Loading...
Planning Commission - 01/10/1983 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, January 10, 1983 7:30 p.m. , City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Dennis Marhula, Liz Retterath, Grant Sutliff, Hakon Torjesen STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Kate Karnas , Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES, DECEMBER 27, 1982 III. MEMBERS REPORTS IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. RED ROCK RANCH, by Robert Mason Homes Original Request: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from low to medium density residential and PUD Concept Review for mixed residen- tial land uses on 150 acres for 600-1 ,100 units Revised Request: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from low density residential to medium density residential and PUD . Concept Review for mixed residential land uses on 150 acres for 581 units A continued public hearing V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, January 10, 1983 7:30 p.m., City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Dennis Marhula, Grant Sutliff, Hakon Torjesen STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Sutliff, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried--6-0-0. II. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 27, 1983 MINUTES Motion was made by Sutliff, seconded by Gartner, to approve the minutes of the December 27, 1982 meeting as presented. Motion carried--4-0-2 (Chairman Bearman and Marhula abstained) III. MEMBERS' REPORTS None. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. RED ROCK RANCH, by Robert Mason Homes. Original Request: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from low to medium density residential and PUD Concept Review for mixed residential land uses on 150 acres for 600-1,000 units Revised Request: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from low to medium density residential and PUD Concept Review for mixed residential land uses on 150 acres for 581 units A continued public hearing. • Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 10, 1983 Staff reviewed the reqeuest of Robert Mason Homes for approval of the Red Rock Ranch proposal and reviewed the Staff Report of January 6, 1983 with the Commission. Dick Putnam, representing the proponent, presented slides depicting the character of the land on a site by site basis. Mr. Putnam explained the proponent had taken part in the preliminary discussions with the existing residents abutting Site I. They had expressed interest in blending the back yards of their deep lots in with the Red Rock Ranch proposal . The lots abutting Site I were 400 ft. deep on the average. Mr. Putnam stated that this was the reason for showing the cul-de-sacs for this site as extending into the abutting properties. Mr. Putnam also reviewed the site vegetation, slopes, drainage, existing roads, and surrounding lakes within the slide presentation. Planner Enger reviewed the following revisions as proposed by the proponent: a. Site J, adjacent and south of Red Rock Lake, has been changed from a condominium site of 10-15 units per acre to a single family detached site of 32 units on 12.5 acres. b. The lakeshore park has been reduced from 6.3 acres to 3.8 acres, and the configuration has been changed by the develo- per as understood from direction from the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. c. Site B has been changed from 3.5-6 units per acre to 8.5 units per acre. d. Site C has been changed from 8-13 units per acre to 8 units per acre. e. Site D is still proposed as condominiums at 9.7 units per acre. f. Sites E and F were proposed for 4-8 units per acre and are now proposed as 3.6 and 3.5 units per acre respectively. g. Site G has been changed from 4-8 units per acre to 4.5 units per acre. h. Site H has been changed from 8-15 units per acre to 8 units per acre. ..•.. t r .� •:- ,_. .. , ,. . r. :, 1, r t rv: .�., .J .,. . n r.. J.� � •! 1. .. i... ., . .1 1 .•V.i�i, 1J7„i •. 1.. , . . •• „N.. .. V � v .JI ,.•r _ r.. , i.•..J. .,..., t•.11 T u. 11 ..,�I 4 . ul•• •i• 1 1 J. i1•i A. .1 r. l . ..'1 t:.r V ,...•u, . .... .jn ,.1, r ,. .ir ., rJ .... .. .1.. ... flow -4W, n pal on udv +n ,1.... .... ., :,... • :;Ji+s ��� rl.11- [y' - of...,yr ...r. U f... .. 