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.