Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 10/20/1987 - Joint Meeting APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1987 6: 00 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, and Recording Secretary Jan Nelson PLANNING COMMISSION !MEMBERS: Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Bob Halllett, Charles Ruebling, Edward Schuck, Richard E. Anderson, and Douglas Fell PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF: Director of Planning Chris Enger ROLL CALL: All City Council Members were present. Commission Members Schuck and Anderson were absent . commission Members Bye, Dodge, Hallett and Ruebling arrived late. A. CALL MEETING TO ORDER G Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 6: 15 PM. B. ITEMS OF CONCERN FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION Commission Member Fell said as a structural engineer he has some a concerns about parking structures in the City. He said there are a variety of designs and some very cheap construction that may deteriorate rapidly. He said he thought we should find out what other cities are doing about regulating the construction of such structures and begin implementing some guidelines . A discussion followed regarding such regulation by other cities and by the state, and what problems could develop because of poor a construction. 1 . Development of Environmentally Sensitive Areas ( i .e . slopes, etc. ) Commission Member Fell said he was concerned about contractors who build the same house on a sloped lot as on a flat lot. He said this can cause unbalanced soil pressures and may cause a deck or other portion of the structure to collapse. He suggested that we :night consider having a structural engineer on the Staff to inspect such structures. Bentley said he was not sure what type of liability we would get ourselves into if such a structure were inspected and passed by our Building Department and then inherent engineering flaws occurred. City Council/Plan . Comm. Minutes 2 October 20, 1987 Fell said he was also concerned about the effect on existing homes if we were to come out with certification procedures for steep slope lots. Harris said these concerns were raised during the discussion of a recent project and she thought we do need to be more sensitive to development in these areas. Pidcock asked if our inspectors would have the expertise to check on this type of construction. City Manager Jullie said the plans are reviewed by the plan checkers; however, Mr. Schmieg who is an engineer has expressed concern about the homes being built on the stee►? slopes. Pidcock asked if it would be feasible to require an engineering inspection for construction on lots beyond a certain degree of slope . Jullie said we have the capability of requiring such inspections if we feel it is appropriate . Peterson asked if we have any standards in place. Jullie responded that we do not and noted that some of the newer projects that will be coming on line are in areas with bluff-type conditions and will pose potential problems. 2 . Relationship of Footprint to Lot Size for Residential Construction ,. Bentley said he thought the previous discussion ties right into this topic and the plans for R1-44 lot sizes. He said the question € is how do we implement that at this stage of the game . He said d there would have to be extensive study done in advance regarding which areas we ' re talking about and if there are enough areas left to be impacted. Harris said it was important for the Commission to understand that, as a first step, it does have the support of the Council in terms of review of these unique situations and in terms of requiring developers to reconsider the engineering requirements for this type of situation . Planning Director Enger noted that footprints, steep slopes and R1-44 are different ways to approach the steep slope problem. He said the recommendation for Bluestem IV was that the developer should construct the lot so that it is a typical lot for a typical home . He said this required the developer to construct a building pad ahead of time with a structural retaining wall and with a proper amount of back yard so that any builder could come in and build a traditional house. The retaining wall would have been designed by a soils and structural engineer , constructed by a contractor/developer, and reviewed and inspected by a structural and soils engineer . He said Staff thinks this is a tool that could work in a number of additional areas . t Enger said Staff is continuing to look at R1-44 and footprint requirements. He said this might include designing criteria to be placed in the platting or zoning ordinance which would describe a 1 fP 1 tI f II I f i I City Council/Plan . Comm. Minutes 3 October 20, 1987 category . He said all these possibilities might be tied together to develop some guidelines . Commission Member Hallett arrived at 6: 35 PM. Peterson said he was not sure about the effectiveness of Rl-44 keeping houses away from steep slopes. He asked if we would want to work with someone who wants to build something dramatic on a steep-sloped lot or if we would stay away from that sort of thing . Enger replied he thought this was a difficult situation that would require a very comprehensive review and would require that a soils engineer be involved. Enger said he thought the City should try to review subdivisions to keep those situations to a minimum. Commission Member Dodge arrived at 6:40 PM. Peterson asked. if Staff and the Commission would appreciate having predetermined criteria that would automatically trigger into a certain type of building situation in order to provide a mechanism < to respond to the builder . Enger said they would. Peterson then asked if Staff is working on such criteria . Enger responded they have not started yet. Anderson said he thought the concern was not so much with the occasional unique structure as with the increase over the past few years in the size of the house built while the lot size remains the same. He said this takes up more of the unique space in a project . He noted that we are allowing these houses to be built and then turn around to request review by the Board of Appeals because the house doesn ' t fit the lot . Bentley said he thought we should not overlook the possibility of using the R1-22 designation in some areas as well . He said he would like to have Staff work to: 1 ) determine where these areas exist ; and 2) which areas might be best served by R1-44 or R1-22 zoning due to the degree of slope or the nature of the soil . He } suggested that Staff do the bulk of the research work on this, bring it to the Planning Commission for a thorough review and then come to the Council with recommendations. Commission Member Fell said he