7 1•. t.... i v., „ N r tV ...., .. . •..1 ., .. ...i. ar .1 1 ... •+ nr. ..... r ,s ..i. , 1+ 1. ., rt/,.. , _ ..i , ,i,• , 4 planning Commission Minutes -3- January 10, 1983 i. Site I has been changed from duplexes to single family detached. j. Site K has been changed from 4-8 units per acre to 4 units per acre.. DISCUSSION Gartner questioned whether the City would bear the financial burden for sewer and water until the proposed property and the surrounding undeveloped property became developed. Planner Enger stated that this would be the case. Sutliff questioned the capacity of the trunk sewer extension that would be necessary to service this project--would the trunk sewer only service this proposed development, or would the trunk sewer have the capacity to service more land in the general area. Planner Enger explained that it was possible to extend the trunk to service a much greater area. He stated that this would be a Council decision which would be made based on the feasibility study prepared by the Engineering Department. Planner Enger reviewed the development in terms of the roadways proposed. It was recommended by Staff that the central spine road must be connected with a loop to the north and then east to Mitchell Road with Phase I, or the road must be completed to County Road #1 for purposes of public safety access. Planner Enger added that Staff recommended the connection of the central spine road to County Road #1 for any development past Phase I. It was also recommended by Staff that the neighborhoods to the west and south eventually be connected by roadways to the proposed Red Rock Ranch development. Marhula questioned whether the roadway connection between Sites J and K took place on property controlled by the proponent. Mr. Putnam responded that it was not property controlled by the proponent. Marhula questioned whether it would be necessary to condemn the property needed for the roadway. Mr. Putnam stated that the proponent would try to negotiate the matter first. Planner Enger reviewed specific recommendations for each site within the proposal regarding density, adjacent and surrounding uses, and the development framework of the City. Marhula questioned which sites would be included in Phase I of the development. Mr. Putnam responded that Sites C, D, and portions of A, E; and H were proposed for inclusion in Phase I. Marhula questioned Mr. Putnam as to approximately how many units would be included in Phase I. Mr. Putnam responded that it would range between 200-250 units. He added that it should be noted that Phase I included a great portion of the multiple residential sites proposed in Red Rock Ranch. L.. i t .t..O ..� .. .. n j i, "' Tho"n 0 a I,- r i"s Who coon, nni h I tnc "n" r rF'rr!=rr:' i 9,,;,AV r,r "no, 7 r,; .rr Qv,vrin rn o l�l nv cV a a.. 1. wo , Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 10, 1983 Mr. Putnam asked for clarification as to the timing necessary for the connection of the loop roadway from the central spine road to the north and then east, connecting with Mitchell Road. Planner Enger stated that it would be based upon the location of the development completed as to when the roadway would be needed. Marhula questioned whether enough developable land existed within Site C for purposes of construction of the type of buildings proposed. Mr. Putnam stated that at least two-thirds of the site was developable, while the rest of the land of this site supported slopes, therefore, there should be adequate land available on the site for development. Marhula questioned why Staff had recommended a density of 2-3.5 units per acre for the sites which were adjacent to existing single family residential instead of the 2.5 units per acre allowed by the current ordinance. Planner Enger stated that the lands adjacent to the proposed development had been developed at a density of less than 2.0 units per acre. The ordinance change to 2.5 units per acre was a recent one. Since 2.0 units per acre was the density range for the development of the surrounding, existing neighborhoods, the transition should be adequate to buffer from the lower to the higher density. 2.0 units per acre would be • the lowest end of the range, not 2.5 units per acre. Torjesen stated that he did not feel the proponent had presented adequate justification on the sites adjacent to single family for an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan at this time. He added that, while adequate justification may exist for the change to the Guide Plan, none had been documented for Planning Commission review. Torjesen stated that he would like to have documented, by the developer, the manner in which the proposed project meets the criteria for justification for a Comprehensive Guide Plan change. Torjesen stated that he did not agree with Staff's recommendation that the density for the peripheral sites adjacent to the existing single family could be developed within a density range of 2-3.5 units per acre. He stated that a maximum density of 2.5 should be allowed for the peripheral sites to assure proper transition. Planner Enger explained that there are basically three types of buffers or transitions: 1) Distance, whereby two different uses are separated by greater distance; 2) Visual buffer, whereby two different uses are separated by a thick grove of trees, or a hill; and 3) Land use, a gradual increase of density to act as a transition between low and high density for example. Planner Enger stated that if the proponent could prove adequate transition by either method from the existing single family neighborhoods surrounding the site, that the City might consider the granting of a greater density for the site. Ot Torjesen stated that he was in agreement with the Staff that the proponent .... �?