Loading...
Planning Commission - 03/21/1972 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 21, 1972 7:30 P.M. , Village Hall INVOCATION - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL . COMMISSION MEMBERS - Mary LaGrow, Chairman; Herb Fosnocht, Chairman Pro Tem; Wayne Brown, Secrbtary; Ralph Nesbitt, Council Representative; Norma Schee; Mike Flavin; Mike Manning; Pat Casey; Don Sorenson. COMMISSION STAFF - George C. Hite, Village Manager; Dick Putnam, Planning Assistant. . I. MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 1972 II. RECOMMENDATIONS AND. REPORTS A. BEDROCK SECTOR STUDY. Determination of Commission Recommendation to Council. B. OLD FARM. SHELTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Application for ; RM 2.5 Zoning and Concept Plan Approval. Mitchell Road. Review of Staff Recommendation. C. HIPPS CONSTRUCTION CO. Application for R 13.5 and RM 6.5 Zoning. Scenic Heights and Mitchell Road. Review of Staff Recommendation. D. ATHERTON. ROCKET DEVELOPMENT 'CORPORATION . Application for RM 2.5 Zoning and Concept Plan Approval. Mitchell Road. Review of Staff Recommendation. E. NEW HORIZON HOMES, INC. Application for Concept Plan Approval. Flying Cloud Drive and Parkway. Review of Staff Recommendation. F. EDENVALE SECOND ADDITION. Preliminary Plat. Review of Staff Recommendation. G.. FOREST HILLS SECTOR PLAN. Staff Report. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 21, 1972 7:30 P.M. , Village Hall Members pre sent were: Chairman, Mary LaGrow, Herb Fosnoct, Ralph Nesbitt, Don Sorenson, Mike Flavin, Mike Manning, and Norma Schee. Also present were George Hite, Village Manager and Dick Putnam, Planning Assistant. i. MINUTES OF MARCH 6 , 1972 The minutes of this meeting were approved after correcting item 3A (George C. Maurer Construction Co.) to show that the Commis- ion had not voted on the application because of a lack of quorum and had instead continued to the matter until its meeting of March 21. TT. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. REDROCK SECTOR STUDY. The Planning Assistant reported on the content of the Village Council's March 14 Public Hearing discussion on the REDROCK Plan Proposal. He specifically noted' that persons in attendance at the meeting and raised ques- tions regarding the plan's proposal to preserve the marsh areas at the north end of REDROCK Lake and whether or not the� overall development densities an.dresulting populations were appropriate for this sector of the Village. They also reported that the Council had asked how the proposed Village Center component of the plan wculd be implemer_ted, The Village Manager presentee some preliminary Highway 212 alignment studies and commented on their possible impact on the development of the areas north of Scenic Heights Road and in the marshes at the north end of REDROCK Lake. Fie said he felt that the impact on the marshes would be sub- stantial, particularly because of the proposal to develop an interchange between County Road 4 and 212 in that general area. He said the planning staff had met with the highway designers to advise them that the Village was interested in maintaining a pedestrian system between the residential areas in REDROCK and the public school facilities presently locased north of the 212 alignment. The Commission engaged in considerable discussion relative to the maximum and desired average development densitie, in the Portion of the REDROCK PIan idenVlfied as a prop^sad Bve-to- iifteen dwelling unit per acre area. Herb Fosnocht said that he did not feel. that there was sufficient evidence to support the need for establishing fifteen as the maximum allowable density within that area and suggested a maximum density of approximately twelve dwelling units per acre. Mr. Sorenson Minute s Planning & Zoning March 21, 1972 Page 2 said he felt that: the proposed average density of ten units per acre in that area should be re-established at about seven to eight units per acre. The Planning Assistant noted that the proposed maximum density of fifteen dwelling units per acre was selected on the basis of an evaluation of the types of multiple family units structures that could be developed Saathiu certain density groupings. He said they felt that fifteen dwelling units per acre represented a reasonable development density for low rise and relatively small scale apartment build- ings and that it was felt that residential development of ul�i character would be appropriate in certain portions of the I:EDROCK area. He also commented that the reduction in the average density within the five to fifteen dwelling unit per acre area would also have the effect of