Planning Commission - 06/04/1974 AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974
PLANNING COMMISSION OF EDEN PRAIRIE
7:30 PM CITY HALL
INVOCATION - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL
PM I. MINUTES OF MAY 2 F , 1974 Planning Commission Meeting.
7:35 II. SET HEARING DATE FOR LAKE SMETANA REPORT PRESENTATION.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS.
7:45 A.Michael Adams , proposed townhouse development of 10 units located
north of County Road 1 adjacent to Olympic Hills Golf Course. Mr . Adams
is requesting rezoning from District R ural to RM 6.5 in conformance with
ordinance * 135. Presentation -by developer and discussion .
Suggested Action. : refer: to staff for report by June 18, 1974 Meeting.
8.30 B.L. H. Sowles, H. Mason, L. T. Mason. R. C. Leaman, P. Haglin, & M. Sill.
. Prairie Park Developmant. A 515 acre planned unit development comprising
industrial, mixed residential, commercial and park land. The proposed
PUD is located west of Co.Rd. 4, north of Co. Ro . 1, south of Mitchell Lake
The owners are requesting approval of the Planned Unit Development in
conformance with Ordinance 135 from the current zoning of Planned Study
(PS) and Rural. Presentation by developers and discussion.
Suggested Action: refer to staff for report.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
9:15 A. Prairie East PUD 73-07, cluster single family subdivision of 64 lots with
average size of 7,500' sq. ft. The project is located east of the previously
. approved R1-135 subdivision and 1 ,000 ' west of Co. Rd. 18. Hustad
Development Corporation is requesting rezoning from Rural in PUD 73-07 .
to RM 6.5 and preliminary plat approval. Presentation of staff report.
Suggested Action: recommend to City Council' rezoning from PUD 73-07
to RM 6. 5 of the Prairie East clustered single family proposal for 64 home
sites and preliminary plat approval for 64 home sites, deny, or continue.
B Eden Farms PUD 73-01 The 185 acre site is located north of Co. Rd. 4 ,
south of Townline Rd.&adjacent to Purgatory, Creek. The Council requested
consideration of rezoning of the PUD to Rural because the time limit for
development has lapsed. Further report as to negotiations regarding possible
extension of PUD 73-01 based upon Ist phase park development for neighbor-
hood park.
Suggested Action: recommend to City Council rezoning, acceptance of park plan,
or rezoning ,or other alternatives.
C Commission Members Reports_.
1 . Chairwoman Schee 2 . Mrs. Meyers -rezoning signs,-Ceuncil action.
D Planner's Report:
1 . Revision of Comprehensive Guide Plan in conjunction with Commercial
Needs Study . Status and discussion of preliminary proposal by Brauer & Assoc.
2 . Status of staff projects:
a. MCA report c. Revised PUD ordinance
b. MCA ordinance d. Floodplain, Sign Ordinance
IV. ADJOURNMENT.
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, TUNE 4, 1974 7:30 PM CITY HALL _
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Schee, Don Sorensen, Richard Lynch,
Skip Lane, Joan Meyers, Wayne Brown, Herb Fosnocht
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Richard Putnam, City Planner
I. MINUTES OF MAY 21 , 1974 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
P. 3,3rd P should read- . . . landowners were given the option to pay.
trunk assessments before laterals were available.
P. 4,2ndP should read- Mr. Bearman responded that of the residents con-
tacted only.2 had refused to sign.
P.4,last P delect . . . in a townhouse/condominium manner.
P. 6,2nd P in III A. - spelling of "cites"
3rd P in III A. - should read - He desired Eo continue the public
hearing to the next meeting in order to discuss
the park land with the City.
P. 6,6th P in III A. - should read- Mr. Fasnocht asked why: there had
not been a Shelter representative_at the April 23, 1974
Council meeting.
Sorensen moved, Lynch seconded, to approve the June 4, ) 974 Planning
Comission Minutes as published and corr,ected.The motion was approved by
a vote of 6 ayes and 1 abstain, ( Schee) .
�I. SET HEARING DATE FOR LAKE SMETANA REPORT PRESENTATION.
Sorensen moved, Brown seconded, to set the Smetana Lake Special Meeting
for 7: 30 PM on Monday, June 24, 1974. The motion was unanimously approved.
The special meeting will,be a continuation of the public hearing. All landowners
will be notified by mail of the meeting and receive a copy of the staff report,.
