Planning Commission - 05/09/1988 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 9, 1988
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye,
Christine Dodge, Doug Fell , Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Sue Anderson,
Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
A. Election of Officers.
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
(7:35) A. HIWAY 494/CROSSTOWN RACQUET, SWIM AND HEALTH CLUB, by Northwest
Racquet, Swim and Health Club, Inc. Request for Zoning District
Change from Rural to Community Commercial on 2.2 acres and Zoning
District Amendment within the Community Commercial District on 9.73
acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,
Preliminary Plat of 6.4 acres into one lot, one outlot, and road
right-of-way for construction of a 13,375 square foot addition to
the health club and an additional parking lot. Location: East of
Baker Road, north of Holasek Lane. A continued public hearing.
(7:40) B. HIDDEN GLEN IV, by Derrick Companies. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on approximately 68 acres, Planned
Unit Development District Review on 68 acres with variances and
Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-9.5 on 10.21 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 10.21 acres into 40 single family lots, 3
outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Townline Road,
west of Dell Road, east of Highway 101. A continued public hearing.
(7:45) C. GLENSHIRE, by Associated Investments. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment from Church to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.5
acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 30.6 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 17.3 acres with
variances and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 17.3
acres, Preliminary Plat of 30.6 acres into 56 lots, 2 outlots and
road right-of-way for construction of a single family development.
Location: Northeast corner of Valley View Road and Edenvale
Boulevard. A continued public hearing.
Agenda
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
May 9, 1988
Page Two
(8:00) D. BLUFFS EAST 6TH, by Hustad Development Company. Request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Amendment on 186.3 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 45.16 acres with Zoning District
Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 6.94 acres, Preliminary Plat of 45.16
acres into 13 lots, 5 outlots, and road right-of-way for
construction of 26 townhome units. Location: South of Franlo Road
extension, south of Normandy Crest. A continued public hearing.
(9:00) E. FAIRFIELD, by Tandem Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide
Plan Change from Industrial to Medium Density Residential on 49.5
acres and from Industrial to Low Density Residential on 24.4 acres,
,Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 148.2 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review with variances for street frontage and
lot size on 148.2 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5
on 92.7 acres and from rural to R1-13.5 on 53.6 acres, Preliminary
Plat of 148.2 acres into 367 single family lots, 28 outlots and road
right-of-way, review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for
construction of a residential development. Location: West of
County Road 4, southeast of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad.
A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
*NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER,
OR LATER, THAN LISTED.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 9, 1988
7: 30 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard
Anderson,Julianne Bye, Christine
Dodge, Doug Fell, Robert Hallett,
Charles Ruebling
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don
Uram, Assistant Planner; Deb
Edlund,Recording Secretary
I . APPROVAL_OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Fell to move Item
II, Election of Officers to the end of Agenda.
Motion carried 7-0-0 .
II , MEMBERS REPORTS
A. Election of Officers moved to end of Agenda.
III . MINUTES
Franzen reported minutes were still being worked on.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAI...S
A. HIWAY 494 CROSSTOWN RACQUET, SWIM AND HEALTH CLUB, by
Northwest Racquet, Swim and Health Club, Inc . Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to Community Commercial
on 2 .2 acres and Zoning District Amendment within the
Community Commercial District on 9 .73 acres with variances
to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat
of 6. 4 acres into one lot, one outlot, and road right-of
way for construction of a 13, 375 square foot addition to
the health club and an additional parking lot. Location:
East of Baker Road, north of Holasek Lane . A continued
public hearing.
Uram reported the proponent had requested a two week
continuance . The traffic study was not complete to date .
Fell inquired if future growth of Health Club was being
considered in the study.
Planning Commission 2 May 9, 1988
Uram reported proponent had submitted a proposal stating
exactly what they are looking at; Baker Road-Crosstown
• intersection, cross traffic, projected growth, impact of
increased lock capacity. Uram believed the proposal would
be complete . A copy of the proposal would be made
available to the Commission.
Motion was made by Bye and seconded by Fell to continue
Item IV.A to May 23, 1988 meeting.
Motion carried 7-0-0 .
B. HIDDEN GLEN IV, by Derrick Companies . Request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 68
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 68
acres with variances and Zoning District Change from RM-
6. 5 to R1-9 . 5 on 10 .21 acres, Preliminary Plat of 10. 21
acres into 40 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road
right-of-way. Location: South of Townline Road, west of
Dell Road, east of Highway 101. A continued public
hearing.