� � r , ... • „ ,. .1 !� .. ,. � .ar - �- _i � ,i �. _ � j _ i i� �i - - .1. � _._t � .. .. :� .1. .. ..11 !. � -_ � � -_- .. � ..—. ,_ .,�li . .I .... �,. .. .,. � 1. � ..� ..� I. .., 1 .. , - . t_ ,� � .!. 1 _- _ � _ .._ .. .. .... .. � II�� .. it .. . . ., I 1;- - ., .��� 11�1 1........r.. ....: ivy. 1_ .��,�., _. � .. ' .. .... .. _ _�. s,. ; � ,� r _ ,. ..r, _ - .. ,. ,�.. .. ��• 1 - � � ,. i, � . ' � ,i . ,.,. - �. .. .,. �.� i. �. .1 .�, ( - �. .. _ , . . �lanning Commission Minutes -5- January 10, 1983 should be responsible for presenting the rationale for allowing a greater density in those areas adjacent to the existing single family. He pointed out that in none of the documentation presented by the proponent to date had this rationale been presented for Planning Commission review. Torjesen added that, as with the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan change, it would be up to the proponent to prove the rationale for such a difference in density. Torjesen stated that he would prefer to see the higher density, and, therefore, the change, if any, to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, take place within the center of the site, to allow for adequate opportunity to provide transition between the existing and proposed uses. Chairman Bearman stated that, historically, when the City has reviewed a Planned Unit Development, it has been a case where there have been "trade- offs" between the City and the developer in order to provide the best plan possible. For example, if the City would allow for greater flexiblity in the development of the land, the developer would deed a park area to the City which, perhaps it would not have obtained otherwise. Chairman Bearman stated that he did not feel that a 3.8-acre park would be an adequate "trade-off" for a development consisting of 150 acres overall. Mr. Putnam responded that the park had been designed based upon the recommendations of the Director of Community Services along with the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. He stated that he had offered a larger park for the area; however, it was explained to him that the City had adequate park facilities in the vicinity and did not need the larger park. Chairman Bearman asked if Robert Mason intended to build all of the homes on the site. Mr. Putnam responded that Mr. Mason would build the single family in the areas adjacent to Red Rock Lake. However, the rest of the lots would be sold to other builders. Mr. Mason intended to maintain control of the builders as to the final development. Chairman Bearman asked Mr. Putnam to explain the types of controls Mr. Mason would have over the other builders. Mr. Putnam stated that there would be covenants and restrictions placed upon the land development at the time it was sold to the other builders. Gartner questioned which areas would be built upon first. Mr. Putnam stated that Mr. Mason would like to start building in Area A along the Red Rock Lake frontage area first. He added that it would be necessary for the streets to be completed to that point prior to any construction of homes. Planner Enger stated that if Area A was built upon initially, due to the location of the homes, it would be required that the loop road to the north, then east, connecting to Mitchell Road would be necessary with • the initial construction to allow for adequate access for public safety purposes. The cul-de-sac ending in Site A would be over 3,000 ft. long if the loop road was not constructed. Planner Enger added that a large • 1 11 . -K Q - i IiII'W +ln7 I'ol 'lip . W" 9 . 0 1 IG Id , , on 'll 165 _-I._ w ." 0 .91 A: ga.i . -91 -1! 1 R l 1 0 - 72 I I r7_1 11_ " OM r l nO W J :l! 71 WOW 11 v - 1-0" 1 V W t j C . .1 001 !1nn 1 trLl ' Wj MAN 3 f'.'"+l. .7 9 OG ..iris Ou .'_i : PG J 0, +Iz--K j 07 on, n n: i '.Im on! II{1"'I'_ on . ""tnwi Dnc w II;wy on: rr 2vArm, 1 J 0 , 11OMOT 1; w : 1 :6- rl.• -0- 'll � r,.i �'7'lir � i�- �i ..�11 :1' �.r� � 'I'i •t"1;, . 