Loading...
Planning Commission - 04/21/1986 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 21, 1986 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS (7:35) A. HIDDEN GLEN 4TH, by Derrick Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 130.25 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances on 50.2 acres, with Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 2.10 acres, Rural to RM-6.5 on 10.95 acres, Rural to R1-9.5 on 22.72 acres, Rural to R1-13.5 on 8.13 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 10.95 acres, and from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.45 acres, Preliminary Plat of 50.2 acres into 119 lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way Location: Southeast quadrant of Highway #101 and Townline Road. A continued public hearing. (8:05) B. HOYT ROBERTS ADDITION PHASE II, by Hoyt Construction. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 5.0 acres and Preliminary Plat of 9.62 acres into 2 lots and road right-of-way for construction of Phase II, Hoyt Roberts Addition. Location: West of Mitchell Road on Technology Drive. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT A. Planning Orientation Session VIII. ADJOURNMENT *NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER, THAN LISTED. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 21, 1986 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson, Christine Dodge (8:45 p.m. ), Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling MEMBERS ABSENT: Julianne Bye, Virginia Gartner STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Ruebling, to adopt the agenda as printed. Motion carried--4-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION 1: Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Hallett, to adopt the minutes of the March 10, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Anderson, to adopt the minutes of the March 24, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--4-0-0 IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. HIDDEN GLEN 4TH, by Derrick Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 130.25 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances on 50.2 acres, with Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 2.10 acres, Rural to RM-6.5 on .10.95 acres, Rural to R1-9.5 on 22.72 Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 21, 1986 acres, Rural to R1-13.5 on 8.13 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 10.95 acres, and from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.45 acres, Preliminary Plat of 50.2 acres into 119 lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way Location: Southeast quadrant of Highway #101 and Townline Road. A continued public hearing. Mr. Don Patton, representing proponent, explained the changes which had been made to the development proposal since the last meeting. He noted that the northwest area of the property was now shown for development as duplex units, instead of townhouses. Mr. Patton stated that proponents would like to continue to work with the City Staff with respect to the final details for the location of sidewalks and alignment of the intersection of County Road 62 (Crosstown)/Dell Road/Highway #101. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of April 11, 1986. He presented Staff concerns regarding sight vision distance and closeness of access points along the major roads at the perimeter of the site, in particular County Road 62, Dell Road, and Highway #101. With respect to the sidewalks, Planner Franzen stated that there was • adequate space within the road right-of-way of the proposed streets to accommodate sidewalks throughout the development. He added that this phase of Hidden Glen was to be connected to the previous phases of Hidden Glen via Barrington Drive; however, a question still remained as to whether the City, or the proponent, would pay for the sidewalk connection between the two phases. Anderson asked about the size of proposed Lot 19, shown as future commercial development. He questioned how the development of this parcel could be controlled if the lot was "undersized" at this time. Planner Franzen explained that the minimum size of a commercial area was required to be two acres, with minimum lot width of 200 feet. He stated that the site was 0.19 acre short of the two-acre minimum requirement, and 11 feet short of the minimum lot width requirement, which was not considered significant, given the Planned Unit Development request and the overall benefit to the neighborhood, along with the required amount of right-of-way required for the thoroughfares planned through and at the perimeter of the property. Planner Franzen stated that the City would maintain a great deal of control as to the final development of this site, as any plans would require review by the Planning Commission and Council, and a developer's agreement would also be drafted for the parcel. Hallett asked why the sidewalks were not proposed to continue all the way to the commercial portion of the development. Planner Franzen responded that this was the preferred route. He noted that this would require the sidewalk to be located along the street proposed for duplexes and that, after consideration of the amount of traffic that would be present because of the additional traffic in the duplex area and because of the number of driveways which would cross the sidewalks in the-duplex area, it was determined that this would be the less desirable and less safe route for sidewalks. Planner Enger stated that City Staff had determined that sidewalks in duplex areas Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 21, 1986 Ib did not work well unless the front yard setback was increased by ten feet due to the reasons stated. Hallett stated that he would not be opposed to having sidewalks located along the entire length of Barrington Drive. Ruebling asked about the required front yard setback for duplex units. Planner Enger stated that it was 30 ft. as a minimum. He noted that it may be possible to maintain a 40 ft. setback in this area in order to allow for the sidewalks along the entire length of Barrington Drive. Ruebling stated that he would prefer that the sidewalks be located along the entire length of Barrington Drive. He added that he felt the sidewalks, if located through the duplex area, would serve a greater number of residents where more safety was needed with the greater number of trips generated by a duplex development. Anderson concurred. Ruebling asked about the recommendations for additional landscaping. Planner Franzen explained that there were two major functions for the landscaping on this site: one, to meet minimum City Code requirements for screening; and, two, to provide transition between differing uses. Planner Franzen explained where these functions were to take place on the plan. Mr. Bob Kruell , 6780 Tartan Curve, expressed concern about the commercial area proposed for this development. He stated that it had not be shown in the original plan presented for Hidden Glen and asked that it be taken out • of the plan at this time. Mr. Roger Derrick, proponent, stated that this property had not been included in the original Planned Unit Development for Hidden Glen, but had been acquired since that time. Mr. Frank Muelken, attorney, representing the Jacques family, asked what considerations had been given to the "exception" parcel in the northeast portion of the property. Mr. Patton explained the current situation regarding access to the parcel given the proposed intersection of Dell Road and Highway #101 at the northeast corner of the parcel . He explained that the grades of the road, as well as the final location of the intersection, would have significant impact upon the Jacques property. However, these decisions were to be made by the County and State. Mr. Derrick discussed the various alternatives for access to the Jacques property once the intersection was completed. Hallett asked if the Jacques family would be assessed for the construction of Dell Road. Mr. Derrick responded that the Jacques would not be assessed, that all the assessments were on the Hidden Glen property. Hallett added that he felt the best possible situation would be to combine the Jacques property with the Hidden Glen 4th development. