Loading...
Planning Commission - 01/24/1983 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, January 24, 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, JANUARY 10, 1983 III. MEMBERS REPORTS IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. RED ROCK RANCH, by Robert Mason Homes. Request for Envrionmental Assessment Worksheet approval. Located east of Red Rock Lake, west of Mitchell Road, and south of Pheasant Oaks. B. RYMARLAND CAMP 3RD ADDITION, by Milton 0. Quam. Request for Development Plan and Zoning amendment to allow development of 4.4 acres as single family residential lots. Located east of Highway 101 and south of Hidden Ponds 2nd Addition. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT A. Interim Uses, Major Center Area VIII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, January 24, 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 Sutliff, seconded by Retterath, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried--7-0-0 II. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 10, 1983 MINUTES Motion was made by Sutliff, seconded by Marhula to approve the minutes of the January 10, 1983 meeting as written. • Motion carried--6-0-1 (Liz Retterath abstained) III. MEMBERS' REPORTS Commission members with terms expiring, Robert Hallett, Liz Retterath, and Grant Sutliff, were reminded to send letters to the City Council regarding their desires to remain on the Commission. Appointments to these positions would be made in February by the Council . IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. RED ROCK RANCH, by Robert Mason Homes. Request for Environmental Assessment Worksheet approval. Located east of Red Rock Lake, west of Mitchell Road, and south of Pheasant Oaks. Staff explained that, while an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) had been prepared for the-project previously, due to the amended density figures which had dropped from a range of 600-1,100 down to 350-525, a revised EAW had been prepared for the project. The revision was before the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. DISCUSSION Gartner stated that a previous study done by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regarding Highway 212 indicated that Red Rock Lake was one of the two best natural environmental habitats in the county, the other being Rice Lake, also within Eden Prairie. She stated that she Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 24, 1983 was concerned that proper evaluation had taken place regarding this fact in preparation of the EAW. Planner Enger stated that the DNR had done a portion of the research for this particular EAW as the City took advantage of a new service offered by the State for such purposes. A wildlife count was yet to be completed. However, no negative environmental effects were pointed out by DNR. The Commission discussed the revised EAW in greater detail and requested corrections and additions be made as follows: Page 4, item 2j--List City as source of water supply Page 11, item 5--Determine more exact length of sewer in feet and more exact length of streets in miles Page 12, item K2--Insert footnote to this item noting that proponent has agreed to, and City is yet to complete, an historic review of the site for signs of early settlement Sutliff questioned whether 65% was a realistic figure for the amount of the site to be altered by the development. Planner Enger stated that it was an appropriate figure, somewhat towards the low end, of what the average development must alter for the site improvements to be made. Gartner questioned whether the City would allow the developer to fill the area along the lake frontage of the site which was swampy. She stated that this swampy area was quite close to the portion of lake frontage which was intended to be developed as public park. Planner Enger stated that the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission had not yet reviewed the revised plans for the development, but would be doing so in the near future. He added that he did not feel the City would allow this area to be filled. MOTION Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Amended Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Red Rock Ranch, based on the revised density ranges recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its January 10, 1983 meeting, and based upon the revised plans of December 13, 1982, and the supporting material dated December 2, 1982 and January 6, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of January 6, 1983. Motion carried--7-0-0 B. RYMARLAND CAMP 3RD ADDITION, by Milton 0. Quam. Request for Development Plan and Zoning Amendment to allow development of 4.4 acres as single family residential lots. Located east of Highway Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 24, 1983 r acres as single family residential lots. Located east of Highway 101 and south of Hidden Ponds 2nd Addition. Staff reviewed the memorandum to the Planning Commission regarding the proponent's project and the need for additional review of the project as an amended Development Plan and Zoning amendment. The preliminary plan for this land had been recommended for approval previously by the Planning Commission and Council. When the project reached the City Council, the Council questioned whether the zoning needed to be amended also. It was the opinion of the City Attorney that the project be routed back to the Commission, with proper hearing notification for a zoning amendment. Planner Enger pointed that there had been no physical changes to the proposal since the Commission had reviewed it at their meeting of December 27, 1983. MOTION Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to the Development Plan and Zoning for Rymarland Camp 3rd Addition, based on plans dated November 22, 1982, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 21, • 1982. Motion carried--6-0-1 (Chairman Bearman abstained) V. OLD BUSINESS Transitions Between Existing/Proposed Uses Hallett stated that he felt the Commission should establish a policy for dealing with transitions between existing and proposed uses. He stated that problems may arise in certain areas due to the fact that the Guide Plan density ranges had changed recently, wherein the low and high ends of the density ranges had been increased. For example: Low Density changed from 0-2.0 units/acre to 0-2.5 units/acre Medium Density changed from 2.0-6.7 to 2.5-10 units/acre High Density changed from above 6.7 to above 10 units/acre In general discussion, the Commission members pointed out their concern to be consistent in their review of all projects to accomplish the goals of 1) allowing the development of land to take place at its highest and best use according to the Comprehensive Guide Plan; and 2) protecting the existing neighborhoods from encroachment of any type, including higher density adjacent to their lots which were established under different density ranges. . The Commission members discussed ways in which this could be accomplished. One way would be to "transfer" the density from the periphery of the site Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 24, 1983 to be developed to the center of the site, thereby using distance as part of the transition from the existing neighborhoods established under lower density ranges. Another concern raised was that of changes in the Comprehensive Guide Plan as requested by developers. The periphery of the sites proposed for development should perhaps be treated differently when these existing neighborhoods, established under the lower density ranges of the previous Comprehensive Guide Plan, abut sites proposed for a Guide Plan change. The change to the Comprehensive Guide Plan requested by the developer may be appropriate only for the center of the site, as opposed to the entire site when adjacent to this type of existing neighborhood. Marhula questioned what rights the developer had as pertained to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Planner Enger responded that the developer has the right to apply for zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation. Planner Enger pointed out that the Comprehensive Guide Plan was changed after much study and review by the Staff, Commission, and Council, with sound reasoning behind any change made. He stated that it would be important to see to it that the basic intent of the Comprehensive Guide Plan not be changed without sound reasoning and thorough review. The Commission asked Staff to review these situations further. IV. PLANNER'S REPORT A. Interim Uses in Major Center Area Staff reviewed the ordinance drafted by the City Attorney. It was pointed out that two goals were kept in mind as the ordinance was prepared for review: 1) To allow Major Center Area (MCA) residents in single family homes existing in designated commercial areas to sell their homes; 2) To allow for a smooth transition to take place from residential to commercial usage for the MCA. Planner Enger stated that he felt two key elements of the proposed ordinance were that it limited the time frame of the Interim Use to three years, and that reference was made to allowing for only minimal improvements to the residence in which the use was proposed. Gartner stated that she felt the City should look at other areas where the tool of an interim use would apply. She stated that she felt it would be appropriate in any situation where a residential structure existing in an area guided for eventual office, commercial, or industrial use. The other is Commission members concurred. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 24, 1983 Chairman Bearman stated that he felt that the word "may" in Subdivision 4, Additional Conditions, should be changed to "shall." He stated that he felt it was important that every proposal be treated equally. Planner Enger stated that what may apply in one proposal , may not apply in another proposal, therefore the use of the word "may." Staff was directed to prepare a survey of the City to determine how many areas of this type existed and report back to the Planning Commission. MOTION Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposed amendment to the City Code for Interim Uses within the Major Center Area. Motion carried--7-0-0 VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner. . Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate Karnas Planning Secretary •