Planning Commission - 06/23/1986 AGENDA
4:DEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
nday, June 23, 1986
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. SHADY OAK RIDGE, by Joe Ruzic. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 10.06 acres,
Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 10.06 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 10.06 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlots for a single family development.
Location: North of Rowland Road, west of Old Shady Oak Road. A public hearing.
40:05) B. PRAIRIE COURTS, by Ronald A. Christenson. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Office to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.7 acres, Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 37.19 acres, Planned Unit Development District
Review on 37.19 acres with variances, Zoning District Change from Rural to
Neighborhood Commercial on 3.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3.7 acres into 1
lot for construction of a 32,000 square foot commercial center. Location: East
of County Road #4, north and west of Wagner Way. A public hearing.
(8:45) C. WINDSONG, by Koosman and Rice Co. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept
Review on 39.62 acres for Multiple Residential, Industrial, and Open Space land
uses, Planned Unit Development District Review on 39.62 acres with Zoning
District Change from Rural to, RM-6.5 on 12.03 acres, and Preliminary Plat of
39.62 acres into 20 lots and 6 outlots for construction of 72 multiple family
units. Location: West of Purgatory Creek, east of Chestnut Drive. A public
hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
A. Highway #5 upgrading update.
B. Proposed Ordinance changes to City Code - Chapter 11
&I. ADJOURNMENT
*NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER,
OR LATER, THAN LISTED.
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 23, 1986
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine
Dodge (7:35 p.m.), Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling
MEMBER ABSENT: Virginia Gartner
STAFF PRESENT: 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
MOTION:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Bye, to accept the agenda as
printed.
• Motion carried--5-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
(Dodge arrived at 7:35 p.m.)
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Hallett, to approve the minutes of the
June 9, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Chairman Schuck abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. SHADY OAK RIDGE, by Joe Ruzic. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential
on 10.06 acres, Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on
10.06 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 10.06 acres into 16 lots and 2
outlots for a single- family development. Location: North of Rowland
• Road, west of Old Shady Oak Road. A public hearing.
Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, reviewed the previously approved
Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 23, 1986
•
plan for development of the property, which had been shown for multiple
family residential development. The owner was now proposing single family
residential development of the land for sixteen single family lots. Mr.
Krueger stated that the previously approved density for the development was
3.4 units per acre; the proposed density of the property was 1.5 units per
acre. He added that the road alignment through the property was nearly the
same as that previously approved for the property.
Chairman Schuck asked about tree loss based on the proposed plan. Mr.
Krueger responded that there would be additional tree loss, but that maximum
road grades would be used in all cases in order to save as many trees as
possible.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of June 20, 1986, with the Commission. He explained the concerns of
Staff with respect to the proposed grading and tree loss and discussed the
extension of utilities to this property and the property to the west known
as the Garden.
Ruebling asked about the safety of the posted speed on Rowland Road. Staff
explained that the road was posted for a 35 miles per hour speed; however,
measures could be taken to make the curve of the road safer.
• Mr. Krueger asked about the recommendation for a path along the road,
considering the steepness of the road. Planner Franzen stated that this
would be reviewed in time for action by the Council.
Mr. Joseph Ruzic, proponent, asked for clarification regarding the
recommendation for erosion control. Planner Franzen stated that erosion of
sloped areas was often a problem in areas such as this. He noted that the
proponent appeared to have the matter under control at this time and that
the purpose of the recommendation was to see that the erosion control was
maintained.
Mr. Wayne Kinion, 6401 Shady Oak Road, stated that he felt the proponent had
done a good job so far in controlling erosion from the development of the
property. Mr. Kinion referred to the letter he had sent to the City, which
had been made part of the file on the project. He stated that he was
concerned that the development of the proponent's property not prejudice the
eventual use of the property owned by the Kinion family. Mr. Kinion stated
that potential buyers were contemplating the use of office on his property.
Hallett asked how the Kinion property was zoned. Planner Enger responded
that the property was zoned Rural at this time and that it was guided for
Medium Density Residential development according to the Comprehensive Guide
Plan. Hallett stated that he could support Medium Density Residential use
of the Kinion property, but that he was uncertain that office use would be
appropriate on that site.
• Mr. John Luknic, owner of the property known as the Garden, west of the
proposed development, stated that he had no objections to the proposed
development. He added that he would be looking forward to participation
with the proponent in extension of utilities from this site to service his
property, as well .
Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 23, 1986
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Joe Ruzic for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential for 10.06 acres
for Shady Oak Ridge, based on plans dated May 28, 1986, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 20, 1986, with the addition
of 1.e., amending the property to be rezoned in accordance with Attachment C
of the Staff Report of June 20, 1986, and subject to the clarification of
the need for a gravel path along the road, prior to City Council review.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Move to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Joe Ruzic
for Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 for 10.06 acres for Shady
. Oak Ridge, based on plans dated May 28, 1986, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated June 20, 1986, with the addition of 1.e., amending
the property to be rezoned in accordance with Attachment C of the Staff
Report of June 20, 1986, and subject to the clarification of the need for a
gravel path along the road, prior to City Council review.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 4:
Move to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Joe Ruzic
for Preliminary Plat of 10.06 acres into 16 lots and two outlots for Shady
Oak Ridge, based on plans dated May 28, 1986, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated June 20, 1986, with the addition of l.e., amending
the property to be rezoned in accordance with Attachment C of the Staff
Report of June 20, 1986, and subject to the clarification of the need for a
gravel path along the road, prior to City Council review.
Motion carried--6-0-0
B. PRAIRIE COURTS, by Ronald A. Christenson. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.7
acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 37.19 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 37.19 acres with
variances, Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood
Commercial on 3.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3.7 acres into 1
• lot for construction of a 32,000 square foot commercial center.
Location: East of County Road #4, north and west of Wagner Way. A
public hearing.
Mr. John Uban, representing proponents, reviewed the plans presented to the
Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 23, 1986
Commission at a previous meeting. He noted that changes had been made in
accordance with the recommendations of the Commission made at that time. He
stated that the sidewalks were linked to the City's trail system. Mr. Uban
stated that proponents would prefer not to have a sidewalk located at the
south perimeter of the site, but rather, have sidewalk located along the
store fronts. He added that proponents were willing to work with Staff in
order to solve the internal circulation problems on the property.
With respect to traffic, Mr. Uban stated that the development of this
portion of the overall Gonyea 4th Addition Planned Unit Development would
not increase the burden of traffic anticipated at this site based on the
1980 PUD approved land uses.
Mr. Gary Vogel, architect for proponents, reviewed revisions to the
architecture made since the last review of this development by the
Commission. He also reviewed the exterior materials to be used on the
structures.
Planner Franzen presented the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of June 20, 1986, to the Commission, noting that the major concern of
Staff was traffic at the intersection of County Road #4 and Highway #5. He
stated that the letter received from the proponents at the meeting this
evening was requesting approval to proceed with the development, pending
• receipt of traffic information from the City's consultant. Various
alternatives of the traffic study were discussed, including split phasing of
the lights at the intersection and the addition of right-turn lanes.
Ruebling asked if these recommendations were to be implemented by the
County, or State, at this time. Planner Franzen responded that this had
been discussed with the County and State transportation offices and that the
response of both agencies was that they were not willing to participate in
"wholesale changes" at this time, considering the upgrading of the
intersection was to take place in 1988. Planner Franzen stated that the
County had mentioned a willingness to consider arguments for the split
phasing of the lights at the intersection.
Hallett stated that it had always been his understanding that there would be
no further development of the property at this intersection until the
intersection was upgraded.
Planner Enger stated that proponents were asking for elimination of the
condition regarding no development until the upgrading of the intersection
took place. He stated that the proponents were willing to accept the
results of the traffic study underway at this time, but were asking that
they be allowed to develop if it could be shown that traffic would not be
significantly impacted by the development.
Dodge asked how long it would be before the intersection improvements were
installed. Planner Enger responded that it could be two, or more, years.
Hallett stated that he felt the amendments to the site plan and
architectural features of the development were positive; however, he was
concerned about the impact of traffic on the intersection of County Road #4
and Highway #5. He added that he did not feel that making temporary
Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 23, 1986
improvements to the intersection, such as split phasing of the lights, was
an adequate answer to the traffic problems at the intersection. Hallett
expressed concern that proceeding with interim improvements may forestall
final upgrading of the intersection beyond 1988.
Hallett stated that this was a situation that all parties were aware of from
the first proposal for development of the property in 1980 and that he felt
strongly that the improvements should be completed before further
development was allowed.
Anderson asked about the concerns of the residents along Sheldon Avenue with
respect to the introduction of traffic into their neighborhood from this
proposed commercial development. Planner Enger responded that the traffic
consultants for the City were considering this situation as part of their
study, also. He noted that the interim improvements may create a worse
condition than would take place upon completion of all improvements to the
intersection.
Bye stated that she was uncomfortable with the traffic conditions as
proposed. She stated that she was reluctant to. proceed with a
recommendation on the proposed development without the information from the
traffic study. Chairman Schuck concurred.
• Anderson stated that he felt no development should take place until the
intersection was improved.
