;•y.' .1t .ir .,Il I !
9 i'tl�tI Iti .l_ti '. JO '01 - "I '.Ior 1"" V— I rFm Lvil .I '_
_ yql i it' q _ o ju & I , f4 11 , 1 ' 1
Awl f�. _ I'tY ; )Ili!_ I Al
`r-t rlri on I, l hu lnil, I, ,
k i,o"" •w6„! MIJIM In I t_�f`I 1 f ,_,' ,
r� , I1n1_rt i aif 1"ti1t._! I �ti'i i ,Ii� I III � 1
V" fiop"Q "ii oil ,tbi , ' •-+1 nr
'Jot
Pll'rl:• ll t .'tlifil I �- 11 li -lit � I
., I I •, �,•) �-„ti ,iiir I � ,� 1 i_tl.r I. ,Is _ �l,�� , „� ,.
t- ! 10
r , Il,i, 1!r• I . i � � � '3 =r1J1(i �'.I ii�i _i _ ; I-,l , ', r1 � i i• I
I1 _ � i' ,. - .. -�`._lt? .ir� -rf��' �•,ij_i � -,," , I �. fI' i�' � , I�. ,_ ,,-i
1 � !'i ' rr •
� I .1tir " I,t -'no i1 d ^ ) i•_ .
I r ii I i1— ,j o tit Y, .. rl i .i "it it l
fi
i,l. . � i i_'11,- ! =rll i t-�'! �i•' :{I C 061 iti 04C K z "l11w;
is uj1 ! 1- 41 -. ndI ,, .- _i
1. r-i 11 tJ pnIi1t od opjo !- ,-I,at iJl,
iq . i_,-
IVA it •..-trek1 10I i+_1 Ir1 _tt�,i(_ i
1 I I_4• - - ' -i i '1 I i� A I 'i!! i i-.' 1 i.-i t: i- : . _
I A-It'. i f- ' 1 t I i'F::ft1'i. Ir1;. 1 iltl
o1If_i -!,I,),I� i_I Al I ' ''I ' 4 1
Planning Commission Minutes 25 February 27, 1989
is development's affect on the noise barrier from Highway
169 . Pfister was concerned about the impact on the
waterfowl in the area. Pfister asked if the developer
could provide berming on the eastern and southeastern
boundaries.
Tom Walters, 12490 Porcupine Court, stated that he was
asking the Planning Commission to reject the total concept
plan for this development until the developer could find
an appropriate use for the area. Walters asked that the
Planning Commission deny the request for rezoning and the
request for a Comprehensive Guide Plan change.
On August 11, 1988 the residents of the area had submitted
a petition to the City against this proposal . Walters
said that on January 11, 1989 a neighborhood meeting was
held to present the proposal to the residents . Walters
added that the residents opposed the proposal on January
11, 1989 and remained opposed to a Regional-Commercial
zoning. Walters stated that the residents wanted the area
to remain zoned for limited neighborhood-commercial
development.
Walters presented the following concerns:
1 . Decrease in the natural aesthetics.
2. Existing residential property value would be
decreased.
3. Increase in vandalism and theft.
4 . Major increase of pedestrian traffic through
residents yards.
Walters believed that the above problems would lead to
disillusioned current and potential property owners.
Walters noted that the City had mailed 171 notices to
residents and added that he believed this to be a
significant number of properties affected by this project.
Walters stated that he had researched the movie theaters
in the Twin Cities and found the following:
1. 46 movie theaters in the Twin Cities.
2 . 36 of the 46 produced traffic after midnight.
3. Eden Prairie Theater currently had late night
shows on weekends.
4. Only 3 of the 46 theaters had 8 screens.
Walters believed the proposed development to be too big
for the area and that the requests for changes in the
City's requirements necessary to develop this project were
excessive.
