Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 10/23/1996 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 23, 1996 7:00 p.m. &OMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBER: Michael Franzen, City Planner Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE --ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Public Hearing: A. ALBIN CHAPEL by Albin Chapel. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 2.47 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.47 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.47 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.47 acres,Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres into 2 lots and Code Amendment to allow funeral homes as a permitted use in the Office Zoning District. Location: Rowland Road and Old Shady Oak Road. . B. BEARPATH 7TH ADDITION by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open Space to Low Density Residential on 68 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 420 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 68 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 68 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 68 acres into 38 lots. Location: North of Bearpath Trail and south of Rice Marsh Lake. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VH. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS Historic Site Designations - John Gertz IX. ADJOURNMENT APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION September 23, 1996 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad,Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner; Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner, Elinda Bahley,Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Clinton. Commissioner Kardell was excused; all other members were present. Commissioner Sandstad arrived at 7:20 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Ismail,to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Ismail, to approve the Minutes of the September 9, 1996 Eden Prairie Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 5-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Public Hearing: A. ALBIN CHAPEL by Albin Chapel. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 2.47 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.47 acres,Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.47 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.47 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres into 2 lots and Code Amendment to allow funeral homes as a permitted use in the Office Zoning District. Location: Rowland Road and Old Shady Oak Road. Franzen stated they received a letter from Albin Funeral Chapel indicating they would like additional time to work on the revisions as recommended by the Planning Commission. They have asked that the project be continued until the October 14 meeting. Planning Commission Monday, September 23, 1996 MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote,to continue the public hearing until October 14. Motion carried 5-0. B. BEARPATH 7TH ADDITION by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open Space to Low Density Residential on 69.7 acres,Planned Unit development Concept Review on 489.7 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 69.7 acres,Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 69.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 69.7 acres into 38 lots. Location: North of Bearpath Trail and south of Rice Marsh Lake. John Vogelbacher, representing Bearpath Limited Partnership, introduced Jeff Anderson, attorney representing Bearpath Limited Partnership. Clinton asked if the negotiations of land purchase between Bearpath Limited Partnership and the State of Minnesota is a joint purchase. Anderson replied the discussions are quite preliminary. There has been some discussion as to how the purchase will be handled whether directly by the Minnesota Department of Transportation or through the Metropolitan Council. There are not any serious negotiations at this time. The reason he was present was from a legal standpoint. If • the State is not going to acquire this property then they should be given the opportunity to develop it. The Planning Commission has to look at this property as if the plans of Highway 212 do not exist. Vogelbacher reviewed his development proposal explaining the site plan. The proposal is for 38 single family lots. He reviewed the lots and their sizes explaining they are in the creek area. They have looping roads that connect back and a platted roadway called Bearpath Trail North which runs along the southern portion of the property. The lots themselves are proposed for private streets which is similar to what they currently have in Bearpath. There is a pond in the middle of the second block of the plat which was constructed by the developer. That particular body of water could be used for wetland mitigation or it could be drained. The actual surface area that would be allowed as mitigation area can not finally be determined until the actual storm sewer pipe is put under the ground. (Commissioner Sandstad arrived at 7:20 p.m.). They have requirements of 4000 square feet of this wetland area and need to maintain it with a permanent easement as a wetland for mitigation or other fill that occurs. In the previous addition at Bearpath they have about two acres of open water that's been created for 4000 square feet which would be required to be maintained as a wetland. At least a minimum of 4000 square feet must be maintained as a wetland. • 2 Planning Commission Monday, September 23, 1996 Franzen reviewed the staff report with the Commission. He explained that the Planning Commission must decide whether or not there should be a change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan from open space to residential based upon impact on surrounding land uses,transition, and impact on natural features. One of the reasons to consider the change is the single family land use is consistent with the single family land use in the Bearpath Planned Unit Development. Although the entire property is guided as open space, the open space area on the guide plan was designated in a general way as a measure to preserve the slopes and the vegetation on the south side of the lake and on both sides of the creek, and to provide room for a trail on the south side of the lake. The