Franzen reported proponent is requesting a two week
continuance to work out plans . Proponent had finished the
architecturals, building elevations and other plans but
were submitted to staff on Friday at noon. This was not
adequate time for staff to review the information and
prepare a report or to make recommendations . A staff
• report and recommendations will be available for May 23,
1988 meeting.
MOTION•
Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Ruebling to
continue Item IV.B to the May 23, 1988 meeting.
Motion carried 7-0-0 .
C. GLENSHIRE, by Associated Investments . Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Church to
Neighborhood Commercial on 3 . 5 acres, Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 30 . 6 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 17 . 3 acres with variances
and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9 .5 on 17.3
acres, Preliminary Plat of 30 . 6 acres into 56 lots, 2
outlots and road right-of-way for construction of a single
family development. Location: Northeast corner of Valley
View Road and *Edenval Boulevard. A continued public
hearing.
Franzen introduced Tom Robertson and Kay Schumaker to make
a presentation about revisions to the plan.
•
Planning Commission 3 May 9, 1988
Tom Robertson, representing Associated Investments, Inc. ,
presented revised plans to enlarge outlot B to
• approximately 6 acres due to triangle of property owned by
City and to provide an adequate transition zone in the
event different uses are deemed necessary. Robertson
suggested this be a Plan Study Area until realignment of
Valley View Road had been determined and developer could
decide what would work best here . Proponent had deleted
11 lots on south end. Proponent believes a townhouse type
density would be appropriate, requesting 7 units to the
acre . Robertson notes that staff had recommended 3-5
units per acre, but due to the difficult soil conditions,
single family units cannot be developed here and would
like to see this changed to 7 units to the acre .
Robertson concurs with staff recommendations with the
exception of above item.
Franzen reported that the statement of outlot A density
for 3-5 units per acre, was a carry over from a previous
staff report as a density that would fit into the
neighborhood. 7 units might make sense, but Staff would
have to see some plans showing why it would work, since
the proponent is not asking for specific approval of this
Staff cannot act and state what the density should be.
The density was put in as a quideline to the developer .
Outlot B had been increased to provide for transition, but
Staff still believes that the appropriate uses are medium
density and church. Regarding the balance of property, a
. 9 . 5 zoning would be fine . Staff recommends approval of a
9 . 5 zoning.
Franzen reported that Staff Recommendations prior to
Council Review are : 1) Revise the site plan to depict a
five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along one side of
Crestview Lane and along the east side of Edenvale
Boulevard . 2 ) Provide tree replacement plan for 345
caliper inches . 3) Realign Crestview Lane access to
Edenvale Boulevard to align directly opposite the park
entrance or 150 feet offset . 4 ) Other standard
requirements before plat approval .
Ruebling inquired about Glencrest Road would connect back
to Valley View Road. Franzen answered the temporary cul-
de-sac should connect back to Edenvale Boulevard.
Fell stated concern about Staff recommendation # 5; the 3-
5 units per acre would be limiting to the developer and
yet was not comfortable with 7 if it is conditional upon
plans . Schuck stated that an amendment could be made
stating the Staff would be open to plans, but that Staff
would have to see specific items . Franzen stated that 3-5
units per acre could be used as a base and developer would
have to prove that higher density is possible . Fell
• requested to have statement # 5 read: Outlot A shall be
Planning Commission 4 May 9, 1988
designated as a Medium Density Residential land use with
the density of 3-5 units per acre .
• There were no comments from the audience.
I10T I Ohl 1 :
Motion made by Bye and seconded by Fell to close *plublic
hearing.
Motion carried 7-0-0 .
MOTION 2
Motion made by Bye and seconded by Ruebling to recommend
to the City Council approval of the request of Associated
Investments for Planned Unit Development Concept on 30 . 6
acres for the Glenshire development, based on revised
plans dated May 3, 1988, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated May 6, 1988 and offer this
amendment to Recommendation # 5. Outlot A shall be
designated as a Medium Density Residential land use with a
recommended density of 3 to 5 units per acre .
Motion carried 7-0-0.
MOTION O:
• Motion made by Bye and seconded by Ruebling to recommend
to the City Council approval of the request of Associated
Investments for Planned Unit Development District Review
with variances, and Zoning District Change from Rural to
R1-9 . 5 on 17 . 3 acres to be known as Glenshire, based on
revised plans dated May 3, 1988, subject to the
recommendation of the Staff Report dated May 6, 1988 and
as amended by previous motion.
