Planning Commission - 04/28/1975 AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, April 28, 1975
7:30 PM City Hall
Invocation --- ' Pledge of Allegiance ;-- Roll Call
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Don Sorensen, loan Meyers, Norma Schee,
Roger B oerger, Richard Lynch, Herb Fosnocht, Dick
Feerick.
STAFF MEMBERS: Dick Putnam, Chris Enger, lean M. Egan
I. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 14, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
II. MEMBERS REPORTS.
A. Chairperson Don Sorensen,
B. Council.-Representative Meyers.
1 . Community Growth Council.
2 , Comprehensive Guide Plan.
3 , 4/5 Study.
4, Housing Assistance Plan.
5. MAC Airport Expansion.
C.Fosnocht & Boerger.
D.Other Members.
III, REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
A. Edengate Townhouse Project, located north of Duck Lake Trail and east of
Lochanburn on a 120 acre site. The proposal is for 206 units, 78. 9 acres of
community park and 6 acres of neighborhood park, -
B. Northmark II, request by The Preserve for preliminary plat approval for 78 lots
with setback and lot size modifications. The Preserve is also seeking rezoning
to RM 6. 5. The site is located east of Northmark I and north of Basswoods dl.
C. Frank Cardarelle, rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park. The site is located west of
6440 Flying Cloud Drive.
IV. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS.
A. Holte, requesting rezoning from R1+-22 to RM 6.5 for Lot 1, Block 1 , Lincolnwood
Addition for the construction of a two family dwelling.
B. Parkview Apartments, request by Eden Land for PUD Development Stage approval,
and rezoning to RM 2.5 in accord with the Mitchell Heights PUD Concept Approval. €
PUBLIC HEARINGS.
C. Area G of The Preserve Commercial Plan, requesting PUD concept approval for
retail, financial/office, restaurant and office uses and preliminary platting of
Area G. Area G is located northof the Ring Road and 169/212 intersection,
D. Olympic Hills, requesting PUD development stage approval, preliminary platting
and rezoning io RM 6 .5 for 72' townhouses. The site is appoximately 28 acres*
of land located westof Franlo Road and surrounded by the Olympic Hills Golf
Club Grounds.
V. PLANNER'S REPORT.
A. Amendments to Ordinance J 35.
1 . Industrial District
2. PUD District.
B. Area A of The Preserve Commercial Plan
C.Modern Tire.
D.Planned Study Districts.
VI. ADTOURNMENT.
MINUTES'
• EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved
Monday, April 28, 1975 7:30 PM City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Don Sorensen, Joan Meyers, Dick Feerick,
Richard Lynch, Norma Schee
ME.MBERS ABSENT: Herb Fosnocht, Roger Boerger
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Jean M. Egan, Roger Ulstad
STAFF ABSENT: Richard Putnam
I. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 14, 1975, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
P. 2 last P, add- The developer indicated the courts were intended to be private ,
not public.
P. 4 , C. , 3rd P, should read - was not agreed to at the PUD approval,
P. 5 , 4th P, should read - . 22 acres would work with fencing on the north
along the single family lot lines.
add after Discussion:
Sorensen requested more staff input and report on other aspects of the proposal.
P. 9, # 10. should read - shall enter'into present and future sharod parking .
II. MEMBERS REPORTS.
A. Chairperson Don Sorensen.
Sorensen referred the commission to the Board of A::peals agendas for May 8th and 15th.
B. Council Representative Meyers.
1 . Community Growth Council.
Meyers reported the Chamber of Commerce has requested the City to participate
in a Community Growth Council to develop. a 5 year plan for future 'growth.. -
2 . Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Meyers reported the council unanimously voted to proceed with the update of
the Guide Plan and the staff is to provide information on procedures and cost.
Mr. Ulstad stated that the staff perhaps would have a format for the Guide Plan
updating for the commission's next meeting and that the council also directed
the attorney to investigate the possibility of placing lapsed Planned Study areas
back in a Planned Study designation.
3. 4/5 Study.
Meyers stated the council at their last meeting did not reopen the discussion
on the 4/5 Area because the members who voted against the 4/5 Study were not
willing to reopen the matter. She added that 1 council member is drafting a resolu-
tion whereby the 4/5 Study Report would be used as a ' reference and it will be
discussed at the next council meeting.