'i '1 f' i �-r- . ' 0 . :r.r -'. �,��'�, :� �� 1 1 Ir;r i min 1 _'(,. � Tanning Commission Minutes -6- January 10, 1983 amount of the multiple units could be constructed without the construction of the loop road, thereby still allowing the development to proceed. Mr. Putnam pointed out that, in order for this project to begin, it would be necessary for approximately 1 ,000 ft. of Mitchell Road to be completed, also. He stated that the proponent had already made initial contact with the land owners to the north and east of the site regarding the loop road back to Mitchell Road. While no decisions had been reached, it was proponent's intention to continue negotiating with Mr. Sieffert and Mr. Butler regarding the matter. Gartner stated that she was concerned that the three-acre park was not adequate in terms of rationale for the higher density, nor did it provide for adequate land from which to make a density transfer to the remainder of the site up to the point of 581 units as the developer was requesting. Also, she stated that she did not see the necessity for connecting the adjacent neighborhoods, i.e. Coral Lane and E. Staring Lane neighborhoods, to the Red Rock Ranch development. Chairman Bearman asked for questions from members of the audience. Mr. Ken Molder, 8855 Mitchell Road, stated that he was representing residents on the east side of Mitchell Road, and that their concerns centered around the status of the gravel road. They would request that the roadway be paved, or that traffic be rerouted to keep the traffic from being routed past their homes. Chairman Bearman reviewed the procedure for petitioning improvements with Mr. Molder, stating that, regardless of the development proposed, the residents east of Mitchell Road could petition for the street to be improved to eliminate their problems; the extension of sewer and water to the area would increase the probability of road improvement. Mr. Molder stated that the residents of the area were also concerned about the "chain of lakes" concept with respect to McCoy Lake. Mr. Molder asked if there had been any precautions taken to assure the preservation of the ecology of the lakes. Staff responded that the Watershed District would review this matter in detail with recommendations back to the City regarding maintenance of the ecology of the area. Mr. Gordon Fox, Corral Lane, stated concern for the amount of traffic which would be going past his neighborhood once this development began. He stated he did not feel it was necessary to connect his existing neighborhood with the proposed development. Mr. Larry Langen, Corral Lane, questioned the time frame for the project. Mr. Putnam stated that projections were to begin Phase I in 1984 by requesting a feasibility study by the City Engineering Department t i. 1 �� is .•ii'', .l:l' - '�•1� .e'71� i.--� 1!I r l�r i. _��'? � . _.: � iY. r.'t' t( a r .t :�� ': l,' ir! .I �. min Q , 4 .`l0 pan a a7n C1I.. 00 2.I h- L', 7 qd 1050 T: L Anna t nning Commission Minutes -7- January 10, 1983 regarding the sanitary sewer and streets. Construction would begin in 1984-85 and on through the 1990's. Gartner questioned whether the proponent agreed with the Staff Report recommendations regarding Site B. Mr. Putnam stated that there would be no problem complying with the Staff Report recommendation for Site B. He added that the manor homes look more like the large lot single family homes proposed for Site A, but simply have more units. Torjesen stated that he felt it would be more appropriate to consider a Comprehensive Guide Plan change only for those areas in the center of the site and to have the peripheral areas of the site, plus Sites A and J remain as designated in the current Comprehensive Guide Plan. MOTION #1 Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Sutliff, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION #2 Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Sutliff, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan change from low to medium density residential for 150 acres subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of January 6, 1983 for the Red Rock Ranch proposal of Robert Mason, based upon the revised plans of December 13, 1982, and the supporting material dated December 2, 1982 and January 6, 1983. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION #3 Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Sutliff, to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD Concept Review for mixed residential land uses on 150 acres subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of January 6, 1983 for the Red Rock Ranch proposal of Robert Mason, based upon the revised plans of December 13, 1982, and the supporting material dated December 2, 1982 and January 6, 1983. Torjesen asked that recommendation #2 of the Staff Report be amended to insert the following words at the end of the sentence within the second set of parentheses, "in addition to satisfying item #1, above." The other members of the Commission agreed. Motion carried--6-0-0 Planner Enger stated that the amended Environmental Assessment Worksheet, Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 10, 1983 based on the revised plans of the proponent, would be submitted to the Planning Commission for their review at their January 24, 1983 meeting. V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen. Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.