floodplain and shoreland ordinance requirements define these areas more specifically. The land area not protected by ordinance would be available for development and that's where staff applied the normal standard. The City did not grant shoreland waivers as part of the original Bearpath project and are looking for consistency from an ordinance standpoint.The significant tree loss is 47 percent which refers to trees that are greater than 12 inches in diameter. Staff recommends that be reduced down to the average tree loss for the Bearpath development which was 32.4 percent. The recommendation is for lots on the east side of Riley Creek be eliminated from the project because the issue relates to shoreland ordinance, steep slopes, and shore impact zones. In conclusion,it's not the number of lots staff was concerned about but it's the placement of the lots and the sizes of the lots. There may be a way Bearpath can redesign the project to retain the same number of lots and still be in compliance with shoreland requirements,lot width requirements, and also reduce the tree loss on the project. Sandstad asked if the City Forester looked at the tree loss plan for any significant individual trees. Franzen indicated that has not taken place at this point. The staff first had to determine the extent of the tree loss. Clinton expressed concern about the shoreland ordinance and the problems with some of the lots. He asked how much discussion was there with staff prior to the development of this plan to try and workout this issue before being presented. They did not sit down with staff formally and review the plan. Vogelbacher believes there are some concepts being presented which they are comfortable with. They feel it's a reasonable plan. Waivers are generally not something that the Commission likes to grant but he feels that the proposal meets the intent and the protection that these ordinances are set up for. He noted that certain lots are debatable as to whether they are shoreline lots or wetland lots, and they believe certain lots are creek lots and not a shoreline lot. There may be some waivers that are required to execute this particular plan but they really believe the requests for • 3 Planning Commission Monday, September 23, 1996 waivers is not out of line with the intent of the ordinance. Wissner suggested using smaller lots and pulling them in a little similar to zero lot line lots. Vogelbacher replied they did have a proposal for what they call villa lots which are typically 75 feet wide. The Public Hearing was opened. Tom Winegarten, 1872 Erin Bay ,noted he built a house on Rice Marsh Lake facing across the lake. He was concerned that when he built that lot he was told by the City the piece of property in question was scheduled to be a park. He never would have built a home there if he knew about this. It was a big shock and surprise to find out about this proposal. He does not support the project and if it goes any further he will do every thing in his power to make sure it does not happen. Wissner asked Winegarten if he knew about the Highway 212 proposal. Winegarten replied he did.Highway 212 would be too close so they would not be able to put any homes in there. His understanding was that it would be too tight. • Wissner suggested the lots be more clustered in some way or done in another way so that the tree loss could be reduced. She would like the property developed a little differently. Habicht asked for a review of the guide plan use and how it was intended to protect the natural features. Franzen reviewed the guide plan. He noted that anything outside of the shoreland area has development potential and the developer has the right to developer property. Foote was concerned whether there would be enough room for the trail to be built if this is approved. Franzen indicated the staff report talks about putting the trail above the high water level of 879. Sandstad said he was supportive of the staff recommendations and thinks it's reasonable to develop a portion of this property. He said the east side and each of the waivers including the tree loss need to be revisited and should really be designed in performance with the City standard. Foote noted he was comfortable with the density but would like to see the lots pulled back from the lake a little bit. Ismail stated the developer needs to work a little more with the City staff because 4 Planning Commission Monday, September 23, 1996 there are unresolved issues that need to be discussed and this project should be continued. Wissner concurred with Ismail. . Habicht commented they need to find the compelling reason to grant a guide plan change. He supported the project and noted it's nice to see that density is not the issue. Clinton stated the Commission doesn't seem to have a problem with the granting of the guide plan change but they do have issues with granting of the waivers. He requested the developer to go back and review the issues addressed in the staff report. Vogelbacher expressed concern about the staff report recommending the two lots east of the creek be removed. He does not believe there is any ordinance that does not allow development of that area. He feels those two lots on the east side of the creek are extremely large,three acres and two acres in size. He asked that the Commission consider that as a reasonable alternative to the use of that property. • Sandstad stated the corridor along the creek should not be developed and he also sees a problem with the isolated lots east ofthe creek. He would not support crossing that corridor. In order to preserve that corridor they would have to move back a little bit from the creek on the west side. Habicht said they are granting development of 25 acres rather than taking away acres of development from the property owner. Vogelbacher commented if the Commission was so directed to maintain this as open space they would be more than happy to talk about the sale of the property to the Highway Department. No one ever wanted to step forward and sit down and seriously talk about the purchase of the property. They have been in possession of that property for four years and have paid taxes on it. It seems they can not get any movement with any governmental agency to say they would like to have the property and use it for a different use. That's the reason they have waited on this and now bringing it to the Commission which is a very reasonable application. The property is something they actually own and are entitled to. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote,to continue the public hearing until October 14 and to sustain the recommendation in the staff report regarding the corridor. Motion carried 6-0. 5 Planning Commission Monday, September 23, 1996 V. MEMBERS' REPORTS Ismail commented that the newsletter with the City update written by Scott Kipp was a very valuable piece of document. It was brief and easy to read. He hopes it will continue. Foote asked ifthere has been any more talk about the Eden Orchard project. Franzen said they have not heard back from the developer as to whether or not they intend to proceed with the plans based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission. VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None. VII. NEW BUSINESS None. VHL PLANNERS' REPORTS Historic Site Designation- John Gertz John Gertz presented his memo on Heritage Preservation Site Designation indicating he would answer questions. Foote commented he drove in the Wayside rest area on Highway 169 and asked if there was any intent to improve that in any way or will it be left as is. Gertz replied there isn't any intent in the designation of that site. It's hoped that it would be improved at some point down the road. Ismail asked where the funds come from for maintaining the Cummins-Grill home and what the cost it. Gertz indicated upkeep comes from the City funds. They have had some grants in the past from the Minnesota Historic Society to work on restoration of the home. They had a lot of volunteered help. He didn't have the exact figures of what the annual maintenance budget was for that house. Ismail commented he was not comfortable spending money on the upkeep of a house because of its historical value. Wissner asked if they accept donations for the upkeep in a separate fund or do fund raising. Gertz indicated the Parks and Recreation Department has some guidelines for donating and gifting. In the six years he has been involved in the Cummins-Grill house not much money has come in as far as donations. They have had items donated like a vacuum cleaner. There is a lot of donated time from people. 6 Planning Commission Monday, September 23, 1996 Sandstad stated he loves the notion of finding significant historical features some of which are buildings or structures they can preserve. Each of the items listed are appropriate and he encouraged the work of the Heritage Preservation Commission. Foote commented he visited the Cummins-Grill home and it was more improved than the last time. He was very impressed with it. It's a real treasure and should be preserved . Habicht asked if the wall is going to be rebuilt at Lookout Park. Gertz replied designation does not mean guaranteed restoration. It simply protects it from any kind of impact. It would certainly be cleaned up. The US Fish and Wildlife Services have already contributed to some funding toward that effort. There are other funding sources they will try to acquire. Foote was concerned about inspections of the Purgatory Creek Bridge. Gertz noted there's been an annual inspection of the bridge. It's his understanding the bridge is in good condition, the deck is in good condition, and the sub-structure is in good condition. Habicht referred to the Cummins-Grill home and commented he was uncomfortable granting a designation without knowing the costs of the upkeep. Sandstad commented there are at least three old farm homestead properties that are significant. He believes whatever the cost is for the maintenance of the Cummins- Grill site is not unreasonable at this point and he supports it. Habicht was concerned that these issues are going to come up again. The next thing that comes up may be very significant but at some point cost does become a factor. He agrees these sites being significant in and of themself. At some point they're going to ran into a situation where cost is going to be a big factor. Clinton agreed with the recommendations and supports preserving historical sites in Eden Prairie. He's not necessarily comfortable with not having an answer to how much tax dollars are actually spent. He would like to know what other sites are doing. Franzen explained that the Planning Commission isn't voting yes or no on designating the sites, because he believed that this was the responsibility of the Heritage Preservation Commission. The Planning Commission should look at the land use impacts on surrounding property and on the Comprehensive Plan. Franzen noted that the Chair Ken Clinton was correct in that the code does state that the Planning 7 Planning Commission Monday, September 23, 1996 Commission can approve or deny sites.He added that he thought that the intent of the code was for the Commission to evaluate land use impacts and would ask the City Attorney for an opinion on the the Planning Commissions role. Ismail indicated he could not support the designation without knowing the costs. He referred to the accident on Highway 169 where an individual was killed. He noted that the City does not have the funds to put in whatever is needed to make it safe at that intersection yet they have funds from tax dollars for the upkeep of an historical house. Gertz said that supporting the designation of a site does not obligate the City to spend money. Discussion ensued regarding whether there should be a separate motion on the land use and one on the economics of it. Franzen reviewed the definition under Code of a designated site. Sandstad encouraged discussions with HPC on a future safe access, such as a parking • area,over the overlook near BFI. Gertz thought this was in process. Ismail said he would like to know how much money will the City pay to upkeep this historical site, specifically a non-functional one. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote, to support the Heritage Preservation Designation of the sites that are before them on the agenda and encourage that the Highway 169 overlook site be discussed with adjacent property owner BFI for some possible future safety access off of Highway 169 such as a small parking area that is missing right now. Motion carried 5-1 with the no vote by Ismail. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Habicht moved, seconded by Foote, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. 8