Planning Commission - 11/08/1982 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, November 8, 1982
7:30 PM, City Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath,
Hakon Torjesen, Dennis Marhula, Virginia
Gartner, Grant Sutliff, Robert Hallett
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Hilgers , Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 25, 1982 MINUTES
III. MEMBERS REPORTS
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. RED ROCK RANCH, by Robert Mason Homes. Request for Guide
Plan change from low to medium density residential , PUD
Concept review for approximately 800-1100 residential
units and park upon 150 acres, and approval of an Environ-
mental Assessment Worksheet. Located east of Red Rock
Lake, west of Mitchell Road, and south of Pheasant Oaks..
A continued public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
A. Chapters 11 and 12 of Eden Prairie City Code.
VIII. ADJOURNMNET
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 8, 1982 7:30 p.m. , City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairperson Liz Retterath, Grant Sutliff,
Virginia Gartner, Dennis Marhula, Robert Hallett,
and Hakon Torjesen (8:00)
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Hilgers, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Gartner moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Marhula seconded, and
motion carried, 5-0.
II. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 25, 1982 MINUTES
• Gartner moved to approve the October 25, 1982 minutes with the following
correction:
Pages 1-3, change date from 27th to 25th.
Sutliff seconded, motion carried, 5-0.
III. MEMBERS' REPORTS
None
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. RED ROCK RANCH, by Robert Mason Homes. Request for Guide Plan change from
Tow to medium density residential , PUD Concept review for approximately
600-1 ,100 residential units and park upon 150 acres, and approval of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located east of Red Rock Lake, west
of Mitchell Road, and south of Pheasant Oaks. A continued public hearing.
The Planner stated that this hearing had been continued for one month, and that the
Staff report was included in the Commission's packets, covering the Guide Plan change
request. He noted that at the last meeting, the Commission had requested Staff to
break up review of the project into two main topics: Guide Plan change and PUD. The
Planner reviewed the Staff report dated November 5, 1982.
Sutliff stated that he felt the main road should be developed at one time in its
entirety. The Planner replied that the City Staff would like to see the road built
in its entirety in Phase I.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 8, 1982
Marhula asked if the PUD could be built without the City bringing trunk sewer to the
site. The Planner replied that the project could not be built without the City
extending trunk sewer.
Marhula stated that he was concerned with several issues: traffic congestion on
TH 5 and Mitchell Road; needed sewer extension; overall density; PUD lay-out; parks;
and the density transfer. He added that he felt that it would be premature to act
on the project to change the Guide Plan with the plan as presented.
Torjesen stated that he agreed with Staff's conclusion in the Staff report that
adequate justification for the Guide Plan change had not been presented.
Marhula asked why the population estimates for Eden Prairie had been reduced from
1970's. The Planner stated that the Metropolitan area population trend had dropped
and the number of people per unit was lower than expected years ago.
Putnam stated that he felt that they should sit down with all the department heads
at once to discuss the project. He stated that after a meeting held with department
heads, they would like to hold a neighborhood meeting to formulate a revised plan
to return to the Commission in a couple of weeks. He asked Staff to address the PUD.
Putnam stated that Robert Mason Homes plans to build in 1984 or 1985. He stated that
they are in the planning process now and stated that the locations for single family,
etc. , are in the locations that the residents wanted from input that had taken place
at the neighborhood meetings that the proponent held. He stated that 1 ,100 units
will not be built, rather a range from 600-1 ,100 would be used. He stated that he
felt that the Metropolitan Council controls were more and more strict every year and
the City had to protect their own interests.
The Planner stated that the Staff had Eden Prairie's best interests in mind when
reviewing a project. He stated that a conclusion listed in the brochure submitted
by the proponent stated that the Metropolitan Council would have no problem with a
Guide Plan change. He stated that he felt that there would be some problems based
upon correspondence already received from regional agencies. He stated that the unit
range was very general , in fact giving the developer a blank check.
Torjesen stated that he felt the issue was whether or not to change the Guide Plan.
He stated that the proponent had to make a case for the change which he felt should
be done before Staff addressed the PUD. He added that he felt the Commission should
choose one of the recommendations as listed in the Staff report: denial or return.
Putnam stated that he would prefer a continuance. The Planner suggested continuance
for one month or closing the public hearing without the refiling fee. He stated that,
if closed, the public hearing could be republished and remailed to the residents,
which would give the developer more time to come up with reasons to change the Guide
Plan.
Mike McGraw, 15640 Pioneer Trail , stated that he was concerned as to the placement
for Mitchell Road as it affected his property.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 8, 1982
Ken Lindamen, 15901 Corral Lane, was concerned with the high density being placed
in the middle of low density housing which already exists.
Richard O'Brien, 15709 Cedar Ridge Road, commended the Staff report and stated that
he was concerned regarding the park issue.
Greg Hart, 9061 E. Sunrise Circle, stated that Mr. Putnam stated that they had held
neighborhood meetings with his neighbors, and added that neither he nor his neighbors
had been notified.
Gartner stated that she had attended the neighborhood meetings, and stated that the
residents were opposed to the density.
MOTION
Gartner moved to close the public hearing and return the proposal to the proponent.
Hallett seconded.
DISCUSSION
Torjesen stated that he felt that the wording as listed in the Staff report dated
November 5, 1982 in the second alternative should be incorporated in the motion.
Putnam stated that he would prefer continuance rather than closing the hearing to
save paying the fee again. The Planner stated that the request would be republished
and remailed to residents, but payment of the fee would not be needed.
Torjesen stated he felt that continuance might be better to let the developer address
the Guide Plan change.
Marhula stated that if the hearing was closed, the proponent could return at any time
he wished versus continuing the project for months.
Sutliff asked if an amendment could be made to make a decision by the end of the year
on the project. Gartner stated she would rather vote down the motion and make a new
one.
VOTE ON MOTION
Motion failed 2-4. Retterath and Gartner voted aye.
MOTION 2
Marhula moved to continue the project to the first meeting in December, which would
be the 13th. Sutliff seconded.
. DISCUSSION
Torjesen asked that the wording "in order for the developer to address the Guide Plan
change with support for the change" be added to the motion. Marhula and Sutliff agreed.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 8, 1982
VOTE ON MOTION 2
Motion carried 6-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code.
The Planner reviewed the main changes and additions to the City Code's Chapters
11 and 12.
Torjesen stated that the zoning district densities on the Guide Plan and in
0 Chapter 11 were different. He also stated that he saw merit in matching the
zoning and Guide Plan categories. The Planner agreed.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Marhula moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:42 p.m. Gartner seconded, and
motion carried 6-0.