Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 02/09/1998 APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1998 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Beverly Alexander, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Douglas Sandstad,Mary Jane Wissner STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES: Kyle Halvorson,Adam Hupp STAFF LIAISON: Scott Kipp, Senior Planner; Al Gray, City Engineer; Elinda Bahley,Recording Secretary MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Habicht,Ismail Ismail,Mary Jane Wissner I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -ROLL CALL Chair Clinton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Sandstad, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Foote noted on page 12, the second to last paragraph, the last sentence should read... He said traffic is a problem. He was concerned about the traffic in the area but it's no worse than any other area in the City. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Alexander, to approve the minutes of the January 26, 1998 Eden Prairie Planning commission meeting as amended. Motion carried 4-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued from January 12, 1998: A. MAPLE ADDITION by MSS Holdings. Request for Rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 3.64 acres and Preliminary Plat of 3.64 acres into 8 lots. Location: 9060 Staring Lane West. Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1998 Page 2 Kipp reviewed the staff report and noted this project was continued at the January 12, 1998 Planning Commission meeting with direction that the proponent revise the plan from eight to seven lots, and pursue variances for lot size within the existing R1-22 Zoning District. The plans have been revised for that direction. The tree loss has not changed and still remains at 37 percent, and staff is still asking for tree replacement of 109 caliper inches. The density has been reduced from 2.19 units per acre to 1.92 units per acre. The lot size has increased approximately 2,000 square feet per lot for an average lot size of 19,960 square feet. Minimum lot size within that zoning district is 223000. Clinton announced they would open up the public hearing even though the developer was not present. The public hearing was opened. Bob Broich, 9105 Mitchell Road, commented homes priced at $275,000 to $350,000 are not affordable homes as stated by Mr. Kroiss. He presented a printout from Burnet Realty reflecting 60 homes up for sale in Eden Prairie valued from$250,000 to $375,000. He does not see this as a shortage as referred to by Mr. Kroiss. The amount of homes for sale combined with the new land available for rezoning and the expansion of the MUSA line in Eden Prairie offsets any need for rezoning this parcel. He also made reference to an article in the Eden Prairie newspaper that said the City is ahead of their goals as far as affordable housing is concerned. He pointed out on the colored map all the neighbors who signed the petition against this rezoning. He didn't understand how the Commission could grant this rezoning with the opposition from the neighborhood. This will only cause the neighborhood to loose all it's great charm. He said 37 percent tree loss is a little bit over what the City likes and was concerned about cutting down all the beautiful trees to accommodate one or two more houses. He would like the zoning to stay the way it is and for no variances to be granted. Kathleen Schwankl, 9090 West Staring Lane, noted they own the land that borders the south and west side of this property. She was concerned the added collection of water will impact their property due to the density of this project and the steeper grading. The outlot from the cul-de-sac will not provide the entire solution to the storm drainage issue and there is no grading down below that gives an outlet for any water collection. It would have collected in a NURP pond but that's been eliminated. She was concerned about the cash distribution to the sewer and water fund that's been recommended because if and when her property is developed, the existing collection area would be reconstructed and that could be expensive. She asked what portion does the City take responsibility and what would be her portion. Gray explained the project and how it could be applied to a more regional project. He noted they would pay the same proportion as Maple Hills based on the amount of property they have. Broich commented seven lots will also require rezoning and that's what he and the neighbors are opposed to. They are opposed to seven lots as much as they are the eight. Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1998 Page 3 They would rather see three lots but they can live with six. The issue is rezoning. Six lots would comply with the zoning as it stands now. Foote said when the Commission instructed Mr. Kroiss to remove one lot, he was under the impression that it would probably fit within the realm of the R1-22 zoning district and will need a variance on one or two lots, not six of the seven as proposed. His concern is how the Board of Appeals is going to look at this. Kipp explained the Board of Appeals is first going to ask the developer for the hardship involved in granting the variances. The question of hardship would need to be answered and given six of the seven lots need variances, it would be difficult. Sandstad said he has been lukewarm in supporting the original project but the Commission, as a whole, decided it was too many lots and made the decision to not go with the R1-13.5 zoning. If