4. Housing Assistance Plan.
Sorensen felt the goals were laudable and questioned what mechanisms will be used
to achieve the goals. Meyers stated the council has asked the Planning Commission
• and Human Rights Commission to address such questions.
Sorensen asked the staff to present the goals and mechanisms for the next meeting
and to determine when a joint meeting with the Human Rights could be established.
r approved
Planning Commission MinLAes "2- April 28, 1975
5 . MA C Expansion.
Meyers reported the council directed the staff to draft a resolution to halt the review
process of the airport to give the City and staff adequate time to review the
alternatives. She stated the council also has asked the Planning Commission,
Park & Recreation Commission and staff to review the land use impacts involved.
C. Fosnocht & Boerger.
Not present.
D. Other Members.
Sorensen said the city attorney is investigating the possibility of a n ordinance
which will require conformance to screening and landscaping requirements of
properties built prior to the present ordinance regulating screening and landscaping.
Lynch suggested the city rectify its nonconformance also.
Ill. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
A. Iidengate Townhouse Project, located north of Duck Lake Trail and east of
Lochanburn on a 120 acre site, The proposal is for 206 units, 78.9 acres
of community park and 6 acres of neighborhood park.
Mr. Enger explained that the project application was for Development Stage
approval , but the developer was expecting preliminary plat and rezoning
approval. Mr. Enger stated that no public hearing notice was published for
Edengate's preliminary platting , and that the action the commission could
• take would be on the project's PUD Development Stage and rezoning request.
Sorensen said he believed the Edengate project was a PUD Concept request
and asked the commission if they desired acting on the development concept
and rezoning request that evening.
Schee said she considered the project a PUD request , not rezoning and
preliminary platting.
Lynch agreed with Mrs. Schee and asked if the previous project had received
rezoning approval in the 1970 PUD approval. Sorensen responded negative.
Feerick said he considered the project to be a PUD Concept application, not
a rezoning request.
Mr. Tom Erickson, attorney for Mr. Pautz, stated that the procedures followed
Iodate are consistent with the approved PUD and the staff report states the
developer's request as rezoning and preliminary platting.
Mr. Pautz requested the necessary publication for platting and rezoning be ordered.
Mr. Enger believed that PUD Development Stage approval does not grant prelim-
inary platting and rezoning, but is a step in the PUD procedures to gain the
City's support on a projects direction.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 28, 1975
Sorensen said he does not favor recommending rezoning without considering the
platting at the same time or before He added that the developer can request
the commission to take action on the PUD Development Stage and rezoning tonight,
but the commission cannot take action on the preliminary plat request".
Mr. Erickson said they are requesting consideration by the commissi on of
Edengate's rezoning and PUD Development Stage application.
Mrs. Meyers said she still has concerns on the parkway and ponding and it would
be difficult to recommend rezoning without a revised site plan.
Feerick stated he preferred to vois on the PUD Development Stage before the
rezoning and platting. Mr. Lynch and Schee agreed with Mr. Feerick.
Mr. Pautz stated that there has been no significant change from the original
PUD approval and that he had wanted rezoning at this time. Mr. Pautz
said he fairs to see the necessity of requesting c, preliminary platting with the
their R.L.S. submission and that the R. , L.S. is necessary because 1 boundary
of the project is the centerline of the creek. Mr. Sorensen said any land division
must' comply with platting requirements.
• Mr. Erickson said the R.L.S. is necessary because of County requirements and
they are seeking Development Stage and rezoning, not preliminary plat approval.
Mr. Mavis asked how `PUD Concept approval differed from PUD Development
approval. Sorensen replied a PUD Conept approval grants general approval of
a proposal- and a PUD Development Stage approval grants approval of a
more definite plan and reconfirms the City's support of a PUD.
Erickson said the developer is seeking Development Stage application as a basis
of rezoning before the council and although the published notice does not
state rezoning he will be discussing the possibility of rezoning action being
taken by the councilwith the City's attorney.