• Walters said the project was off a dead end street and
added that the residents did not want Medcom Boulevard
extended to Franlo Road because the street was designed to
it
�1-�.. - _.fi_11Ii_r I 1�. �•_ .11 I ., _ I � 1 .;•_I _ irI _r'+1.1 1-r1 �
��I � � Ir„ �t ' 1! I � � � -J Ili ' , I � , �i_ � 14tYri �- �_ +It •, �� t.
r,� l '��n � q�(1 i rl� - t, � -i- - 111>�� i(.� •s i ,' � , r _ � ri I 'll:.+iA� . � ,
r 'i•"� .11_I.-. i� .1. r �,- ,11 � sir 11, �, ,tt � „I � s 1 _I ,1�.1' r,(
t o
}t11 -� _ I,1�1(irl "• rt�-f! �t, L mil .(�r I � 1 I '�',111t' lti�, r-ri f I t
a .
,. I �� I t i,r_�_ 1- ,4 1•r I,�+ �� i I 1 � i -'r' t t 1 ' 1 1 r � r I_ 1
r�, 1 ; p)-1 is � .'n i �l ��t_Y1 :y-1 ,r; �� !I I fit, i , i ,`',_� 1_ Il ' •t
_ I .1r ( ri11 ,+ 'iIiI_' I tI �' 1ft t• 1 ��1, i 1,' 1' { I t Di i
r f';+t i 1, jl _ 1 �- ".t)i'l; •t, .� a r 1 .:�11 I ,
„i.+1� � r � t I F. � i f41=,1 � I.!' t 1� 1 �, "�" �• f t, -.'I � t"
1 I _: C �r i 1 i i� 1 1�-Y 1 f I(- �r�� _ 1�t.� 41� 1 I v 1] f-1 •+ I � i I t � � `f i 1 .��
t r- Iq)q I_c• , 2I-t-jt_u_i` 6"" T '1 _ _ ail', ","it_
jar., f h? l 40 b"d A inIj i, too loll ,
r a 0 t , IT 1 _I-i 'f�-1� i 1wV h, _ "m i
I5 Oq n 'q t •", A 10, I It1 V� .- it l '
— ' _`1) 1r� : _t 1.1 WK j } - i } {"
11 # on oat t 1 r, t , , i i r dA �
1 1 1 1 1 1 4 . , _1-i,, �l i r ,0 ,` i I
iiit_,ji i, t ., •.� 1 ::, 1 .j 4ri,lj,1 it i1 �lA it Y�_
yr
;l1 rl � _ ,e _ .it'-i '11_• � 1 ."_ 11111 � 'r!� I I ,.�� � t_�I1,_ � � ;1� 't �r
Planning Commission Minutes 26 February 27, 1989
handle residential traffic. Walters believed the
residential quality of the neighborhood would be impacted
because the peak traffic from this development would be
from 7 PM to 9PM, which was typically the times residents
were trying to enjoy the outdoors.
Walters presented diagrams which illustrated that the
proposed theater would be under water . Walters was
concerned about the long term effects of the wetlands and
the Eden Lake Region.
Walters presented a plan to develop a movie theater in the
existing Outlet Center, which was also by Cinemart.
Walters concluded by stating that the residents were
willing to work with the developer to develop a less heavy
use of the land.
Ray Hoveland, 11924 Joy Circle, stated that there would be
no visual or noise barrier between his property and the
proposed project. Hoveland believed that the Joy Circle
side of the project had not been taken into consideration
on this project.
John Simacek, 8662 Grier Lane, stated that he had served
on the Richfield Planning Commission for 8 years . Simacek
said that the City had a wonderful opportunity to develop
this vacant land. Simacek encouraged the Planning
Commission to stand by the Comprehensive Guide Plan, which
was the one thing the City had to hang on to.
Uram reported that from a technical standpoint the project
could be built but stated that the main question was
whether a Comprehensive Guide Plan change had been
substantiated . Uram noted that based on previous Staff
reports the recommendation was that the area south of
Medcom Boulevard should stay guided for neighborhood-
commercial based on the proximity to the existing
residential homes.
Anderson believed that a Comprehensive Guide Plan change
had not been justified.