Dodge expressed concern that the interim improvements may displace, or
delay, final improvements to the intersection.
Mr. Uban stated that proponents were looking for approval of the site plan,
only, at this time, with the understanding that actual development would be
dependent upon the results of the traffic study. He asked if the issues,
other than traffic, could be approved at this time and asked for the City's
help in expediting the improvement to the intersection of County Road #4 and
Highway #5.
Chairman Schuck stated that he felt the site plan was well designed and that
proponents had incorporated the concerns of the Commission in their redesign
of the project. Bye concurred, stating that the City should contact the
legislature with respect to funding priorities for this intersection
improvement.
Ruebling stated that he concurred with Anderson's earlier stated concern
with respect to traffic impact upon Sheldon Avenue residents. He stated
that he felt it was unacceptable that the residents along Sheldon Avenue be
placed in a position where traffic would be worse for them with interim
improvements to,the intersection. Anderson and Dodge concurred.
Dodge asked about the type of office uses proposed for the development. Mr.
• Uban responded that the office users would be of a "soft neighborhood
office" type, and may include insurance sales, realtors, barber shops, etc.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 23, 1986
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Anderson, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from
Office to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.7 acres for Prairie Courts, based on
plans dated June 2, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated June 20, 1986.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request for Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances for Floor
Area Ratio and parking spaces, and Zoning District Change from Rural to
• Neighborhood Commercial for 3.7 acres for Prairie Courts, based on plans
dated June 2, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
June 20, 1986.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request for Preliminary Plat of 3.7 acres into one
lot for Prairie Courts, based on plans dated June 2, 1986, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 20, 1986.
Motion carried--6-0-0
C. WINDSONG, by Koosman and Rice Co. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 39.62 acres for Multiple Residential,
Industrial, and Open Space land uses, Planned Unit Development
District Review on 39.62 acres with Zoning District Change from
Rural to RM-6.5 on 12.03 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 39.62 acres
into 20 lots and 6 outlots for construction of 72 multiple family
units. Location: West of Purgatory Creek, north of Chestnut Drive.
A public hearing.
Mr. Dan Koosman, proponent, reviewed the proposed plan and discussed the
characteristics of the property, including the presence of the flood plain
1� along the east portion of the site. Mr. Jerry Mezara, architect for
proponents, reviewed the structures proposed for the property and showed
that the majority of the units would be fronting upon open space. He added
that, per the recommendation of the Staff Report of June 20, 1986,
proponents would be providing the necessary trail connection for access to
Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 23, 1986
the open space area to the east.
Hallett asked about the price of the proposed units. Mr. Larry Rice,
proponent, stated that the units would be between $45-50,000. He stated
that the development would be marketed as individual units for sale, not
marketed as multi-unit structures, as had been proposed in previous plans.
Anderson asked if the private road system shown in the plans was wide enough
to handle school buses. Planner Enger responded that buses would be able to
use the looped street in the development, but would find it difficult to
negotiate the cul-de-sac.
Anderson noted that the ponds were the main amenities of the development and
asked how the proponents would maintain the ponds in order to prevent them
from drying up, or becoming stagnant. Mr. Koosman stated that, if
necessary, they would consider using fountains in the ponds in order to see
that they were maintained properly.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
• Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Koosman & Rice for Planned Unit Development
Concept of 39.62 acres, known as Windsong, for multiple residential,
industrial, and open space land uses, based on plans dated June 4, 1986,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 20, 1986.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Koosman & Rice for Planned Unit Development
District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 12.03
acres for Windsong for 12.03 acres for construction of 72 multiple family
units, based on plans dated June 4, 1986, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated June 20, 1986.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 4•
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Koosman & Rice for Preliminary Plat of 39.62
acres into 20 lots and 6 outlots, for construction of 72 multiple
residential units to be knonwn as Windsong, based on plans dated June 4,
Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 23, 1986
1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 20,
1986.
Motion carried--6-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
A. Highway #5 Upgrading Update
Planner Enger reviewed the status of the upgrading of Highway #5 with the
Commission. He stated that according to the most recent information, the
bids would be let for upgrading that portion of Highway #5 east of Mitchell
Road this year, with construction expected to begin in the Spring, 1987, and
construction expected to be completed in late Fall, 1987.
B. Amendments to City Code
Planner Enger explained that several housekeeping items were needed within
the City Code as concerned the zoning section of the Code. He gave a brief
explanation of the proposed changes, noting that many of the changes would
place into Code format requirements which had been placed on the majority of
developments over the recent past.
Commissioners concurred that they would make a recommendation on the
proposed Code changes at their July 14, 1986, meeting.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge.
Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.