Mr. Bundlie, Mr, Pearson's attorney, asked if he could receive a copy of the
City attorneys review of Mr. Pearson's proposal. He was told that anyone
could obtain'Mr. Perbix's reviewal as soon as it is completed.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS PETITIONS AND REQUESTS.
A. Michael Adams, proposed townhouse development of 10 units located north
of Co. Rd. 1, adjacent to Olympic Hills Golf Course. Mr, Adams is requesting
rezoning from District Rural to RM 6.5 in conformance with Ordinance' 135.
The planner informed the commission that on June 11, 1974 a public hearing
will be held on the utilities for the area and suggested that the proposal be
continued until after the utility hearing.
Mr. McGlynn outlined the proposal and its location through overlays. The
proposal is next to the )7th golf hole and 18th tee of the Olympic Hills
Golf Course. On the 3.25 acres 5 duplexes will be placed in conformance
with Ordinance 335. He said that they are anxious for sewer and water to
be brought up Co. Rd. 1 .
Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 4, R 1974
Mr. McDonald, 10821. Blossom Rd. , asked why a single residence was
not considered for the site; and if the sewer could be brought in from Franlo .
Road in The Preserve. McGlynn replied that they feel the use is reasonable
for the site and Franlo Road is not practical for the sewer because it does
not have the capacity. Mr. Sorensen asked if the units or living areas
fronted on one another. McGlynn responded that . the units will front on the
golf course but that some of the living areas would orientate toward other
units. Mr. Sorensen then asked what the distance between the units would be.
McGlynn said the distance between the 3 back units would 20-24 feet.
Mr. Lynch asked if the prAposed road would be public or private. ' He was
informed that it would be public. Mr. Lynch then asked how this 3.5 acre
site related to other properties in the area. McGlynn said that they have
endeavored to correspond the site to the Hustad " property and also to the
30 acre PUD north of the Golf course. He stated that they have an option
to buy an additional 5 acres to add to the continuity of the proposal. Mrs.
Meyers questioned whether 10 units could support the tennis courts, pool, and.
common building and if their construction would be at the option. of the home-
owners. McGlynn said that after the units are sold the total input_ of the
homeowners would be considered_. Mrs. Meyers then asked for the square footag's
of the units. McGlynn answered that there would be approximately 1 ,850 sq. ft.
in the 2 bedroom unit-' and 2, 050 sq. ft. in the 3 bedroom unit•.,. Mrs. Schee
asked what would happen * if the"buyers did not want the recreation facilities.
MGlynn said that-the facilities would be put in at the discretion of the buyers.
Mr. Fosnocht said that he would rather consider a proposal.- that . either in-
cluded facilities or did not. Mr. Adams said that they would make a commit
ommi nt
build the facilities. Mr. Sorensen asked who owned the land to the west.
He was told that it is owned by Hennepin County and it is a gravel pit.
Mr. McDonald asked what became of the plans of routing new Shakopee Road.
through this land. The planner responded that those plans had been cut
back by Bloomington.
McGlynn then asked to be placed *on the agenda following the sewer hearing.
Action:.
Fosnocht moved, Schee seconded, to refer to the staff for a report and to
continue the hearing to the next meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
B. L. H. Sowles, H. Mason, L.T. Masonr R. C. Leaman, P; Haglin, & M. Sill.
Prairie Park Development. A 515 acre" planned unit development comprising
industrial, mixed residential, commercial and park land. The proposed .
PUD is located west of Co.Rd. 4, north of Co. Rd. l, and south of Mitchell Lake.
The owners are requesting approval of the Planned Unit Development in
conformance with Ordinance # 135 :from the current zoning of Planned Study
and Rural.
Chairwoman Schee asked why the Prairie Park project was back. Mr. Howard
Dahlgren. replied that the three landowners involved had been directed by
Mr. Hite to prepare a plan for the land use and road alignment. That
proposal was presented to the City on May 1,1973 and ' was continued penibg
the 169/212 design hearing & they are now seeking concept plan approval.
The • Planner stated the road hearing never came about and that the _
owners are asking for concept plan approval and placement o f the road in a
general location.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 4 , 1974
Mrs. Meyers said that there had been a State Highway Representative at a
Council meeting informing the City about highway planning projects and that
in her capinion there is a question of 21.2's future because of the shortage of
dollars, the energy crisis and the public trasportation which therefore places
a snag in this proposal.