Hallett commented that it was not the Planning
Commission's responsibility to determine if this project
was going to be profitable. Hallett said the residents
needed to understand that this property would be developed
and there would be additional traffic, noise, and lights
with any commercial development. Hallett believed that
this particular location was not appropriate for a movie
theater and that justification had not been provided for a
Regional-Commercial Development. Hallett believed the
City needed to be careful of what it approved to be
'�+.''1 U 1 t 1 .j t t t
blu . rot 4 -uddu . IS .li � �i _ 1 { _1�, f `- ,� �n ,
;r1.11 !it 'II r{'`14 ' 1, a it � Ion _ It l '1
16
-•7., err �} I 1-1
-, i 6� 'i _r.+ _ 7_ri rt�i, jrl i, -•a' = i _ �111 _ a0, Q,_li
_,j-_r-,11 Y W I _ 1 )-rho l .Y� , --,_ d " Oil i , ,rl ,
1 '+'04 1111I _��_, ry l.1 {r LQ _ 1
•� 1_ ,-y I ..� r•_I r=,i ,�,_� 1 r 'A1J 0 t.n A j' n 0 k 'r
- 1)Y1+. ! ,,
;ti-n 1 i," M_7 Lq F•__i I , lot 1',n I , I bJI,js q �� I
1011100 na in j r1- r ,t
1 1 r
� i `-. '1 ,1 �1,' •_rV� I -, i'_� 1+•l I i -r, �'YL' I.,�,�1�.'t l� � .lr7j:rt't,� Y ra;l�lJ 1 ', � .
t Y�Y j ,Y r_ , '1'1 `.(�'_r' , lf.f 111, Et• 3't ad Wn hrd _i _I.,I ulq ._Y11j
s
{n is e n_cj
""CA i Wj. .FCY16 _ And.
� .�TX t � ` 'I_ Ilt-P) _. a I ,u ,i r� j•f, I Hill J i� � ) ! II - f, .} � ( �YY,
50 - -1 ._ li-,
,j, � ixt;,,� •�i i,t,i ., t ,1t ,_,11 , j � +Ii� 'i 1 ,. .
�f 1';1Y11i, f f.'S , 111I + r i ;I, , _it
11 � 1_Yi i;i „ IY 1 _ I j ,.tl_I 1 t_rlfl
-
. _ _ rfl .i � 1(f. 1 ,1-1, 1`!�I _r', i 'l_• , , �i1tr I l-'1{ I '- !,
dj 1 .0 it 1MhUdw
f - -1.5 T _1 _ , ' 1icon P'o _+ "4 1 . , - "I I
- v ' Wl_' Im �
,!.- _:Yi ,,' � ,,•( 'l fr i, � r I- J 1ftl.. ', ,.
ilfrr'�
1 ti -' 0.
, r Y !IQ Y,t. inn xv no f i 5 - r-11 a,_ loot
_,li _ ! � � � ! =. I I r�r! -�1I 1,'j,1 I ;41 � , 1 3� .rtjl r, _ i •I, i r ,1 - ,-�
, , •.,7 , I,�1 .i I �I .-1�1' � �lf _ ..�1 Y-, 1�, I, .-',I, jl�
Planning Commission Minutes 27 February 27, 1989
• constructed on this site and needed to take into
consideration the existing neighborhoods.
Ruebling stated that many of the arguments used against
this project could be used against any project that could
be constructed on this property. ' Ruebling said that he
did not believe a Comprehensive Guide Plan change had been
Justified.
Uram commented that a neighborhood commercial guide plan
designation allowed a building up to 50,000 square feet,
which could be a more intensive development than this
proposal.
Anderson asked what the traffic restrictions would be on
this project. Franzen replied that a total of 277 trips
were left for the entire PUD. Franzen stated that the
50,000 square feet would be a limit; however, the
developer would have to provide justification for the
architecture, transition, drainage, and lighting.