removing the possibility of any significant apartment type development. Mrs. Schee said that she was of the opinion that the entire BEDROCK Plan Proposal was intended to be conceptual and to serve only as a guide for future development in the area and that in the process of adopting the document as proposed the Village would not be necessarily committed to later approving any specific development density figure for any specific piece of property. The Village Manager suggested that development density was only one of a number of items that had t o be considered in reviewing individual project proposals and that many other factors relating to the design of both the site and t structures in the proposals would be far more significant. Mr. LaGrow said he felt that the planned proposal had been well concieved and that it is necessary for the Commission to establish rather comprehensive planning guidelines for areas such as REDROCK that are in the early stages of their development. Mr. Nesbitt said he was also concerned about the overall community population densities but felt: that the proposals presented in the RRDROCK plan were reasonable for that area, Mr. Brown said he was cognizant of the very real economic consideration which a residential developer had to take into accounL in preparing a proposal and that in his opinion any reduction in the average or maximum densities suggested in the plan would make it very difficult for persons to develop apartment areas. Minutes Planning & Zoning March 21, 1972 Page Three The Commission also discussed whether or not it would be appropriate at this time to make any plan proposals for the portion of REDROCK situated north of Scenic Heights Road in that the adjacent Highway 212 plans were still undetermined and would obviously have impact on the possible development options in that area. Mr. LaGrow moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council that the proposed REDROCK Sector Plan as presented in the plan document submitted by the planning staff be approvrd. Mr. Brown seconded. Mr. Sorenson moved that the LaGrow motion be amended to include an exclusion of the plan proposals for the portions of the RED- ROCK area situated between Scenic Heights Road and proposed Highway 212. Mrs. Schee seconded Mr. Sorerson's amendment motion. The amendment was adopted unanimously. Mr. Sorenson moved that the original motion also be amended so as to designate that the average density within the proposed five to fifteen dwelling unit per acre area would be estimated at nine units per acre. Mr. Nesbitt seconded. The vote on this proposed amendment was three aye, five no. The amend- ment motion was defeated. Mr. LaGrow moved that the original motion be amended so as to specify in the plan that the average development density within the proposed five to fifteen dwelling units per acre area be established at ten units per acre. Mr. Nesbitt seconded. This amendment was passed unanimously. On the question of the original motion to recommend to the Council that the proposed REDROCK Plan to be approved witki the two adopted. amendments, Messrs. Sorenson, Ne.;abitt, LaGrow, Flavin, Manning, Brown, and Mrs. Schee voted aye. Mr. Fosnocht voted no, explaining that he was objecting only to the A stabli shment of fifteen dwelling units per acre as the. maximum density in a portion of the project. The motion was carried. Minutes Planning & Zoning March 21, 1972 Page Fo--ir B. OLD FARM. SHELTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION The Planning Assistant reviewed the content of a planning report dated March 18, 1972. The report evaluated the proposal on -he basis of the REDROCK plan objectives and proposals and set forth a series of recommendations with regard to both the request for rezoning and concept plan approval. The report recommended that the overall concept plan be approved on the basis of 593 dwelling units on the 59.3 acre site and the developer be committed to providing the required rights of way for public streets in the area as well as the proposed public pedesttxan systems. The recommendations also noted that it would be necessary to select building styles for use in later phases of the site development that could be easily accommodated on the slopes in those areas without substantial site alteration. The report recommended that the request for RM 2.5 zoning on the westerly fourteen acres of the overall site for the purpose of constructing 186 two story apartment units be approvad on the basis of the submitted site and building plans. � Mr. Harvey Coleman, representing Shelter Development, reviewed their proposal and responded to a number of questions