that decision stands, he doesn't see how the Commission can approve the whole plat when virtually none of the lots meet the standard. In his opinion, that is improper action. Foote agreed with Sandstad. Foote commented when the Commission originally talked with Mr. Kroiss, he pretty much said he would be able to fit all the lots with the exception of one within the R1-22 zoning district. Now it turns out none of them fit except one. He felt the Commission should fall back to R1-13.5 with seven lots or go to R1-22 with six lots. He doesn't want to put the Board of Appeals into a situation of granting these kinds of variances. Alexander supported the R1-22 zoning. Clinton said he shared the same concerns as the other commissioners. If they add up the lot size and divide it by 22,000 sq. ft., they would get six lots instead of seven. He said Mr. Kroiss was concerned about pricing but he doesn't feel it would terribly effect the price of the homes that much. Foote said he would be more concerned about the pricing if this was affordable housing but$275,000 is still well above any kind of affordable range. Kipp stated if the Commission is looking at passing their motion not to rezone the property, rather than specify any particular number of lots, they may just want to recommend revising the plans to meet the existing R1-22 zoning district. Sandstad continued to support the seven lots just as he did the eight lots,just to get away from pushing the cost up. He still thought traffic is not a significant issue and it would be reasonable to develop to R1-13.5 in a larger area which is before them now. He said he was not sure of the advisability of the R1-13.5 because the Commission is obligated to deal with the proponent's request on a case value. Kipp explained what the Commission's options are. Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1998 Page 4 MOTION 1: Foote moved, seconded by Alexander, to continue the public hearing for 30 days to reevaluate the proposal for the existing R1-22 zoning district. Motion carried 3-1 with the no vote by Sandstad. B. WELTER'S BROOKHAVEN FARM by Ray Welter, Jr. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 23.45 acres, PUD District Review on 23.45 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 21.77 acres, Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.38 acres and from Rural to R1-9.5 on 0.3 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 23.45 acres into 43 lots and 2 outlots. Location: Northeast corner of Homeward Hills Road&Pioneer Trail. Frank Cardarelle, surveyor representing Ray Welter Jr., said they have been working with staff for a couple of months trying to work out all the problems. He explained the technical problems which they can solve and explained their concerns about the two outlots and the moving of the road. Ray Welter Jr., developer, was concerned that the City is requesting cash park fees, requesting he do a trail, and requesting that he give land to the County. He was also concerned that widening the road will result in great tree loss of beautiful oaks on 169. He said he will have about a 30 foot front yard at his own house because of that road and will not be able to get out of his cul-de-sac. The City is asking for a conservation easement and he said he can give them a partial conservation easement. He commented his family has taken care of this land since 1948 and has lived there for 33 *years. He knows most of the trees personally. When Pax Christi was built, he donated part of the land for the parking and part of that agreement was they had to curb the road to save all the trees at the bottom. He said he would be willing to give the path or the cash park fees but doesn't feel it's fair that he give both when he's already given sewer and water easement to the Metropolitan Waste Commission. Kipp reviewed the staff report and noted they have worked for quite a while with Mr. Welter. The density of the project is 1.83 units per acre and it's well within the limits of the guide plan. It's a 40 unit twinhome development with three single family units. The project is a transitional type use between the County Road and the apartment project to the south at 9.3 units per acre and the Purgatory Acres which was approved at 1.7 units per acre. Staff believes a twinhome proposal is a good transitional use between those existing uses. There is minimal tree loss with the development and the development is taking place on the upper portion of the property. None of the units encroach into the slopes and wooded areas on Purgatory Creek. Based on the plans submitted, it appears three significant trees will be effected by this development that would mainly fall in the location of the NURP pond in the northwest corner. The plan does depend on shoreland waivers for lot size of less than 10,000 square feet and they range between 7,500 and 9,500. Staff is supportive of those waivers since it will maintain a maximum buffer between the development and the creek. Staff also wants to maintain all the conservancy areas identified as part of the Purgatory Creek Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1998 Page 5 study. Staff did recommend that the proponent look at other options, either dedicating Outlot A or providing staff with a standard conservation easement for the outlot together with a 20 foot trail. This is consistent with all the development along Purgatory Creek and consistent with the Purgatory Creek study. Pioneer Trail is proposed to be upgraded sometime in the next year. Staff has looked at the proposal and recommended the shift