Ed Flaherty, the proponent, stated that Lariat Companies
plan was to build and own the property and added that the
developer was not one that was looking a quick profit and
then to leave the area . A lot of time had been taken to
address the appropriate use of this property. He added
• that the developer had rejected neighborhood-commercial
because of the intense impact to the neighborhood. He
said that a lot of additional expense was added to the
• project to provide berming and screening for the
neighborhoods . Flaherty stated that the neighborhoods
residents had been asked to meet with the developer to
provide additional input regarding their concerns, but the
residents had refused to meet with the developer. A 10
foot berm had been added to the southeastern area,
depicted by the plan. The project was required to be
constructed within State guidelines related to
construction on floodplains . Cinemart was considering two
completely different types of movie theaters. He added
that the Outlet Center was designed to be a $1.00 movie
theater, while there project was the upscaled version.
Cinemart would prefer to proceed with the upscaled version
If possible . Flaherty assured the Planning Commission
that the developer had the financial capability to develop
the project and added that if the movie theater did not
succeed, the building was designed to be converted to
office space.
Anderson stated that more traffic study need to be done .
Anderson suggested that Public Safety should review the
plan. Anderson was concerned that the open space was
being reduced. Anderson encouraged the neighborhood and
the developer to meet again.
� lt. _ �r I t � y' � I ( 11�- � � I I�i >! t� II•_k_: �i I I�.� t
t1 i f0v boom ii '.If,a_1w v i ire ;on I •t I, •-[_ y, � {
i ��:I't I •_�J i � t I t I I � i i } I I I J I I�i t i Y� ._I;� f I� 1� ') i � � � -i I i
Ir' •l.i i`I II +::f7�ir i�` .I -• t ,��� ',�' I willi-
t
I' f 11FI rr l
j r .vp; %_I111_r I'i �_� I � i t1 i f i ; " ( ,6 "P i
S�71'_I IIt=.�; "I 0 •,i, _ �: { _'i Wf .�1'r ?"i )�� a. �. �'.l 0 -01 It': W
1 r i tiIC[1-� ;I
_, VA)) n •�� I _I _O ! f Ono l-
�}•(
i
�f.t �'-•��"I {a•_I 1 �� +r , I � Ilt', '.>
t I "
-
itl)_f
III• �(, ,''_a I Ind a _rnli+Jrl
" t ` -r�'�r_''� '_rJt ) 0-n i•
P 0 gin - A ns I led ) •y„_r i C n _I- I' no I
. it I rl•-t�-I� �� f� : f1f i _i _ -Irl I -_ J.}� '7k� I �I� 1 � }i� _
{.II} i `� ._I-�I-: -��t I �i' ai fl� �.
t � I � � � f� li] t".ii41�}�. f •_}11 IJ_!-�': ll _' r �l�.i� ,' �lii � _� "•�i lir i-.II
•�! EI�,1}1�_i'_ylfl-��� i .''I I i i I'l, I Il r I 'I jI� l 1� I i s �r. ;•�, I
yy
't � � � i. °f�I_ ... t"' 1�.• I.' •jf�-/ I I I f_if-I1 i (17 C,
1 I j i t 0 I lt_.y , . - f L"k C I i n• A of i l_— lI I
�r,. lit I). il;.Il �i i ir•11 t fI rf;.�i= f . { 1 '� H04An d I
I
A hod " I i
-i I�i� it ��1� 'r [ i.l -•1'{ i �� 11i �; I � ICI I_-! I �Itir•_ _ i _ I
y i_ I �. f I' l. r l r I ;y 11•'�i I I i it .1
Al -i h I=a )I. ' IA Iti'I' Ilk :l 'III ;-t_t_ W2 , �y
,y-� i_c• ; � � � I I J _:�'clr,�' Ir. ;�� Ii�, 1 - 1-•�t ,I,-. ,
r (ri rt'! I rr,:• �r {�rt41) I Cr_� sI 'i y,_�'
104 • 1 Kilo"
wit � , I'. �P ii 01 1`J'�1�w " M _ o _t'_i i t l J_I !'_-1 1_ l o" I` K I
11� i Al �I 11t In I r .A ) t 11 .. I_ I d A
I' I _ i .i•' 7 i_ I CI 11 11! I " is -P 1� 1 q " 1 _, 01 111
�� ri ._ . '.if1n,. � sir �II11.�'! �1�7 Isr`tI i I i •t1 .; t _ •� _f i
_yI "?I I 1 'r _Irl K {_ry=:t
I i Ica ,l i i } ,1 : r i I y.y I(l i I�'y�l P. . t r y, I-•,
II I I'
Planning Commission Minutes 28 February 27, 1989
• Bye stated that neighborhood commercial development could
operate 24 hours a day and would be more intense to the
neighborhood.