Mr. Enger said the engineering staff feels the 206 townhouses may be premature
development for the area considering the existing transportation facilities.
Feerick said he believes the recreational facilities proposed by the developer
should be beneficial both to the surrounding existing residents and future
residents of the project.
Sorensen asked for clarification of the trail crossing referred to on page 5 of
the developer's April 18th letter. Pautz replied that since the road is not a
• major thoroughfare he does not feel an expensive underpass or overpass is
necessary. Enger replied that figures he has recently received lists prices
on 120' spans for overpasses as low as $ 20,000: -- -
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 28, 1975
Meyers said she believes the building design is not compatible with the topo-
graphy of the site and asked the developer if he intends to explore the
possibility of mixing units . Pautz responded that similar units have bean
ideally suited to the rolling topography of other communities. Pautz added that
3 bedroom units sell better than 2 bedroom units and require the same amount
of ground.
Sorensen asked at what elevation the parkway is proposed. Mr . Enger
replied the road is shown at approximately the 880' contour. Mr. F. Berg, engineer
for the project, stated that the road is entirely above the 100 year floodplain
level established by the watershed district and that the road is located in poor
soils to prevent its penetration into the hill. Mr. Enger felt that from an ecological
standpoint the road should be located between Lochanburn and Edengat a .
Meyers asked if the developer had considered phasing the project as she suggested
at the last meeting. Pautz replied that the project could possibly be phased if the
Tst phase were the larger of the 2 phases.
Motion 1:
Lynch moved, Feerick seconded, to deny the Edengate development stage
application and recommend a change'of the origiral Edina Builders PUD to
include single family detached development at a density of not to exceed
. 2 dwelling units per acre on land outside of the Official Floodplain Zone.
Discussion:
Enger believed medium density construction can economically and ecologically
be accomplished on the 40 acres, but the development of single family on the
same 40 acre site would destroy the hill and wetlands.
Feerick said he would like the project to be phased and the traffic problem
more clearly defined by the staff.
Schee called question on the motion. The question carried unanimously.
Vote: The motion failed 1:4 with Lynch voting aye.
Meyers suggested Feerick incorporate his. concerns in a motion and refer the
project back to the staff and developer for recision.
Motion2
Feerick moved, Meyers seconded, to recommend that the Edengate PUD Concept
Plan be referred to the staff and developer with the desire that the following
provisions be incorporated ;
a. that the mixture, size and number of units be revised to
give balance.
b. that parking requirements be reevaluated.
c. that traffic requirements on Duck Lake Trail be
• reevaluated and phasing of development be explored
to minimize traffic.
d. that recreational facilities be shared by the current
residents surrounding the project and the project's future
residents.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 28, 1975
• e. that an engineering report be submitted.
f. that location and cost of the parkway should be ascertained
by the staff and developer.
Discussion:
Erickson inquired if the commission would recommend denial of the project if
after reevaluation the developer proposed the same plan. He added that the
parking spaces could be reduced if the commission desired, the traffic
problems have already been addressed in the planner's staff report and that
he does not believe it is fair for the developer to provide recreational
facilities for the public.
Meyers said that if the project is denied by the City the developer must
wait 1 year before submitting an alternate proposal and that the commission is
allowing the developer an opportunity to redesign his project.
Pautz asked what type of units the commission desired. Sorensen and Feerick
responded that the total mass of the units were of concern to them. Pautz said 10%
PO-25 )units could be eliminated , but they : would have difficulty � redesigning
the site and road.
Schee called question on the .motion. The question carried unanimously.
• Vote on Motion 2: The motion carried 3:2 with Lynch and Schee voting nay.
B. Northmark II, request by The Preserve for preliminary plat approval for
78 lots with setback and lot size modifications. The Preserve is also
seeking rezoning to RM 6. 5 . This site is located east of Northmark I and
north of Basswoods d 1 .
Mr. Enger referred the commission to the staff report by the planner and the
April 25th memo which discusses the alternate school/park sites in conjunction
with the Northmark II plat. He stated The Preserve staff, city staff, Paul
Schee of the school district and 2 consultants ( Don Rippel and Mr. Wehrman
of Nason , Wehrman & Chapman Associates ) , met and from input from the
consultants the Preserve staff and City staff developed 4 park alternatives
and grading alternatives for the school/park site. Later, from the 4 grading
studies Mr. Enger developed an additional alternative ( Alternative 5 ) .
