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 __..