Motion carried 7-0-0 .
MOTION 4-
Motion made by Bye and seconded by Ruebling to recommend
to the City Council approval of the request of Associated
Investments for Preliminary Plat of 30 . 6 acres into 45
lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way for single family
development to be know as Glenshire, based on revised
plans dated May 3, 1988, subject to the recommendation of
the Staff Report dated May 6, 1988 and as amended by
previous motion.
Motion carried 7-0-0 .
Planning Commission S May 9, 1988
D. BLUFFS EAST 6TH, by Hustad Development Company. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 186 . 3
• acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 45. 16
acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6 . 5 on
6 .94 acres, Preliminary Plat of 45.16 acres into 13 lots,
5 outlots, and road right-of-way for construction of 26
townhome units . Location: South of Franlo Road
extension, south of Normandy Crest. A continued public
hearing.
Franzen reported that this project was reviewed at the
April 22, 1988 meeting where a motion was made to continue
for two weeks to have the developer to look at ways to
save more trees, to provide a transition to future single
family homes and to provide an architectural diversity
plan.
Franzen introduced Wallace Hustad, Developer, who in turn
introduced Bob Smith, Hedlund Engineering, Steve
Schwieters, Builder and, Ms . Jensted, Marketing for
Builder.
Smith reviewed the site plan and stated the problems as
being; an excess tree loss (675 caliper inches) , grading
issues, site line issue with intersection and density as
it transitions from townhouses to single family units to
the west. To correct the above issues the proponent had
reduced the building square footage by approximately 10%,
• from 2300 SF to approximately 2100 SF. Proponent had
provided islands of trees throughout and provided Maples
for street planting and had accumulated additional land to
save trees . Proponent believes the site problem at the
intersection had been corrected. . A 50 foot buffer had
been created between multiple and single family units and
an additional 30 ' of vegetation screening provided.
Proponent had added in a sidewalk and bike path.
Proponent believes that all Staff concerns have been
addressed.
Schwieters stated the one level units are larger than what
had been built before . The age group being marketed to is
45 to 65. There is only one floor plan with garage layout
being together . There are 3 exterior designs with
different roof lines and brick arrangements . Continuity
is achieved with cedar shakes and stucco . Variety is
achieved with roof line changes and providing each
building with a different brick and trim color.
Schuck inquired what market range is . Schwieters answered
in the $180 - $200 thousand dollar range.
Schuck inquired as to the size of the units . Schwieters
replied that the exact square footage would be 2150 .
•
Planning Commission 6 May 9, 1988
Franzen pointed out that there had been changes made in
the plan in response to the concerns by the Planning
Commission at the last meeting. The decisions to be made
tonight are 1) Whether the changes in the plan had made it
a better plan. Are the changes in the PUD as they are now
acceptable, had appropriate provisions been made for
transition, had proponent saved the trees, was the
architectural diversity plan that which was asked for? 2 )
Can this development be built exactly as shown on plans .
Our concern as noted in staff report being the area
between the trees and slopes is limited. It is important
for the developer to indicate if they can build the houses
exactly as shown on plan.
Franzen added that with the tightness of proposed plan it
is essential to be built as shown in order to be able to
save the trees and provide the transition. The plan was
better, the tree loss being reduced to 41% from 100 %.
The proponent had moved units around to save trees .
Proponent had an architectural diversity plan like a
townhouse project with the common element of cedar shakes
and stucco color . The different trim and brick colors
will be for accent. A transition along PUD line between
single family homes and twinhomes had been provided with
tree replacement and saving oaks .
Franzen reported that the Staff recommendations prior to
Council review are as follows : 1) Revise the plans to show
a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of
Franlo Road and an 8-foot wide bituminous trail along the
southern side of Franlo Road. 2 ) Modify the grading plan
to reflect 3 :1 slopes on all slopes with the site . 3 )
Submit samples of building material and colors for review
by City Staff. 4 ) Provide an architectural diversity plan
which keys elevations to specific lots . 5) Prior to Final
Plat approval provide the usual engineering requirements
for utility details and storm water run off . 6 ) Provide a
bond for 194 inches of tree replacement. 7 ) Provide the
standard requirements prior to Building permit issuance .
8) Proponent would be required to return to the Planning
Commission and City Council for review if any changes
occur in the site plans proposed at building permit
issuance, which result in more grading and tree loss than
the approved plans .