depicted in the staff report. The proponent did revise the plans to shift the road approximately half the distance based on some preliminary grading from the County. Staff believes it necessary to shift that road additional distance according to the graphics provided. This will provide for a more adequate grading between the structures and the road. The landscaping plan has been submitted and does meet City Code. Staff recommended approval of the plan based on revisions prior to the City Council as stated in the staff report. Foote asked the developer which of the conditions, A-F, listed in the staff report does he or does he not agree with. Welter said he doesn't agree with B. He wants to leave Outlot B as an outlot so he can negotiate a price with the County with it because it creates major cost for him. He didn't agree with D but said he would agree if they would allow him to put a gazebo in there. He also didn't agree with E because it would get too close to the trees and all the creek lots would be right up to the edge and ruin the salability of them. Foote asked if it was possible to widen the road with a retaining wall as recommended by Mr. Welter. Gray responded he didn't think it was possible to widen the road with a retaining wall without taking away some of the right a way. Sandstad asked if there was any other way to deal with the NURP pond other than taking out the trees. Gray said they have other concerns besides that, such as using retaining walls along Homeward Hills Road for safety reasons. The public hearing was opened. Bill Hoag, 11995 Sunnybrook Road, pointed out where he lives on the map and said the Welters have been great neighbors. He said the 25 acres are very precious to him because of the all the wildlife and would like to see some type of conservation easement over it to protect the wildlife. He supported everything he heard but was concerned about the 20 foot wide public easement the City is requiring because he does live on the creek. Kipp explained the 20 foot wide trail easement is part of the Parks Open Space System plans of identifying future trails and would be like a wood chip trail along Purgatory Creek. Hoag said he opposed to that trail now or in the future. He was also concerned about the NURP pond since he will be looking at it for the next 50 years. Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1998 Page 6 Kipp addressed some of the comments made by 1Jr. Welter regarding Outlot B and access to his homestead. Staff believes there are some areas they can work on and some of the things they feel strongly need to take place. Sandstad said he would like to see Mr. Welter, his consultant, and the City do a little more fine tuning and see if they can reach agreements on most of the issues. He commended Mr. Welter for taking great care of the trees. He recommended continuing this for another month to see if they can reach some agreement. Welter said he would rather go right to the City Council because he gave enough and is not giving any more. He doesn't feel he should have to give the trail and cash park fees. He should get some credit for what he has done already. He's willing to give one or the other but not both. Foote agreed with Sandstad and also commended Mr. Welter for the great care he has given to the trees. However, they have to allow enough right of way for some of those things. He supported the staff report regarding the recommendations. Alexander said there should be a limit to what 1&. Welter should have to give but on the other hand there are the City and County laws and she doesn't know how to get around them. She agreed with the staff report but in all fairness it doesn't seem right that he should have to continue to give more than he already has done. Clinton supported the staff report recommendations and recommended the developer work with staff in trying to work out some minor details before it goes to the City Council. The Commission likes to present to the City Council a good plan that has basically worked through the details so they don't have to deal with it. MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0. MOTION 2: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend denial of the project because it does not comply with the Shoreland Ordinance or the recommendations in the staff report that are a compromised package based upon working with the developer, and that the Commission has recommended a continuance and further cooperation between the developer and the City to improve areas in which they disagree, but it is the developer's choice to move forward without a continuance. Motion carried 4-0. Foote commented it bothered him to deny this for the simple fact he thinks it would be a very nice project. He hopes they can work something out before going to the City Council. Alexander agreed with Foote. V. PUBLIC MEETING None. Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 1998 Page 7 VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS Foote said the Housing, Transportation, and Human Services Board had a meeting last Thursday. There will be a habitat house in Eden Prairie starting to be built in June and probably be finished in the middle of July. He will be volunteering and if anyone is interested they can contact him and he will get them signed up. Sandstad volunteered. VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS None. VIII. NEW BUSINESS None. IX. PLANNER'S REPORT Kipp reviewed the agenda for the February 23 meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Alexander, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.