thought there is a problem with going to a larger lot ; however, it might be possible to work out a setback requirement from the slope . Commission Members Ruebling and Julianne Bye arrived at 6:45 PM. Commission Member Hallett asked if it would be possible to determine the building pad for this type of lot and then require that the building stay within that pad. He said this would avoid variances and would provide a predetermination of where the house could be built. Anderson said he understood the concern about putting large homes on R1-13 lots, thereby losing all the trees and the hills on the lots when the house and driveway are constructed. He said we need City Council/Plan. Comm. Minutes 4 October 20, 1987 to determine what we are going to do with the last half of the City in terms of such things as trees and hills. Peterson asked if this wasn ' t another way of trying to enforce a tree policy. Anderson responded that it would be a way of determining unique areas and then protecting those areas. Bentley said he thought this might create unbuildable situations in many cases because of the marketing concerns for such high-premium lots with developers being unable to get such high prices for the lots and therefore not being willing to develop such areas. Pidcock said there is a market out there for larger lots, even up to two acres. She said she saw nothing wrong in creating a new zoning classification for she higher priced lots if we could create one for the lower end of the market place. Hallett said he thought this was just an alternative; however, it would be possible to make a good sized footprint that most houses would fit in. Bentley noted that an ordinance can' t be created that is so restrictive that it constitutes the taking of land. Peterson noted that it would be important to apply any such restrictions judiciously. ' Planning Director Enger said it would probably evolve along the lined of describing a vertical profile, so that a three-dimensional lot would be defined with a certain number of feet setback from the slope, which would leave you with your buildable area. He said this would require careful review of the subdivisions to be sure there was a large enough building pad and that it did not create a r variance situation. f Bentley asked what would happen in the situation where there is a slope that starts within 40 feet of the front lot line . Enger replied that the point would be to solve the majority of the problems coming through with subdivisions with the thought that there will always be specific situations that cannot be resolved within the guidelines. Enger said there might be additional criteria that would avoid platting on the steep lots. Harris noted there are always exceptions and those can always be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Commission Member Fell said he wanted to be sure we provide legal recourse to the homeowner to go back to the structural engineer . Enger said they are concerned about the situations where the structure actually gets slid out past the face of the slope, and the developer may actually bring in fill for the slope . Anderson said he agreed wholeheartedly that we should have our Staff investigate and identify the areas of concern. City Council/Plan . Comm. Minutes 5 October 20, 1987 4. Installation/Hook-up to Sanitary Sewer and Water Bentley asked what this question pertained to. Hallett responded that this was in relation to the southwest quadrant and the planning that goes into the location of multiples, etc. Hallett said they wanted to have input into how the picture fits together so they don ' t just react to developer ' s requests. City Manager Jullie noted this is one of the issues to be covered during strategic planning. Anderson said he wanted the Commission to know that we are starting that process. C. DISCUSSION OF ROLES OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL IN THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS Commission Member Fell said he was concerned about the recent situation where the Planning Commission went through a lot of discussion and their decision was then overturned. He said they could have gone further into some of the items in the project but they didn't feel it was appropriate after they voted to deny the project . He said he would like to see some other process to return an item to the Commission for further review in other areas rather than just reversing the Commission ' s decision . Commission Member Bye said they had worked out a system with Staff to limit the length of the meetings which precludes lengthy discussions on any one item, particularly if the project is denied. She said she ` thought the crucial issues for the next few years are the in-fill areas and the question will be whether the project fits and whether it is consistent . Peterson asked if the Commission has discussed and arrived at a consensus as to what the recommendation would be if the Council overturns a project that the Commission recommended for denial. x Commission Member Ruebling said they had not discussed a recommendation but the important concept was that there be some sort of review t situation in order to sure that the appropriate recommendations have been covered for those cases where the Commission has recommended denial by whatever vote and the Council recommends approval. He said they need to have a review process to cover all the important recommendations before the developer starts theproject. Bentley asked Enger if it would be appropriate to return to the Planning Commission between First and Second Readings for their review. Enger said it would . Commission Member Dodge said that in the particular project involved, the Commission didn ' t discuss the height of the fence between the residents ' lots. Bentley noted that the Council did discuss that at their meeting. Enger noted that on some of the controversial land use issues, most of the time can be spent on whether the land use is correct or not, thereby City Council/Plan . Comm. Minutes 6 October 20, 1987 not really addressing all of the other issues involved in the project. He said after the land use is resolved the Staff is very ineffective with the developer in extracting special details. Peterson said he thought the review between First and Second Readings was a good idea but wasn' t sure how it will work practically, as some of the people may refuse to consider any changes. Hallett said he didn' t think there was anything to lose by following such a procedure Bye noted that if the process works, it will help to clean up the projects. A discussion followed as to the procedure that would be used to flag such items through the process. D. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7: 25 PM. i