Fell questioned what the soil conditions were in the area.
Smith replied the soil is sand. Fell than asked if any
soil corrections would be made . Smith replied no soil
corrections were being anticipated.
Fell stated concern about the house sizes and placement on
the lots regarding tree loss . Franzen replied that the
tree loss calculation was based on the grading plan by
• Hedlund Engineering and the size of the homes . Fell
i � � � � „�
� � -,
_ � t
.,,
' � � r
- _ _,
_ �
-" - - 1 - '-
�,�
- � i � _
� _ �
.� r � � �
1'
' r j -�
i -' P
f -r - � � t �
� �
� - � � - '
�_ � �r,.
_, _,
- - - � � : .. � _ r �
- � r � t . ^ '
- ' - - -
- � r i
� _ � �' � - i _, ., r � 1 .. � �
4 r � � -� � -
r , � r
� � � r
i i
' � _ � � ..
t _ � � •
Planning Commission 7 May 9, 1988
commented that if the homes were shifted past the setbacks
additional tree loss would occur. Fell questioned how the
• buildings were located on the plan. Smith replied that
the pads would be located dimensionally on the application
for the building permit . Each pad would be compacted to
city standards .
Hustad, Schwieters and Smith assured the Commission that
the buildings would not vary in location from the plans
and that the dimensions would not change .
Fell questioned if there would be a benefit to have the
pads dimensionally located. Franzen replied that
dimensions related to property lines and the homes would
have to be built as shown. Schwieters stated that the
homes could not vary more than 2 feet from what is shown
on plan.
Schwieters stated that the owners would not be involved in
the design of the homes . schwieters confident that no
changes will be made to homes.
Hallett questioned the 14 ' high retaining wall . Smith
replied that the retaining wall would be teared for safety
and construction purposes . Fell questioned what the wall
would be made of. Smith replied timber . Franzen stated
that any retaining wall over V in height requires a
building permit.
• Schuck stated concern that the project could be
controlled. Schwieters replied that the project upon
completion will be governed by an association and there
will be no additions or alterations.
MOTION 1•
Anderson moved, seconded by Bye to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried 7-0-0.
MOTION 2•
Anderson moved, seconded by Bye to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development
Company for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment of
the Bluff Country Planned Unit Development of 186 . 3 acres
for Bluffs East 6th Addition, based on revised plans dated
May 6, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Reports dated April 22, and May 6, 1988 .
Motion carried 7-0-0.
•
Planning Commission 8 May 9, 1988
MOTION 3:
• Anderson moved, seconded by Bye to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development
Company for Planned Unit Development District Review on
45.16 acres, with variances, and Zoning District Change
from Rural to RM-6 . 5 on 6 .94 acres, for Bluffs East 6th
Addition, based on revised plans dated May 6, 1988,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated
April 22, and May 6, 1988.
Motion carried 7-0-0 .
MOTION 4•
Anderson moved, seconded by Bye to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development
Company for Preliminary Plat of 45.16 acres into 13 lots,
five outlots, and road right-of-way for construction of 26
townhome units to be known as Bluffs East 6th Addition,
based on revised plans dated May 6, 1988, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 22, and
May 6, 1988.
Motion carried 7-0-0.
E. FAIRFIELD, by Tandem Properties . Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Medium
• Density Residential on 49 . 5 acres and from Industrial to
Low Density Residential on 24. 4 acres, Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 148 . 2 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review with variances for street
frontage and lot size on 148 .2 acres, Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-9 .5 on 92. 7 acres and from rural
to R1-13 . 5 on 53 . 6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 148 .2 acres
into 367 single family lots, 28 outlots and road right-of-
way, review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for
construction of a residential development. Location:
West of County Road 4, southeast of the Minneapolis and
St. Louis Railroad.
Franzen introduced Jim Ostensen, Developer, Rick Sather,
Consultant Engineer, and Tom Boyce, representing Centex
Homes .
Ostensen presented an overview of the project and a brief
slide presentation. Ostensen indicated that the
Industrial guided land be changed to Low and Medium
Density Residential . He added that he read the Staff
Report and concurs with it believing that the developer
and recommendations for changes are not that far apart.
� r
c -� - � � -
;i �P� 41
- � - - � - r
� , T r �
� - 1 _ __ i _ t _ 11 1
1't r � - � .