MOTION•
Anderson moved, seconded by Schuck to close the Public
Hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
Uram noted that the Staff recommendation was to continue
this item for 30 days to allow time to address technical
issues and the issues presented by the residents. Uram
stated that if the Planning Commission did not believe
that the developer had provided justification for the
Guide Plan change, the option would be to deny the
project.
Bye asked the proponent if their preference would be for a
continuance or a denial and then to proceed to the City
Council without the Planning Commission recommendation.
Flaherty replied that the developer would prefer a
continuance.
Schuck strongly recommended that a neighborhood meeting
take place.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Schuck to continue the public
hearing on Preserve South pending revision of the plans as
discussed at this meeting to the March 27, 1989 Planning
Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0.
F. HIDDEN GLEN IV, by Frontier Midwest Homes Corporation.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on
approximately 68 acres, Planned Unit Development District
Review, with waiver for density, and Zoning District
Change from RM-6. 5 to R1-9 . 5 on 7 . 5 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 7.13 acres into 26 single family lots . Location:
South and east of Highway #101, west of Dell Road. A
public hearing.
Scott Oaks, representing Frontier Homes, stated that the
property was originally zoned for multi-family dwelling.
The project currently was for 26 single-family lots, which
would require a PUD Concept Amendment. The average lot
size would be 11,948 square feet, grading would be
minimal, streets and utilities were currently available .
Oaks stated that the main concern was how the construction
of Highway 101 would interfere with the projects
• landscaping for the adjacent lots. He had met with the
County and would work with Staff regarding the
landscaping.
, i i , 1 1 'i i,_ -L}I).)�. .'ft �"r Il _'r•_' _ y 1` s� ;1 11„ -�1
j F N. 7 ,, I q ?ii ,_, t - ds
ki
S r_
r _
, ,r, . yi,"i.n,i.r' '}„ i ._ ;1i �r ! f�111 }tl: . A V ,i7_�F ir',,fS r ! t _�rr'}• , }
70
t r11i'1 11 r _},I } i,}11_I _,� °�"r�'I1�_`� i ljoll 1t1-r-._ Sir ';I. r-,,-r. r•rtrli
11 � r!{ "ir i'�rl I ;'_` 1.'tr1 {)tr ,l i� iil'r`' i•,.-, _ - r � .A._' J,11 1 'ii
}3 � t:r t , ', }, r 1+',T•i �11 ! _ _,7rt � J ., I lalr"
11i_ ''u_ of 1 r }r_E i.li i� r"Oct 'r -� }t. „
I �(r'•ri1J„ t '�
MI Act cut `}1 in : ( r
Pin li s , ,-1 ji• 71,111 •Yri},t�,)_
Y ,'j` r 1. - - - `_r}. k • to WWI
.}
I
ti 1 u ly 5.'4,Ut{!_ !N 17, "i ter , , Ko 14J"
rye , 1 �t. lr:t"r�l _ r 1„} ,'1 1rli tt,-r
hr_,Ile,... Y11101 P1 , _ .�_ �'_i , It,
t f',i.r.Y - _ t tr}i 1 al lmo .'I_ 1 _}}! _ '1 Jrr•-r 10
.. -1O*,-I`r(tr}, 110 ollr7"1 ,4, 't }- r r if t," ,
141 - t' -.1i S i_Y r 'il i.j,I,r.- :_it t -,{ -Yt
K i 1 _il} (_"K A . - V tr.i,i� ill7r
_ r
7101 nt7r�}� � 111 }_• .Ci(
_ul -,t'17r_{r . .b7 .
on
Planning Commission Minutes 29 February 27r 11989
Oaks stated that a retaining wall would be installed on
Lot 14 . The existing house would be purchased by the State
when the Dell Road and Highway 101 interchange was
constructed. He would prefer to eliminate the retaining
wall if possible.