Sorensen asked if the alternative chosen by the city would dictate whether
a 1 or 2 story school would be built. Enger replied that the chosen alternative
should be planned for a 1 story school so that there .is flexibility to go to
a 2 story school. He added that Mr. Schee prefers the 1 story alternatives
( Alternatives 3 and 5 ) , which allow the flexibility of a 1 or 2 story school.
• Mrs. Schee said the school is also concerned about residential uses being
too close to park sites.
Enger explained that Alternative 5 places the school pad toward the center of
the site and incorporates more usable land by deleting 12 lots from the
Northmark II plat.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 28, 1975
Enger informed the commission that Don Hess has requested that the public
• hearing be continued for further work on the school/park alternatives. Enger
stated that consultant Don Rippel felt consultant input is not needed further,
and at least 7 lots should be deleted from the plat.
Enger said he feels adequate work has been done on alternatives and further
designing would not produce any substantial headway.
Sorensen stated the developer has the right to delay the commission's consideration
of the Northmark II plat.
Hess stated that the result of the last City/Preserve meeting was joint cooperative
work, and The Preserve would like additional time to review the alternatives listed
in the April 25th memo since they received the memo at 2:30 PM that day. He
said that if 7 lots were deleted from the plat it would be 10% of the plat, and
if 12 lots were d6fetEd they would expect compensation.
Meyers inquired about the cost of cutting and filling the school/park
site. Enger estimated the cost to be $.80-1.2 5 /cu.yd with approximately
20,000 cu.yd. tobemoved on the site and the Preserve has offered to
provide the additional fill needed.
• Meyers asked how much the total site preparation would cost. Enger estimated
the cost to be around $60,000 based upon the work John Hissink of The
Preserve and he have done. Hess felt the $60,000 figure was high.
Hess said he would like more time to refine Alternative 5 and that they have
been paying for the consultants`time. Enger stated he believed theCity
intends to pay 2 of the bill.
Sorensen asked Hess what the Preserve's position would be if Alternative 5
is selected. Hess replied that Northmark II will be developed regardless
of the school/park alternative selected.
Meyers asked if The Preserve would redesign the plat if Alternative 3 or 5
was chosen. Hess said it may be redesigned slightly.
Sorensen said he had requested a staff report dealing with the preliminary plat.
Enger responded that his time has been completely absorbed in developing
alternatives and calculating costs, and other city staff members have not
had time to address the specifics of the preliminary plat, but it seemed to be
reasondUy straight forward.
Sorensen asked if the ' preliminary plat included blanket setbacks. Hess
replied the setbacks would be similar to those approved for Westwinds and
• that they desire building the models with the preliminary plat approval.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 28, 1975
• Schee moved to recommend denial of the Northmark II plat request by The
Preserve for preliminary plat approval for 78 lots with setback and lot size
modifications. The motion did not receive a second.
Motion:
Lynch moved, Feerick seconded, to recommend approval of the rezoning from
Rural to RM 6.5 for single family detached residential construction with setback
variances and preliminary plat approval pursuant to the preliminary plat (64lots) ,of
Northmark II dated Feb. 25, 1975;and as modified in the staff reports dated
April10 , 1975, and April 25, 1975.adopting Alternative 5 for the school/park
site; and that the land in the 22 usable acres plan and the road construction
of said plan of Alternate 5 be dedicated at no cost to the City, and that The
Preserve should make available to the school/park site the additional fill
the City might utilize in developing the school/park site.
Vote: The motion carried 4:1 with Sorensen voting nay because he had reservations
about the variance applicability.
C. Frank Cardarelle, rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park. The site is located west of
6440 Flying Cloud Drive.
Mr. Cardarelle stated that he is preparing the information requested by Brauer`s
and would like the item on the commission's next agenda.
• Sorensen directed the rezoning request to the staff and asked Mr. Cardarelle to
provide the information to Brauer`s as soon as possible.