4 � i
�M1 ' � � i � r
T` �
� � r a
l
� -,
i �
"}� _t 1 1 -
� 1' -
_ a � . _ — � � � ..� .��
t_ � � - —_�1. _ _ �. �, _ � .� _
_ _ I _ � � � - � � �
_ � _ _ � � .� � � _ � _ _ .l l� - - -
- � � � � _ �
_ _ _ � _ .�y i i '-� i �_ ,_
1 � { -.
1 a
1� � � � - _
Planning Commission 9 May 9, 1988
Rick Sather, Planner stated that three different types of
neighborhoods were being proposed. The southeastern and
southwestern portions are proposed as R-1, 13 . 5 Zoning
District. The 55 1/2 acres in \this area would be divided
into 105 lots representing a density of 2 per acre, with
the average lots being 16,700 square feet. The northeast
43 acres would be divided into 108 lots representing a
density of 2 . 5 units per acres, with the average lot size
being 13,500 square feet. The 3rd neighborhood area would
be the cluster neighborhood,with 154 small cluster lots on
49 . 5 acres, at a density of 3 .1 units per acres . The
total project represents 367 new single-family lots on 148
acres . The northerly 18 acres had been plotted as an
outlot for the 212 corridor . Within the outlot a portion
for Scenic Heights Road is available . Sather showed the
six phases being proposed.
Tom Boyce, representing Centex Homes, gave a brief history
of Centex Homes in Eden Prairie. Boyce stated that he
wished to provide a number of different housing types,
which would be architecturally controlled.
Franzen stated that the two main issues are; 1)The concept
of the project with residential land uses and the change
in Comprehensive Guide Plan from Industrial to
Residential . 2)The type of public improvements required
to implement the project.
• Franzen reported that Staff recommends that the following
changes to improve the plan: 1)Transition be provided for
property owners to the northeast and south areas . 2)
Access be provided to allow for orderly development of
adjoining properties 3)Revise the plan according to
County's recommendation to move the southerly driveway
access to the north to provide better sight vision
distance . 4 )The natural features of the land should be
preserved to a greater extent than currently shown.
5)Provide trails and sidewalks as recommended by the
Community Services Department .
Franzen reported that it was not possible at this time to
review the platting and zoning requests . The southwest
area capital improvement phasing plan was commissioned by
the City Council 30 days ago, and will be completed within
90 days . The plan will make suggestions for incremental
development and location in relation to necessary public
improvements . Hallett indicated that the Southwest Area
Plan should have been done 2 years ago in aticipation of
the future development . He added that the City is behind
and that it is unfair to the developer .
Planning Commission 10 May 9, 1988
Franzen reported that the Fairfield PUD had been reviewed
in relation to the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive
• plan identifies a corridor for Highway #212, and
conceptual locations for a north/south collector such as
Dell Road and an east/west collector road such as Scenic
Heights Road. This project is providing land area for
future #212 and road connections to Scenic Heights Road to
the north and Dell Road to the west. Although a change in
the Guide Plan from Industrial to Low and Medium Density
is proposed, with the relocation of Highway #212 to the
north, Industrial is no longer appropriate. The overall
density of this project is 2-1/2 units per acre, which is
consistent with the Low Density Residential designation
for most of southwest Eden Prairie for up to 2-1/2 units
per acre .
Franzen reported that variances are being requested for
lot sizes and street frontage . Franzen expressed
concerned about smaller lots being near natural features
and that some of the lots were too small and did not leave
enough room for deck and other building expansions. .
Franzen presented two options for the Commission to
consider; 1)Proceed along with the concept review and
continue discussion for zoning request, after the
southwest area capital improvements phasing plan is
completed . 2)Commission could recommend denial if not
comfortable with land uses and the proposed Guide Plan
• Change.
Anderson commented that a 90 day waiting period would make
it difficult for the developer . Franzen stated that the
development of the property is not proposed until fall and
even if rezoning and plat approval was continued unitl
August, development could still proceed on the developers
schedule . Franzen added that in order to properly review
the requests and evaluate roads and sewer, water and storm
drainage information the southwest area study is
necessary. Without such an overall intrastructure
improvement plan it is not possible for Staff to make an
informed recommendation. Platting review per code
requires Staff to review utility details . Rezoning for
the entire property before the study is done would not be
good planning. He added that it may be before the entire
study is done that enough information may be available to
properly review and approve phase one only and assumptions
could be made that Fairfield would be the logical 1st
phase to be developed in Southwest Eden Prairie.
