Loading...
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.