Planning Commission - 09/26/1988 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 26, 1988
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Christine Dodge,
Doug Fell , Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Ed Schuck
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Sue Anderson,
Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
(7:35) A. FAIRFIELD PHASES 2 THROUGH 6, by Tandem Properties. Request for
Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers for street
frontage and lot size on 118.2 acres, Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-9.5 on 82.7 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 33.6
acres, Preliminary Plat of 118.2 acres into 299 single family lots,
28 outlots and road right-of-way, for construction of a residential
development. Location: West of County Road 4, southeast of the
Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad. A continued public hearing.
(7:40) B. BLUESTEM 5TH ADDITION, by Brown Land Company. Request for PUD
Concept Review on 15.92 acres, PUD District Review on 15.92 acres
with waivers, Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning
District on 2.26 acres, Preliminary Plat of 12.83 acres into 15
single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location:
West of B1uestem Lane, north of Purgatory Creek. A public hearing.
(8:05) C. CARDINAL CREEK 3RD ADDITION, by Gustafson & Associates Company.
Request for Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 1.67
acres with front yard setback variances to be reviewed by the Board
of Appeals, for construction of 4 single family lots. Location:
6801-05, 6855-59, 6871-75, and 6887-91 Stonewood Court. A public
meeting.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Site Planning Ordinance
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
*NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER,
OR LATER, THAN LISTED.
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 26, 1988
City Council Chambers
7:30 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Charles Ruebling, Ed Schuck
and Richard Anderson
• MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Hallett and Douglas Pell
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Franzen,Senior Planner; Don Uram,Assistant Planner; and
Sue Anderson, Recording Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Schuck to approve the agenda as printed.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
Bye reported that Southwest Area Study meeting was available for viewing on-video,and
recommended that all commission members take the opportunity to view it.
Franzen suggested that developers in the Southwest Study Area should be required to view the
study in order to know what is expected of their project before they come before the commission.
III. MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 12, 1988. _
Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 26, 1988 Page 2
MOTION:
• Motion was made by Ruebling and seconded by Fell to approve the minutes of the September 12,
1988, Planning Commission meeting as published.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. FAIRFIELD PHASES 2 THROUGH 6. by Tandem Properties. Request for Planned Unit
Development District Review,with waivers for street frontage and lot size on 118.2 acres, Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 82.7 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 33.6 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 118.2 acres into 299 single family lots,28 outlots and road right-of-way for
construction of a residential development. Location: West of County Road#4,southeast of the
Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad. A continued public hearing.
Franzen reported that Centex Homes has by their letter of September 26th, has requested a
continuance of their rezoning request until the November 24th Commission meeting. Franzen
continued that as a result of the Southwest Area Study, Centex would be required to revise their
phasing plan,as well as the Commissions concerns regarding the visual density of the
neighborhood.
Bye indicated that the Planning Commission does not have a November 24 meeting and asked staff
if it was the 14th or the 28th. Franzen responded that the developer intended to continue until
November 14.
MOTION 1:
• Motion was made by Schuck and seconded by Dodge to continue the public hearing to October
11 and asked that the developer provide a new letter requesting the correct Planning Commission
meeting.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
B. BLUESTEM 5TH ADDITION. by Brown Land Company. Request for PUD Concept Review
on 15.92 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.92 acres,with waivers, and
Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning District on 2.26 acres, Preliminary Plat of
12.83 acres into 15 single family lots,three outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: West of
Bluestem Lane, north of Purgatory Creek. A public hearing.
Bob Smith, representative for the proponent, described the project in detail. He referred to the prior
approval in August of 1987 by the Commission and their concern about the intensity of the project,
the steep slopes within the development and the use of retaining walls. The project was removed
from the agenda until the proponent could come up with a design that satisfied the City. The original
plan was for 19 lots. The redesign being presented was for 15 lots, and tree loss is minimal. To save
even more trees, the proponent was proposing a new conservancy line extending the area to
protect the environment and trees. Brown Land Company and Husted Development will jointly
share in providing the necessary right of way and the cost of installing the necessary improvements
for the alignment of Blue Stem Lane. Smith spoke of the wall construction consisting of large
limestone rocks. He concluded that they were in concurrence with the Staff Report and
recommendations.
•
Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 26, 1988 Page 3
Franzen reported that the Parks and Recreation Department have requested trails and sidewalks
in the Bluestem 5th Addition project. At the present time,the plans are preliminary and subject to
change.If in fact they are altered, did the Commission wish to review the final trail systems proposed.
Franzen continued that the Parks and Recreation did feel that moving the conservancy line did allow
for added flexibility. There were two items that needed to be met prior to approval : 1)tree
replacement plan,and 2)the revised plans to show parks,sidewalks and trails. He commented that
there would be land dedication to the City along the creek. The retaining walls must stand the test of
time, and must be designed and certified by a structural engineer. He pointed out that the greatest
fear of the retaining wall would be from heavy rains washing the wall down.
