Loading...
Planning Commission - 07/07/1970 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE-PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 7, 1970 7:30 P.M., Village Hall INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. MINUTES OF MAY 19 JUNE 2 and JUNE 16, 1970. II; PETITIONS. REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS. A. William Bren. Application For Mining Permit. North of T.H. 169 between Shady Oak and Willow Creek. III. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. The Preserve. Planned Unit Development (PUD 70-2). . Anderson Lake Area. r`e Fiminary Staff Report. B. Edenvale. Planned Unit Development (PUD 70-3). Eden Prairie Golf Course Area. Preliminary Staff Report. C. Edina Building Inc. Planned Unit Development (PUD 70-4) . Duck Lake Trail etwe`en Ticonderoga-Trail and Tartan Curve. Presentation of Additional Information by Applicant. D. Ochs Brick and Tile Co. North of T,H.5 near. Louver Mfg. Presentation and Review of Site .Plan. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 7, 1970 7:35 P.M., Village Hail Members present were Chairman Skjelbostad, Nesbitt, Emerson, Meyers, Raguet, and Schee. Also present were planners Don Brauer and Bill Bonner. I. 14INUTES OF MAY 19, JUNE 2 and JUNE 16, 1970 The minutes of May 9 and June were approved without correction. The minutes of June 16th were approved following the addition of Pair. Skjelbostad to the list of those present. II. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. 14i Liam Bren, Application for Mining Permit. North of T.H. 169 Between Shad Oak Road and Willow Creek. The Manager presented a staff report Fated July 7, on the application of William Bren for a mining permit on his T.H. 169 property. The report concluded that the property was in an area designated as residential and that mining to the extent proposed was not necessary in order to develop it for residential purposes. It recommended that the request as submitted be denied. Mr, Don Sorenson, a resident from the area, advised the; Commission that he and his Willow Creek Addition neighbors were strongly opposed to the proposed mining. The applicant was not represented at the meeting. The Manager advised the Commission that the applicant would be furnished with a copy of the staff report prior to its consideration by the Village Council . Mrs. P,+,.yers moved that the Commission concurr in the conclusions and recommendations of the the staff report and that it recommend to the Village Council that the application of William Bren for a mining permit be denied. Pair. Raguet seconded. All voted aye. Notion carried. III. RECOPjMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. The Preserve. Planned Unit Development (PUR 70-2). Anderson Lake Area. Mr. George Carter appeared on behalf ooi�the " llie reserve developers and presented a series of doucments which completed their application for a Planned Unit Development Concept Plan approval . He briefly reviewed the material noting particularily the additon of reports from conslulting hydrologist and ecologist. Mr. Jim Stageberg, representing the planners of the Preserve proposal reviewed a series of maps and drawings describing their proposal . Mr. Herb Baldwin a consulting landscape architect, reviewed the material he had pre- pared for the project and its impact on the project design. Mr. Bill Bonner, representing the Village planning consultants, presented a brief review of the project application. . His review disclosed that in most respects the application was considered acceptable. He recommended that the Village Attorney be asked to review a number of documents contained in the application relative to the conveyance of public spaces and tile- ownership and maintenance of private open spaces. Mr. Bonner's presentation included a comparision of the population proposed by The Preserve developers and that anticipated in the Village's Comprehensive Guide Plan. The comparision indicated that the projected developer population figure of 14,662 fell within the population range of 12,061 to 25,795 projected by the Guide Plan for this same segment of the community. Mrs. Meyers asked if the Herman property located on County Road 7 which was now owned by the Preserve developers was included in the Preserve application Mr. Carter indicated that it was. Mr. Brauer advised the Commission that the Planning commission minutes July 7, 1970 Page 2 Herman property was physically seperated from the major project area and that the analysis of the proposal for the Herman property :would have to be handled seperately. Henoted that eh analysis presented by Mr. Bonner did not include the Herman piece. Mr. Skjelbostad asked if any major land alteration would be required and was advised by Mr. Stageber that development of the site would require only minimul grading with the exception of that required to develope Neil Lake. firs. Meyers asked if the first stage area would contain a housing type mix. fir. Stageberg replied that it would contain a full mix ranging from detatched single family dwellings to garden apratments, He noted that the first stage was one of the overall high denisty areas in that it was located adjacent to a major open space (Neil Lake) and contiguous to the "town" center" which would contain many of the major facilities and services. Mr. Skjelbostad advised the applicant that the Commission would consider the application again at its meeting on July 21 . B. Edenvale. Planned Unit Develo ment (PUD 70-3) Eden Prairie Golf Course., Area, fir. Don Peterson, represent ntg the E enva e Corporation, presented and eviewed their proposal . He noted that the proposal had been presented in some detail at the last