Mr. Fosnocht remarked that the needed information to consider the project ,
as required in the PUD ordinance, was not available , so the ) project would
be d.fficult to consider. The planner said that the project's plan is general and
the landowners are asking for general land use/transportation decisions. "
Mr. 'Fosnocht then asked when construction would occur. Mr. Dahlgren
replied that it would have to wait until utilities are available. Mrs. Schee
felt that from participating in the highway 212 discussions that tlL. road's
contruction was 10 years or more away. Mr. Dahlgren said that they want a
commitment on land use to plan the land well jointly for the-owners and City.
Mr. Sorensen stated that since the questions.of roads, utilities, and time
are not known that they would be trying to approve a possible land.use which
may be vastly different in 10-20 years. He felt that- they were unable to
deal with the request through no fault of their own. Mr. Mason, one of the
landowners, did not see how they could hold-off another 15-20 years and stated
thatif* the Commission did not want to listen they should reject the proposal
and they would take it to the Council. Mr. Fosnocht replied that it
was not a questi.on.aE listening to it and that he had no objection to what he read
in the projects' s .brochure but he was unsure what they could do with it.
The planner said that the City conveyed, all along that the proposal could proceed
after the design hearings,but that the design hearings have not been held.' He
felt the Commission had 3 choices: they could approve, the project as is,
wait for the road information,or reject it.
.The Commission members then directed Mr. Dahlgren to begin the project's .
presentation.
" Mr;- Dahlgren•showed overlays of the area and talked about its relation to the~-
City, its vegetation, topography, proposed utilities, roads, -pathways and
parks. Approximately 20 % of the land will be cb"dicated for parks. The _
area north of the tracks and that south of the proposed 212 will be mixed
residential, and the approximately 82 acres between the railroad and proposed
212 would be industrial/commercial. Mr. Dahlgren also showed overlays of
other projects planned by the company and stated that they have alot of
experience in successfully laying out plans prior to highway/freewav construction. .
He stated that." they are requesting PUDccncept.approval subject- to the
construction of the freeway within a 2 ,000 foot corridor.
Mrs. Meyers asked who the owner was to the land in the middle that was
excluded. Mr. Mason replied that the owner was John Rogers and that he
has seen the plan.
0
A motion was made by Brown, seconded by Sorensen, to refer Praia.. Park to the
Council for direction of what action they want as to establishing priorities
-add-timetables = --as to-corridors and capital improvement programs. -
Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 4 1974
Discussion :
Mr. Fosnocht agreed with the result that Mr. Brown was attempting to '
achieve in the motion but felt that the staff would receive the job and that it
would be more effective to refer it to the staff. Mr. -Brown responded that some-
one should tell the staff which priorities should be set. It was the planner's !
feeling that the Council would like a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Brown withdrew his motion, and;
Sorensen moved, Brown seconded, to refer the Prairie Park development
proposal to the.staff for preliminary evaluation and report to go to the Council,
and request the Council to provide criteria for development of this area
so as to advise the Planning Commission of the project's feasibility ,
desirability, and timing. The motion was unanimously approved.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
A. Prairie East PUD 73-07, cluster single family subdivision of 64 lots with
average size of 7,500 sq. ft. The project is located east of the previously
approved R1-13.5 subdivision andADOW west of Co- . -Rd. 18. Hustad
Development Corporation is requesting rezoning from Rural in PUD 73-07
to Rm 6.5 and preliminary plat approval.
The Planner referred the commissioners to the staff and Engineer's reports
which recommended approval of the zoning and platting sub;_-ct to the sewer
hearing of June 11 , 1974.
Mr. Fosnocht asked Bill Bonner, -of Hustads, if he had the information on other
areas that had sucessfully used parkways. Mr. Bonner apologi.zed.for not
having that information ready. ~Mr. Sorensen asked Mrs. Meyers if the
Council had acted on the side-yard amendment. Mrs. Meyers answered-that a
field variance had been appned,:but the City attorney said that in order to
" allow a field variance the zoning ordinance must be changed. Mr. Bonner
felt that Mr. McCulloch would consider variances on a project - basis but
not blanket variances. Mr. Putnam responded that Mr. McCulloch had
approved. a blanket variance in Hidden Ponds H.
Mr. Sorensen asked how much'was saved by cdtting the lot size given the
same size house . ' Mr. Bonner replied that there is a $ 4,000.--5,000.00
saving. Mrs. Meyers asked -if there was a commitment to increase the - field
space The planner said that there is plenty of space to allow more usable '
field game area. Mr. Bonner added that they are in the process of platting that -
area. Mr. Fosnocht asked why the cul-de-sac circle had been eliminated,
and expressed concern about the hazard of the streets bairn used as playgrounds.
