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