Ruebling pointed out that frequently in projects such as this,there is 10% more tree loss than
projected. He asked Staff if that came from the damage to surrounding trees. Franzen replied that
although this is common, many times when a home is actually built on the lot, it will be 20 to 30 feet
longer than anticipated requiring the removal of more trees. In this particular project since tree loss
expected is 13%,which is low,an additional 10% loss at house construction is minimal and would be
replaced on a caliper inch basis.
Franzen continued that if the City felt a developer was being flagrant in tree removal and/or loss,they
would be required to come before the City Council because they would be in violation of the
approved plans and the developer's agreement.
Schuck inquired what the price range and square footage for the proposed homes would be. Brown
replied they were anticipating a price range of$300,000-500,000 homes and 3000-5000 square
footage. The house pad will be 65' deep and 75'wide.
Carol Burnett, 9940 Bennett Place, wanted to know where her property was in conjunction wit
the proposed project and if in fact it would be in her back yard. Mr.Smith illustrated to her on the plat
• the site of her home and the development.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Schuck to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 4-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Schuck to recommend to the City Council approval
of the request of Brown Land Company for Planned Unit Development Concept on 15.92 acres for
Bluestem Hills 5th Addition, based on plans dated September 23; 1988, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 23, 1988.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Schuck to recommend to the City Council approval
of the request of Brown Land Company for Planned Unit Development District Review,with waivers,
on 15.92 acres and Zoning District Amendment within the Ri-13.5 District on 2.26 acres,for
Bluestem Hills 5th Addition, based on plans dated September 23, 1988, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 23, 1988.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
•
Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 26, 1988 Page 4
• MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Schuck to recommend to the City Council approval
of the request of Brown Land Company for Preliminary Plat of 12.83 acres into 15 single family lots,
three outlots, and road right-of-way for Bluestem Hills 5th Addition, based on plans dated
September 23, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 23,
1988.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
C. CARDINAL CREEK 3RD ADDITION. by Gustafson & Associates Company. Request for
Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 1.67 acres with front yard setback variances
to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,for construction of four single family lots. Location:
6801-05, 6855-59, 6871-75, and 6887-91, Stonewood Court. A public meeting.
Ron Krueger, representative for the proponent, spoke about the rezoning request from duplex to
single family lots. He did not have a copy of the preliminary plan, but the proponent was planning to
attend this meeting and bring the preliminary plat.
Don Uram reported that the request for rezoning from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 was unusual in that the
properties were not contiguous. Although there are merits for rezoning from multiple to single
family, this action of rezoning may have an adverse effect on the surrounding duplex properties.
The people in the duplex, at this time, do not have a problem with single family homes in the
neighborhood. He concluded to the Commission that the Staff was recommending Alternative#1
whereby rezoning be approved for Lot 1, Block 2 only.
• In view of the fact that the proponent himself is not present for questions and comments, it was
noted that he could appeal to the City Council if he was unhappy with the Commissions decision.
Richard Anderson arrived 8:05 pm
Uram stated that other similar requests have been denied in the past. In regards to site grading,
either land use would preserve the same site characteristics.
Schuck summarized that with the proposed change, single family homes and twin homes would be
side by side. The Commission normally approves the two when they are back to back,visually
breaking the two.
Anderson reminded those present that approving multiple and single family homes together would
be precedent setting and create many problems in the years to come for the Commission.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Schuck to recommend approval of the request of
Gustafson and Associates for rezoning of 6801--05 Stonewood Court from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5
within the Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition, based on the findings in the Staff Report dated September
23, 1988.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
•
Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 26, 1988 Page 5
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Schuck to recommend to the City Council denial of
the request of Gustafson and Associates for rezoning of 6855-59, 6871-75 and 6887-91 from
RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 within the Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition, based on the findings in the Staff Report
dated September 23, 1988.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Site Planning Ordinance
Franzen reported that prior to the Councils direction for the ordinance, City Staff had been working
on this for four years. The school proposal prompted this ordinance. The intent is to see that any
and all new and changed land uses are subject to Planning Commission and City Council review.
Site plans will be required for all commercial, residential and public buildings being changed and/or
proposed.
The ordinance has a set of standards that the City and Planning Commission can use as a guidelines
on page 2, items A through 1. Not every standard would apply to every use. For example,site plan
review would be required for single family areas to review roads,grading, utilities,tree preservation
but not architecture or individual building permits. Commercial and public buildings would require
• architectural review. The City has for many years used the proposed standards as part of rezoning
and subdivision request, but now these would be put into ordinance form.
Ruebling stated there was no definition in the ordinance itself as to what a site plan was. And
Subd.2. refers to"subject to this section;..." He was not clear as to what the property subject to
this section meant. Franzen responded that it meant that the site plan was to be in compliance
with this section of the ordinance. Franzen said he would ask the City Attorney for clarification.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Ruebling and seconded by Schuck to recommend to the City Council the
proposed Site Planning Ordinance as presented with a definition of site plan, and clarification of
Subd.2.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
Franzen reported the next Commission meeting will be on Tuesday, October 11th, as the normally
scheduled meeting for Monday, October 10th falls on a holiday.
Vill. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Ruebling to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
•