Lynch moved, Feerick seconded, to recommend to the City Council the setting of
a public hearing for the Cardarelle rezoning for June 3, 1975. The motion carried
unanimously.
IV. PETITIONS AND REQUE STS.
A.Holte, rezoning request from R1-22 to RM 6.5 for Lot 1, Block 1, Lincolnwood
Addition for the construction of a two family dwelling.
Mr. Holte said he is requesting rezoning to allow the construction of a 2 family
dwelling.
Sorensen asked if he had talked to the surrounding landowners. Mr. Holte responded
that the people were aware of his.intentions to build a duplbx , but he had not
contacted them recently.
Schee asked if the garage would access onto Co. Rd. 4. Holte said the driveway
would access to Lincoln Lane.
Sorensen referred the request to the staff for review and report.
approved
• Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 28, 1975
B. Parkview Apartments, request by Eden Land for PUD Development Stage Approval,
and rezoning to RM 2 .5 in accord with the Mitchell Heights PUD Concept Approval.
Mr. Peterson informed the commission that the proposal is located in the Mitchell
Heights PUD and had been owned by Shelter Corporation. Shelter sold the front
14 acres to Magnum Land Corporation and the remainder to Eden Land. He said
his proposal is for 2 story patio apartments at 9.2 units/acre and detached garages.
Mr. Lyle Landstrom, architect for the project briefed the commission on the
land's rolling topography, utilities, .the northeastern drainage to the low area, &
the project's 4 phases. The first phase is for 120 units, the second phase will
be 144 units ,the third phase ( to be completed by 1979 ) , would have 152 units
andthe,project� fourth phase is a proposed convenience center. Mr. Landstrom
said the project would have 2.3 parking stalls / unit.
Mr. Peterson said they have investigated alternate uses as the planner suggested,
but due to the parking and assessments they are not economically feasible.
Meyers felt cash in lieu of dedication should be considered since the project
• had only 3' outdoor courts for 900 projected . residents.
Sorensen referred the request to the staff Park & Recreation and Human Rights
Commission for recommendations.
PUBLIC HEARINGS.
C. Area G of The Preserve Commercial Plan, requesting PUD Concept Approval for retail,
financial/,office, restaurant and office uses and preliminary platting of Area G .
Area G is located north of the Ring.Road and 169/212 intersection.
Mr. Loren Galpin presented the 18 acre proposal. He cited the 2 major features
as the hill on the west and the drainage .to - - Neill ' Lake. Galpin stated that
no building can occur under the power lines and some of the soils in the area are
not buildable because there is 18-20 feet of peat. He said they are asking for
a grading permit so the fill can properly settle before building begins.
Schee felt the einginner should address the degree of grading proposed.
Sorensen referred the item to the staff and Park & Recreation Commission for
recommendations.
•
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 28, 1975
OD. Olympic Hills, requesting PUD development stage approval, preliminary platting
and rezoning to RM 6.5 for townhouses. The site is approximately 28 acres
of land located west of Franlo Road and surrounded by the Olympic Hills Golf Course.
Mr. Don McGlynn told the commission that members of the club have expressed
an interest to live near the course & to accommodate this they would like to
develop 28 acres .
Mr. Rich McCarthy presented the proposal stating they are requesting concept
approval for the total site, rezoning of the first phase to RM 6.5 for 22 units
and preliminary plat approval. He said the second phase is proposed as apartments
and tie-third phase for townhouses or atrium units.
Mr. Enger asked if the project included paths. McGlynn responded affirmative
and added that they would work with the staff and adjoining property owners.
Meyers asked what the grade of the proposed streets were. McCarthy replied
the street grade would be between 5 and 6 degrees. ,
Sorensen referred the item to the staff, Park & Recreation Commission and the
city engineer for reports.
PLANNER'S REPORT .
A. Amendments to Ordinance 135.
1 . Industrial Districts.
2. PUD District.
B. Area A of The Preserve Commercial Plan.
C. Modern Tire.
D. Planned Study Districts.
These items were not covered because of the late hour.
VI. ADJOURNMENT.
Schee moved, Feerick seconded to adjourn at 1:15 AM. The motion carried
unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted
Jean M. Egan, Planning Secretary
•