Bill Bonner said that the cul-de-sac circle had been eliminated upon Ray Earl's
request for ease of plowing. The planner sad that the staff questioned the
hazard of children darting out of the screening along the parkway but that
there would not ,.be alot of shrubs or trees. Mrs. Meyers stated that the Enginee
report called for "keep right " signs and asked if they would be installed .
Mr. Bonner said that they would be installed by the developer., She then asked
if the staff had discussed the connection of the 2 Prairie East neighborhoods.
The Planner said that it was discussed and that in the original staff report
a connection, routing traffic through a residential area, was found undesirale
Mrs. Meyers expressed concern about the •: desirability of such road patterns
that it is being said that the City is becoming a City of dead-end streets.
Mr. Putnam stated that • crime is lower on cul-de-sacs because there: is no
through traffic.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- -June 4, 1974
a r
1 •
.F Mr. Sorensen asked if the pointed lot lines abutting the open spaces were to
be rounded-off as he had requested at the last meeting. Mr. Bonner said that
it would be handled on the final plat.
Motion: Schee moved, Lynch seconded, to recommend approval of the rezoning
from PUD 73-07 to RM 6.5 of Prairie East for 64 cluster single family
home sites, preliminary plat approval for the 64 lots, and that the
recreation area north, labeled the field game space and ponds be labeled
as an outlot to make the field game area a reality. The motion was
unanimously approved.
B. Eden Farms PUD 73-01 The 185 acres site is located north of Co. Rd. 4,
south of Townline Rd. & adjacent to Purgatory Creek. The Council requested
consideration of rezoning of the PUD to Rural because the time limit for .
development has lapsed.
Chairwoman Schee felt that since the Park & Recreation Commission had not
made a recommendation at their June 3, 1974 meeting-that the Planning
Commission should not act until after the recommendation is made;' Mr. Lynch
asked why there had been no'action. The planner responded that discussions were
still underway. He said that -Shelter was asked-how much 12 additional
acres would cost the figure arrived at by Shelter was $ 90,000.00 and
the Park & Recreation Commission is trying to negotiate a lower figure.
The Commission members felt, that 20+ acres wcu3dhe trse'thannecessary for a
neighborhood park, that the $90,000.00 for the additional 12 acres was
excessive -, and that it would be helpful to have a joint meeting with the
Park & Recreation Commission to discuss park policies.
Motion:
Lynch moved, Lane seconded, to continue the matter to the following meeting
and to refer to the Park & Recreation Commission as to-the negotiations. -
The motion was unanimously approved.
C. COMMISSION MEMBERS REPORTS.
1 '. Chairwoman Schee.
a. Schee asked if there would be interest in seeing either the IDS building or
Woodlake Park and which of the two the Commission preferred to see first. _
The Commission preferred to. see Woodlake Park and the tour will be
sche3uled sometime in June.
b. Meeting with Brauer's regarding the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Schee said that she was impressed with what Brauer's intended to do but
doubts if it can be accomplished in time. She asked what could be done regarding
in-coming commercial proposals? The planner said that an extension could
be acquired.
2. Mrs. Meyers - Posting rezoning signs, Council action.
Mrs. Meyers reported that the Council was satisfied with the idea and that
it will be.adopted at the next meeting. The planner informed the- Commission .
that the staff is investigating less expensive ways of making the signs,
e.g. silk screen.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 4, i5'f;.
D. Planner's Report:
1 . Revision of Comprehensive Guide Plan in conjunction with Commercial
Needs Study.
Jean Egan presented the base maps upon which some of the City's PUD s
had been placed showing the approved uses and their proposed open . '
space , roads, paths, etc. This up-dating of the Guide plan is being done
as time allows by the staff.
Discussions followed regarding balancing of uses, ( ] .-I ratio) , the need ,
for.data, Brauer's letter, and a joint meeting with the Council to discuss
the Guide Plan revision
2. Status of staff projects:
a: MCA Report- is being printed.
b. MCA Ordinance-The planner felt that time and money is needed to
complete it. He added that presently he is working on auto.dealers'
standards.
c. Revised- PUD Ordinance-The planner reported that the ordinance has
been completed and is presently.being reviewed by the department heads
and City-attorney, from there it will g o to the Council.
d. Floodplain, Sign Ordinance- these will be on the agenda some time
in the future..
ITT. ADJOURNMENT.
Lynch moved, Fosnocht seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 11'. 34 PM.,
The motion carried.