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Ruebling, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 21, 1986 Council approval of the request of Derrick Land Company for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 130.25 acres, for Hidden Glen 4th Addition, based on revised plans dated April 10, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated March 7, and April 11, 1986, with direction to Staff to explore the possibility of extension of sidewalks along Barrington Drive for inclusion in the development for purposes of pedestrian access to the commercial area and provision of safety for the residents, prior to City Council review. Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Derrick Land Company for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial for 3.45 acres and Planned Unit Development District Review on 50.2 acres and Zoning District Change, with variances, on 2.10 acres from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial for Hidden Glen 4th Addition, based on revised plans dated April 10, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated March 7, and April 11, 1986. Motion carried--4-0-0 • MOTION 4: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Derrick Land Company for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for 15.95 acres and Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 for 22.72 acres, from Rural to R1-13.5 for 8.13 acres, and from Rural to RM-6.5 for 15.95 acres, for Hidden Glen 4th Addition, based on revised plans dated April 10, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated March 7, and April 11, 1986, with direction to Staff to explore the possibility of extension of sidewalks along Barrington Drive for inclusion in the development for purposes of pedestrian access to the commercial area and provision of safety for the residents, prior to City Council review. ' Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION 5: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Derrick Land Company for Preliminary Plat of 50.2 acres into 65 lots two outlots and road right-of-way, for Hidden Glen 4th Addition, based on revised plans dated April 10, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated March 7, and April 11, 1986, with direction to Staff to explore the possibility of extension of sidewalks along Barrington Drive for inclusion in the development for purposes of pedestrian access to the commercial area and provision of safety for the residents, prior to City Council review. Motion carried--4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 21, 1986 B. HOYT ROBERTS ADDITION PHASE II, by Hoyt Construction. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 5.0 acres and Preliminary Plat of 9.62 acres into 2 lots and road right-of-way for construction of Phase II, Hoyt Roberts Addition. Location: West of Mitchell Road on Technology Drive. A public hearing. Mr. Brad Hoyt, proponent, reviewed the proposed development and site characteristics with the Commission. He noted that access to the site would be from the Roberts Litho property to the east, and that the plans assumed the return of right-of-way for Technology Drive to the property owners to the south (all along the Hoyt Roberts Addition) . Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of April 11, 1986. He noted that parking had been considered for this building based on it being a "speculative" building, or tenants unknown. Mr. Hoyt pointed out that the building would be owned and largely occupied by Kleer Flo, therefore, parking was adequate for the structure, based on the revised plans presented at the meeting. Planner Enger stated that the most significant situation involved in this development was that of the extension of Technology Drive. He stated that the plan of the City had been to extend Technology Drive, along the north edge of this property, westerly to Wallace Road to provide for better circulation in this area. Planner Enger pointed out that the proponent had cooperated with the City in providing the requested right-of-way for the extension; however, the City Council had since determined that this would not take place. Hallett stated that he felt the provision of Technology Drive through this area was important in terms of providing for better traffic circulation for this area, in particular for the school . He stated that he felt the City Council should reconsider making this connection, even if the City had to pay for the land, or construction, costs. He stated that he felt it would be better to make the connection of Technology Drive at this time than have to pay much more for it to correct a problem in the future. Hallett asked if adequate land was available other than from proponent for this road connection. Mr. Hoyt stated that there was land available north of his site for the extension of Technology Drive to Wallace Road, and that this property did not provide the only opportunity for the connection. Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1• Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Anderson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 21, 1986 Council approval of the request of Hoyt Development for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park for the Hoyt Roberts 2nd Addition for five acres, based on plans dated March 12, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 11, 1986. Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION 3• Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hoyt Development for Preliminary Plat of 9.62 acres into two lots and road right-of-way for construction of Phase II of the Hoyt Roberts Addition, based on plans dated March 12, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 11, 1986. Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City Council that the road extension of Technology Drive between its current terminus west of Mitchell Road to Wallace Road be completed in order to provide for better transportation circulation for the residents, school, and businesses in the area. Motion carried--4-0-0 (Dodge arrived at 8:45 p.m.) V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT Planner Enger reviewed the current status of the Comprehensive Guide Plan, its relationship to the Zoning Ordinance, traffic issues, and the recent Community Profile prepared by the Planning Staff. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Hallett, seconded by Anderson. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.