regarding the reasons why the project had been designed in the manner submitted. He noted that project economics were a major consideration in the design process but that both the quality of the environment and housing accommodation were equally important in that these factors would have major impact cr, the project's marketability. Mr. Coleman also noted that he had reviewed the planning report recommendations and concurred in them. He said that at the time the subsequent stages of ' the project were presented to the Commission that he hoped? that the appropriateness of the specific phases would be con. - sidered on their individual merit. Mr. Fosnocht moved that the Commission recommend to the Council that it approve the requested RM 2.5 zoning on the Westerly 14 acres and concept plan on the remainder of the site on the basis of the applicants submissions and the recommendations contained in the March 18 staff report. Mrs. Schee seconded. The motion was carried unanimously. Tx4inates Planning & 7)ni.rg March 21, 1972 .gage Fiva 0 . HIPPS CONSTRUCTION CO. . The Planning Assistant presented a planning report. dated March 18, in which he reviewed the pr^ posed single' family and townhouse development at the Interse c.n. of Mitche11 Road and Scenic heights Road. The report .-ecommande,& approval of the concept for developing 90 detatched residential units and 135 townhouses on the 3-ei acre paroel on .e b a3is n!- the applicants revised March 6 sub,nission. e report also .cecone- mended that the single family area be classL ed in she RM 13 .r, zone and r'.at the development within that area conio= Lo the requiremen-4s of that zoning district. The report ij'COmm?i��P!� that the townhouse portion of the project on the 8asteri Y 23 sc�,gs be rezoned to the RM 6.5 district.. Mr. Don Brauer was present on behalf of &,e applicant and review,ed the proposed site development p.1.6niL and building r:%cris ,i,=Ith `Yla Commission. He suggested that the Village establish z,:,ning 31s- tricts on the basis of the actual densities p:-cpossd .rathar than the densities permitted under the Village's zoning classxiications. n, the Planning Assistant noted that developnent approvals under the planned uni;- nevelopment procedure were confined to the project approved at the time of the Council zoning action and that the approved project proposal rather than the zoning cla'ssi.W fication would be the controlling factor. Mr. Nesbitt moved That the Commission recommend to the Council that it approved the application by Hipps Construction Company for the k1-13 .5 and RM 6.5 zoning districts on the basis of the applicant's March 6th application and the recoia mendations in the March 18th planning report. Mrs. Schee seconded; motion carried unanimously. D. ATHERTON. ROCKET DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. The Planning Assistant presented his planning report dated Mar-;it 48, 1972. In the report: he analyzed both the initial re oning nh se of the Rocket Development project as well as their application for concept" approval or, their entire 60 acre site. The report recommended that the concept for the entire parcel be approved an the basis of the o« r« l density not exceeding- ?0 ui = pa►.- acre or 60a units tonal. Pa compared to the 814 anilts prljx;sed in the application. The conocnt approval aisc, indicated that the necessary ric,Iht-otf--wet y )r *,-*he proposed parkway and other pubUn. £oau s�Jst ms �:�? pr,)vided 3;,d Ntat •t*h.v portion? of ,Lila site on or near the Purgawry Creek flood p'.ahi be 1)roperly pry;i.ac:ted. The r6po;t recommended that -,:he Minutes Planning & Zoning March 21, 1972 Pagi Six first phase 13.3 acre parcel adjacent to the Mitchell Road be rezoned to the RM 6.5 zoning classification rather than the RM 2.5 classification requested and that the total number of townhouse units permitted on that site be limited to the 86 permitted under the RM 6.5 zoning requirements. The application was for 96 units on that site. The report recom- mended that the second phase area which is situated immediately to the east of the proposed first stage townhouse area be idea- tified aw an apartment area but that the number of units that are proposed in that area be substantially reduced in order to provide more appropriate recognition of the steep terrain on that segment of the site. Another recommendation was that the units to be constructed between the parkway and Purgatory Creek be clustered on the knolls of land within that area in order to protect the open spaces surrounding them. Mr. Fosnocht questioned the appropriateness of the Village at this time committing itself to given density credit