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.