Developer proposed a compromise; requesting the rezoning
for Phase 1 and 2 at this time . Franzen stated that we
could look at the details for rezoning of Phase 1 and 2 as
the study is progressing.
•
Planning Commission 11 May 9, 1988
Hallett inquired if there were future plans for Highway #4
becoming a four lane highway. . Franzen answered that the
• level of improvements are being studied by the County.
Virginia Gartner, 15701 Cedar Ridge Road, stated
disappointment about changes in notice requirements . Eden
Prairie already has traffic problems, especially on County
Road # 4.
Steven Wagner, 8430 Eden Prairie Road, stated concern
about access to the future development with Scenic Heights
Road through his dining room. Consideration should be
given to present property owners.
Marsha Ernst, 15851 Summit Drive, stated that there are
enough areas where all the homes look the same . Ernst
questioned if the school system could handle all the
development being proposed for the southwest area. There
needs to be something done to County Road #4 . A blind
spot exists at Summit Drive and County Road 44 . Ernst
expressed concerned about the speed of the traffic and the
additional amount of traffic this project will add to
current problems .
Anderson questioned if the southwest study would identify
some of the traffic concerns . Franzen stated that the
study will project traffic volumes and recommend road
improvements.
• Schuck stated concern at this time for opening up too much
land in the southern corridor before the Southwest study
is done. Until the results of the study are known for the
entire 150 acres should be postponed. Limiting rezoning
to a small area such as phase one may be reasonable if
enough information can be provided to the Commission to
properly review the request.
Clark Kube, 15909 Cedar Ridge Road, requested
clarification on the southern boundary and what berming is
being proposed. Ostensen stated the southern boundary
would be approximately 30 ' north of the center of Cedar
Ridge Road. Kube concerned about southern entrance to
project being directly across from his driveway. Kube
questioned if any projections regarding amount of traffic
is available . Ostensen stated that as roads are developed
people will have other alternatives and the project is
being developed over a 5 to 8 year time span. The project
is the lowest family density possible.
Fell questioned if a meeting with the neighbors had taken
place . Proponent answered no.
Schuck stated that we need more information.
•
Planning Commission 12 May 9, 1988
Fell stated that Commission only has parts and pieces and
is not comfortable with recommending any level of approval
• at this time .
Anderson asked the Developer if it would be possible to
continue this, since there are too many questions
unanswered. Anderson suggested that a meeting take place
with neighbors . Ostensen stated they would like to
proceed on a moderate scale yet this year and would come
back within 30 days and request rezoning on Phase 1 & 2
only.
Dodge believed that more sidewalks should be in this
project, due to it being so close to the school .
Bye requested clarification about the note regarding
Preliminary Plat. If the Commission does not act on this
within 60 days is the project automatically approved.
Franzen replied that at this time the Developer has agreed
to a 30 day continuance . Ruebling questioned the
legality; if the project did go past the 30 days he did
not want the project to be passed automatically. Franzen
replied we need a commitment from the Developer . Ostenson
responded that if the developer has not finished revisions
and or if information from the Southwest Area study is not
availabe for Phase I and II rezoning he would request
continuance.
• MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Bye to continue Public Hearing
to the June 13, 1988 meeting and direct the developer to
work with Staff to provide information and make changes as
identified in the Staff Report.
Motion carried 7-0-0 .
V. QLD BUSINESS
ELECTIONS OF OFFICERS
Schuck opened the floor for nominations .
MOTION
Ruebling moved, seconded by Dodge to nominate Julianne Bye
for Chairperson.
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Hallett to close the
nominations and cast a unanimous ballot.
•
Planning Commission 13 May 9, 1988
MOTION:
• Hallett moved, seconded by Ruebling to nominate Richard
Anderson for Vice Chairperson.
Schuck moved, seconded by Hallett to close nominations and
cast a unanimous ballot.
MOTION:
Schuck moved, seconded by Fell to nominate Christine Dodge
for Secretary.
MOT I.ON u
Schuck moved, seconded by Fell to close nominations and
cast a unanimous ballot.
MOT I ON.
Hallett moved, seconded by Ruebling to commend Ed Schuck
for an excellent and fair job done during difficult times .
Motion carried unanimously.
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VII . PLANNER'S REPORT
• VIII . ADJOURNMENT
Schuck moved, seconded by Fell to adjourn the meeting at
11: 30 PM.
•