Sharon Crispinski, representing her parents Elaine and
Sylvester Jacques, stated that the Jacques were concerned
about the 20 foot drop from the retaining wall and did not
believe that the 10 foot wall would keep the dirt away
from their garage, which was only 5 feet away from the
property line . Oaks stated that he did not want the
retaining wall and would work with the Jacques to come to
a reasonable agreement. Gray stated that he would
encourage Staff, the developer, the County, and the
Jacques to look into an earlier acquisition of the Jacques
property.
Jody Johnson, 18805 Pennington Road, asked that Hidden
Glen III be completed before the developer was allowed to
start another development. Johnson stated that there were
several residents in Hidden Glen III that had drainage
problems which had not been resolved. Oaks stated that he
would work with the residents to assure the problems were
addressed.
• MOTION•
Schuck moved, seconded by Anderson to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION•
Schuck moved, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Frontier Midwest
Homes for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on
approximately 68 acres for Hidden Glen IV for development
of 26 single family homes, based on plans dated January
27, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated February 24, 1989, and to develop an
agreement between Midwest Homes and the Jacques related to
the grading of the Outlot, and proof be provided that the
work has been completed on Hidden III . Motion carried 5-
0-0.
MOTION•
Schuck moved, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Frontier Midwest
Homes for Planned Unit Development District Review, with
waiver for increased density, and Zoning District Change
• from RM-6. 5 to R1-9 . 5 on 7 .5 acres, for 26 single family
units for Hidden Glen IV, based on plans dated January 27,
1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
1_I, AY 0 OAK"
�. � -tillr�i'• i 'rlt� , .�- i(1 i 71 ' 1 � , 1.1 ri '',It I, ,. WOO
�j_A�•{C'-'1 _ t, _
.t1i {� !'t1 � , -,�,i aft 1, r 11 i � � �, ; :r, .�, r_71.i� 'i ra. �'�-' vi•,-� ri#rr II�i
t, ){ 41,
N1•r .i Ilr_ i � tr ;r•rtil; ._, 1
r1_e i i i '_ i � i:_ f• Itl{irt. _1i1 !��,'�r}� � ,1� r �i-t'r , 1-
rr ,v� � 1�1 1�i�� •
)_ r 1 r r' CIA
! !
0_1
�11.3 10
0 1101
In {'�r �`" ' ri, ,�+ ! �/ il', f . , 11 .,,ir' i�i r ,•�(, ,1 � 1. �11 {_..� _ jr{r_
r � � i�', .•I i ,f,=1 .il�r 1, .f"�1 Ii'i _ �� ,r` ,I:i i i jti ,� :{ 1- s -
ti1 t_,I. , �t. ';;' I � , tr 9r _ix }, 1""} Ann
1, t;_,
,1 ! h 4_i hall fSJt", 00 0AI" "Jo
Iirr� lirR" I Ir,It"iril-1 wl j
'Rt !_'i �
, u_� }�;� � ii', � f � _,1 1`I,,r �• .) iI_)�_Ili(i l° I, i .�".ltk1�
_l
r
•r �,Ir i It .i�: rat ! r_� � , :1 ri , ! ;_1 �� : 0-1
Planning Commission Minutes 30 February 27, 1989
dated February 24, 1989 and to develop an agreement
between Midwest Homes and the Jacques related to the
grading of the Outlot, and proof be provided that the work
has been completed on Hidden III . Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION•
Schuck moved, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Frontier Midwest
Homes for Preliminary Plat of 7.13 acres into 26 single
family units for Hidden Glen IV, based on plans dated
January 27, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated February 24, 1989 . Motion carried 5-0-
0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VII . PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII . ADJOURNMENT
Schuck moved, seconded by Anderson to adjourn the meeting at
1:05 AM. Motion carried 5-0-0.
i
•
�� i9�„� _ 1 i t� -t�. i '-t't't -j � _7 _(t-,�� -I. f �;f�_ ,t '-ef- iUt_I ,.i i -t'• t �, � (-, -
:ri
rr{ I!
•