Loading...
Planning Commission - 09/22/1986 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 22, 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. RESEARCH FARM 3RD ADDITION, by School District #272. Request for Preliminary Plat of 116 acres into one lot and three outlots with road right-of-way. Location: West of Highway #169, south of Anderson Lakes Parkway, east of Purgatory Creek. A public hearing. (8:05) B. SHADY OAK RIDGE 2ND ADDITION, by Joseph Ruzic. - Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5.4 acres and Preliminary Plat of 7.6 acres into 11 single family lots and one outlot. Location: West of Old Shady Oak Road, north of Rowland Road. A �. public hearing. (8:35) C. SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK/PRESERVE MEDICAL BUILDING, by Supplee's 7-Hi Enterprises, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Office on 1.09 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 1.09 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 1.09 acres into one lot for the construction of a two-story office building. Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, west of County Road #18. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI . NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT , VIII . ADJOURNMENT NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER, THAN LISTED. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 22, 1986 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett MEMBERS ABSENT: Julianne Bye, Charles Ruebling STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to adopt the agenda with the following amendment: Under Item IV., the order of items would be IV. C., IV. A., IV. B. • Motion carried--5-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Hallett, to approve the minutes of the September 8, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--3-0-2 (Dodge and Gartner abstained) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS C. SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK/PRESERVE MEDICAL BUILDING, by Supplee's 7-Hi Enterprises, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Office on 1.09 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 1.09 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 1.09 acres into one lot for the construction of a two-story office building. Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, west of • County Road #18. A public hearing. Planner Enger explained that the proponents for this development had requested postponement of Commission review of this item until the October Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 22, 1986 27, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. He stated that, after a neighborhood meeting, proponents had decided to make amendments to the plans which would not be ready for this meeting; therefore, they requested continuance at this time. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to continue the request of the Suburban National Bank/Preserve Medical Building to the October 27, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, pending revisions to the plans. Motion carried--5-0-0 A. RESEARCH FARM 3RD ADDITION, by School District #272. Request for Preliminary Plat of 116 acres into one lot and three outlots with road right-of-way. Location: West of Highway #169, south of Anderson Lakes Parkway, east of Purgatory Creek. A public hearing. Mr. Arlyn Grussing, representing Douglas Corporation, owners of the property, stated that the platting of the property was being requested in order to facilitate the sale of property to the Eden Prairie School District for a future school site. • He noted that one of the recommendations of the Staff Report regarding the platting proposal had included requirement for dedication of a scenic easement over that portion of the property adjacent to Purgatory Creek. Mr. Grussing stated that the proponents would prefer to provide the scenic easement at the time of development of the property, rather than at this time when only lot lines were being changed. Mr. Merle Gamm, representing Eden Prairie School District, stated that the amount of property involved in the requested scenic easement was approximately 25% of the total amount of property involved in their purchase for future use. He stated that the School District, too, would prefer to handle the dedication of the property at another time in the future. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of September 19, 1986, regarding the proposed platting. Concerns listed in the report included a recommendation that no development take place prior to plan review by the City, that the proponent execute a special assessment agreement for the upgrading of Research Road, and that a scenic easement over the property adjacent to Purgatory Creek be deeded to the City. Planner Enger• stated that, based on the concerns of the proponent, the Commission may wish to refer the matter regarding the scenic easement dedication to the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission for their review and recommendation to the City Council . Mr. Grussing stated that the proponents would cooperate with the City to • facilitate the transfer of an easement over the property involved. Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience. There were none. Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 22, 1986 i MOTION 1: Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Gartner, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of School District #272 for Preliminary Plat of 116 acres into one lot and three outlots, with road right-of-way, for Reseach Farm 3rd Addition, based on plans dated September 5, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 19, 1986, amending item #2 of the recommendations to refer the matter regarding the scenic easement dedication to the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council . Motion carried--4-0-1 (Hallett abstained) B. SHADY OAK RIDGE 2ND ADDITION, by Joseph Ruzic. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5.4 acres and Preliminary Plat of 7.6 acres into 11 single family lots and one outlot. Location: West of Old Shady Oak Road, north of Rowland Road. A public hearing. Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, stated that the proposed subdivision was intended as a continuation of Shady Oak Ridge Addition, a single family development located north of the proposed development and also owned by proponent. He pointed out that utilities to service the proposed development would be accessed from a development located to the west, Luknic 5th Addition (aka The Garden) . Mr. Krueger stated that the intention of the proponent was to maintain the existing homestead site "as is" in an outlot at this time. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of September 19, 1986, regarding the proposed development. In addition to standard recommendations regarding streets, utilities, grading, storm water run-off, erosion control, and park dedication, Planner Uram discussed specific concerns regarding the location of a five-foot wide, five-inch thick concrete sidewalk along one side of Shady Oak Ridge Road, staking of the grading limits, with tree replacement on an area inch per area inch basis for any trees lost outside of the grading limits. With respect to grading, there was also a recommendation for more gradual grading transition of the property to the north and west as depicted in the attachment to the Staff Report. Planner Uram discussed the policy under consideration by the City Council for tree replacement within residential developments in order to preserve • the character of the property. He reviewed how that may impact the proposed development. Mr. Joseph Ruzic, proponent, stated that he had difficulties with the tree replacement requirement for this residential subdivision. He also Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 22, 1986 questioned whether a sidewalk was a practical requirement for the property considering the grade of the property in the location proposed for the sidewalk to be located. Planner Enger explained that the requirement regarding tree replacement in residential areas had resulted from concerns by the City Council for the potential obliteration of natural features in the community. He stated that it was the intent of the replacement plan to avoid the destruction of any significant natural features and to maintain the character of the property as - it existed prior to development. Planner Enger pointed out that approximately 90% of the property within the proposed subdivision would be graded, and that one hill on the property would be cut by forty feet at its maximum. Planner Enger stated that, without replacement of the trees, Staff would not be recommending the approval of this development on this property, Planner Enger stated that there were many good trees on the property, but that proponent had not yet submitted an inventory of those trees twelve inches in diameter, or greater, for Staff review. He added that it was the northeast portion of the site that supported the majority of the trees on the property, and that the remainder of the site was not wooded. Mr. Krueger stated that the Staff recommendation for replacement of 493 caliper inches of trees would equal approximately 164 trees of a three- caliper-inch dimension, or approximately fourteen such trees per lot. He asked if there would be any flexibility allowed in the replacement plan in order to balance the replacement of the trees. Planner Enger responded that fourteen trees on any one lot was likely excessive, but he pointed out that it did illustrate that the amount of trees that would be removed from the property was a large amount. Planner Enger stated that there had not been any replacement of trees done for the Shady Oak Ridge 1st Addition, north of the subject property. He suggested that it may be acceptable to relocate a portion of the trees from this property to the 1st Addition in order that it could be partially revegetated. Planner Enger stated that one of the alternatives that the developer may consider would be to develop only that portion of the property where trees would not be disturbed, instead of developing the entire site. Hallett stated that he did not feel it would be appropriate to replace trees "just to replace trees," that the relocation of the trees should be reasonable. He added that he felt it would be reasonable to relocate a portion of the replacement trees onto the Shady Oak Ridge 1st Addition property. Hallett also questioned how much of the hill was being removed from the property. He stated that the regraded hill would likely not be visible from Rowland Road, and, therefore, may not be as critical . Gartner suggested that it may be more appropriate to develop the property • with cluster housing units, instead of single family homes. Anderson concurred. Mr. Ruzic stated that he felt the property, as proposed, was in character with the other single family subdivisions in the area. Dodge stated that she felt the proponent should abide by the tree Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 22, 1986 replacement policy. She stated that she felt there was some opportunity for flexibility, such as relocating a portion of the replacement trees on the Shady Oak Ridge 1st Addition property. Chairman Schuck stated that he, too, felt that as many as fourteen trees per lot would be excessive and that he favored flexibility in the relocation of the replacement trees. Mr. Ruzic pointed out that the property was being developed at a density of 1.5 units per acre, less than the 2.5 units per acre allowed by the City. He stated that he felt this was an appropriate use of the property. Planner Enger asked Mr. Ruzic what amount of trees he felt would be appropriate for replacement. Mr. Ruzic responded that he felt three-to-four trees per lot would be more than sufficient. Planner Enger stated that this would be approximately a 30% replacement of the trees which would be removed from the property. Gartner asked if alternative designs for the streets had been considered for this property. Planner Enger stated that other designs had been reviewed, but rejected for various reasons. Hallett stated that he felt the closer the proponent could come to replacing • 100% of the trees removed, the better the project would be. Anderson stated that he felt the option of relocating some of the replacement trees within the Shady Oak Ridge 1st Addition would be appropriate. He stated that he also felt clustering of units on the property may be appropriate in order to preserve more of the vegetation. Mr. Krueger stated that the proponent would be willing to work on various alternative plans with the Staff to mitigate the concerns of the Commission regarding the trees. Mr. John Hoschetto, 11893 Boulder Bay Road, stated that he preferred to see single family homes built on this property, rather than townhouses or any other form of cluster housing. He asked what would happen to the business that was being operated out of the existing house on the property, noting that there was spraying equipment, dumpsters, and other equipment located on the property. Planner Enger stated that the City had received calls regarding the equipment, also. Mr. Ruzic responded that the equipment was used in operation of the development of Shady Oak Ridge 1st Addition. Gartner suggested that perhaps some of the replacement trees could be utilized to screen this equipment from the view of the rest of the neighborhood. MOTION: • Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Dodge, to continue the public hearing regarding Shady Oak Ridge 2nd Addition in order to allow the proponent an opportunity to work with Staff regarding the relocation of the replacement trees for the property. As a guideline, proponent and Staff were to work toward replacement of as close to 100% of the trees to be Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 22, 1986 b removed as would a functional and practical . a pr i al . Motion carried--4-1-0 (Gartner against) Gartner stated that she felt 100% of the trees should be replaced, not just a portion thereof. V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Anderson, seconded by Gartner. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.