for land set aside for flood plain protection in the portion of the overall project located to the east of the proposed parkway. He suggested that the effect of allowing a higher density to occur on the remaining portion of that portion of the site might not be desirable. The Village Manager indicated that the protection of the area identified on the Rocket proposal as flood plain was one of a number of options the Village might consider for controlling flood waters along Purgatory Creek between Highway 5 and Staring Lake. He said that it might be appropriate to reserve final judgement on both the need and the density credit policy until such time as the Village might make a final determ- ination on which of the flood water protection options it may choose to utilize. The Commission also discussed the proposed development in the area identified as Area B, which is the land situated between the townhouses adjacent to Mitchell Road and the parkway. The Planning Assistant said he felt that the type of building structure proposed in that area would be appropriate but that the number of such structures was in excess of the number that the slope could reasonably be expected to accommodate. It was the Commission's feeling that any action it might 'ake with regard to concept approval on the entire project :should not J2.n any vAray indicate its approval of Rocket's cuirerL version as to how Area B might be developed. i Minutes Planning & Zoning March 21c, 1972 Page Seven Mr. LaGrow moved that the .Commission recommend to the Council that it approve RM 6. 5 zoning for, the townhouse portion of the Rocket application and that the number of townhouses permitted within that area be limited to 86. His motion also recommended to the Council that it approve the concept proposal for the remain- der of the property on the basis of the overall density not exceeding 10 units per acre with judgement on the density credit for flood plain protection being withheld until such time as specific development proposals for that sector of the overall site were submitted and reviewed. The recommendation motion was also based on the other items in the March 18th staff report'. Mr. Nesbitt seconded. Me ssers. LaGrow, Nesbitt, Fosnocht, Flavin and Manning voted aye. Messers Sorenson, Brown, and Mrs. Scher abstained. Motion carried. E. NEW HORIZON HOMES INC. The Village Manager presented a staff report dated March 21, 1972. The report reviewed the proposed project in some detail and recommended that the appli- cation. be denied. Mr. Jerry Hegimeister, representing New Horizon Homes, ?nc. , indicated that they had not had an opportunity to review the staff recommendations and asked that the matter be continued until the Planning Commission's April 4th meeting. The Commission concurred in the request and continued the matter until that time. F. EDENVALE SECOND ADDITION. A planning report dated March 20th was presented by the Village Manager. The report reviewed the proposed subdivision 'With specific reference to the relationship between the current 'proposal and the provisions in the previously approved Edenvale Planned Unit Development Concept. The report requested some flexibility in the alignment of Valley View Road near the railroad underpass in anticipation of a reconstruction of that facility but otherwise recommended that the proposed plat be approved. Mr. Fosnocht moved that the Commission recommend to the Council that it approve the proposed Edenvale Second Addition preliminary plat subject to an agreement with Eden Land Corpor•- ation relative to the need for fled i.lity in location of Valley View Road near the railroad underpass. Mrs. Schee seconded. Motion carried unanimously. x Minutes Planning & Zoning March 21, 1972 Page Eight G. FOREST H-fLLS SECTOR PLAN. The Planning Assistant presented a ser=es of slides indicating the status of the staff's work on the preparation of plan proposals for the Forest Hills area. He indi- cated that additional material would be presented to the Commission for consideration at its :"april 4th meeting. H. QEORi"L C. MAURER CONSTRUCTION CO. I2 PARK ZONING. LOT 2 , M & K ADDITION. The Commission reviewed the material 4x7hich had been presented at the March 6th meeting and was not acted because of the lack of a quorum. Mr. Nesbitt moved that the Commission recommend to the Council that the application for 12 Park Zoning on the �-,iest 200 feet of Lot 2 , DA & K_ Addition be approved. Mr. Fosnocht seconded. Messers. LaGrow, Nesbitt, Fosnocht, Flavin, and Mrs. Schee voted aye. Nles^ers. Manning and Sorenson abstained. Motion: carried. Meeting adjourned 11:30 P.M. Wayne Brown, Secretary __..