Commission meeting and that on the basis of that meeting, and the neighborhood meeting a numver of changes had been made. He described those changes for the Commission. He indicated that the developer is now considering two plans, labeled A and B. The basic distinction between the plans being the location of Valley View Road. Plan A placed the road south of Purgatory Creek and adjacent of the industrial area located between the creek and Highway 5. Plan B maintained the road through the golf course development. Mr. Peterson presented a number of documents designating the public and quasi public open spaces and noted that they represented 24% of the total 980 acre project area. The proposal included about 63 acres of public land including a 22 acre combination elementary school and neightborhood park site. About 18 acres of the public land was located within the flood plain of Purgatory Creek. He said that the project also contained approximately 52 acres of private open space. Mr. Bonner presented a brief analysis of the application indicating that he strongly favored the Plan B location of Valley View Road in that it would avoid the utilization of that road as an industrial access route. He further indicated that the residential area proposed to be located immediately south of the Kings Forest area should either be developed in accordance with the R-13-i5 residential district standards or classified as low density multiple. In all other respects he said that he felt that the proposed residential development was acceptable. He said that he did not feel that the portion of property contained within the flood plain of the creek should be considered as public land for the purposes of determining the 5% land dedication. He asked for clarification of the ownership, use and maintenance of the proposed private open spaces. Thr proposed location of the elementary school and neighborhood park site was acceptable he said as was the proposal to locate a heighborhood service facility on Valley View Road just west of the railroad. He suggested that additional park space be-provided along the creek and east of the Baker Road extension in order to provide park service to the large office complex proposed in that area. He noted that the population projection prepared by the • developer of 10,000 persons compared favorably with the Guide Plan projection of 10,529 to 19,154 persons within the project area. a A f Planning & Zoning July 7, 1970 Page 3 Each member of the Commission expressed his or her preference for the Plan B location of Valley View Road over the proposed Plan A. Mr. Emerson added that w he felt that the Plan B route needed additional review. U7 < For. Skjelbostad advised the applicant that the Commission would consider tsle L - proposal again on tts meeting of July 21 . C. Edina Building Inc. Planned Unit Development (PUD 70-3). Duct: Lake Trail Between Ticonderoga Trail and Tartan Curve. Mr. Don Ripple, planner representing Edina Building Inc., presented and reviewed documents containing information previously supplied to the Commission as well as additional information which the Commission had requested at its first meeting in June. In response to a 0 0 question as to whether or not an approval of the Edina Building Inc. project would set a precedent for approval of sir.,41ar type projects on other vacent land in northwest Eden Prairie, The Manager replied that hte concept of clustering the housing unites normally permitted on a parcel of land onto a portion of that parcel would have application to other properties in Eden Prairie with similar enbironmental charcteristics. He said that he felt this concept was highly desirable, but that the Edina Building project could hardly be considered as the precedent, in that both the Guide Plan objectives and the Village's new zoning ordinance provided for this type of development. In response to an inquiry the availablity of utilities to the proposed project area, the Manager noted that utility service would be obtained directly from trunk systems and that ' the lateral sewers and watermains now underconsideration were not needed in order to serve the project. Mr. Emerson moved that the Commission recommend to the Council that the Planned Unit Development Concept proposal as submitted by Edina Building Inc. be approved. Mrs. Meyers asked that the motion be amended to include a further recommendation that the development of the project be restricted until such time as the Council has determined that the thoroughfare system within the area, particularily Duck Lake Trail. were capable of handling the traffic d generated by the project. Mr. Emerson said that he would accept the amendment. Mr. Nesbitt seconded, the motion as amended. All voted aye. Motion carried. A The Manager noted that the Council would conduct a public hearing on the Planned Unit Development Proposal at its July 15th meeting. The meeting would be held at Prairie View School and the hearing would be conducted at ` approximately 9 P.M. D. Ochs Brick and Tile Co. North of T.H.5 near Louver Mfg. The Manager re- ported that the Council had conducted the public hearing on the rezoning of (f} Ochs Brick and Tile Co. property from Planned Study District to I General and that following the hearing the Council had advised the Attorney to UJ prepare a ordinance which would implement the requested reclassification. A copy of the proposed site and building plans for the project were presented and reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Raguet moved that they-�Commistion approve the proposed site and building plans. Mr. Emerson seconded. All voted aye. D Motion carried. G: 0 Meeting adjourned 10:50 P.M. 0 03 Norma Schee, Secretary