Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 11/09/1992 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMNIISSION APPROVED MINUTES $MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1992 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMIVIISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Ken Clinton, Cynthia Clish Katherine Kardell, Karen Norman, Doug Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner. STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, Senior Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: Kardell absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Norman to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0-0. H. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Clish to approve the Minutes of the September 14, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 3-0-3. Bauer, Clinton, and Norman abstained. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. SUBURBAN CHEVROLET by Metropolitan Corporation for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 16.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.2 acres with waivers, Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser District on 16.2 acres and Site Plan Review on 16.2 acres. Location: Southeast corner of Valley View Road and Plaza. Drive. Herb Margolis, representing the proponent, stated that at the last meeting the Planning Commission had approved the site plan with the exception of requirement for the N.U.R.P. pond. Margolis presented the revised plan which maintained the green space while obtaining the extra parking spaces in the front of the facility as required. The N.U.R.P. pond would be approximately 11 to 12 feet deep with a 2 to 1 slope. Bauer asked what the total car count was with the present plan. Margolis replied approximately 1073 spaces for cars would be provided with the key spaces being provided in the front of the facility. Margolis stated that Staff and the developer had come to an agreement on areas of the plan. Norman asked if Staff believed that enough green space was being provided with the revised plan. Franzen replied that Staff was comfortable with the plan. Norman complimented Staff on working out an acceptable solution to the issues. Sandstad believed the demo of the old building on the site would be necessary to make the new project work. MOTION:. Bauer moved, seconded by Clinton to accept the revised plan with the addition of the N.U.R.P. pond as requested by the Planning Commission in addition to the plan as approved at the October 26, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. B. CARMODY SUBDIVISION by Thomas and Grace Carmody. Request for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of .86 acres into two lots. Location: 8595 Mitchell Road. Franzen reported that the Carmody's would like to build a new home and subdivide the property. The subdivision would meet the R1-13.5 zoning requirements and is consistent with City code. Staff recommends approval of the project. Sandstad asked if a 30 foot setback normal in this area. Franzen replied yes. Norman asked if the neighbors were notified. Franzen replied that the normal notifications had been mailed out and only one neighbor called concerned about tree loss and drainage. MOTION 1: Norman moved, seconded by Wissner to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Norman moved, seconded by Clish to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Thomas and Grace Carmody for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 based on plans dated November 6, 1992, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 6, 1992. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 3: Norman moved, seconded by Wissner to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Thomas and Grace Carmody for Preliminary Plat of .86 acres into two lots based on plans dated November 6, 1992, and subject to ,the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 6, 1992. Motion carried 6-0-0. 2 C. RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS by Hustad Development. Request for Rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 4.69 acres and Preliminary Plat of 26.26 acres into 19 lots and 2 outlots. Location: South of Riverview Road. iFranzen reported that a plan for this site had been reviewed approximately one year ago and the neighbors had petitioned to have an EAW. Since that time Staff and the developer had met with several times with appropriate agencies. The Metropolitan Council did not act favorably. The developer has returned with a revised plan. With the revised plan only the top portion of the property would be developed and a portion of the property would be donated to the City. Septic tanks would be allowed on the property due to the R1-22 zoning. Beth Simonsted,representing the proponent,reported that the original plan had two LRS surveys; #547 and 601. The plan proposed currently is only for LRS Survey #547. Part of the property in LRS #547 was zoned R1-13.5. The original plan was zoned for both R1-13.5 and R1-22. Simonsted presented that plans for 19 lots and 2 outlots on 26 acres. Simonsted believed the zoning to be appropriate because adjacent property to the west and north were currently zoned R1-13.5. Future road access would be available through property on LRS #601. Simonsted noted that the proposal as presented did not require an EAW. Franzen reported that Staff had learned a lot through the EAW process. Staff has found that the present storm water pipe drains into a ravine which would result in erosion problems; therefore, it is being recommended that the pipe be extended into the N.U.R.P. pond. The storm sewer system and the pond would need to meet 100 year storm requirements and roof drainage on lots with steep slopes would be required to have roof drainage and gutter systems drain into the storm water system. Staff has determined that the storm sewer systems along Riverview Road was not • adequate to handle the current run-off. Franzen noted that this condition was a City problem. Franzen stated that existing erosion problems would be increased with the proposed driveway. Franzen reported that an archeological survey had been completed and it was determined that there were no sensitive areas on the top portion of the property being proposed for development. There was one site located in the lower portion of the property which was questionable;however, this area was not proposed for development. Sandstad asked Franzen to point out the area on the plan of the possible archaeological site. Franzen pointed out the area on the plan which was located in the floodplain area. Franzen reported that special requirements would be proposed for development in the steep slope areas. The grading would be done in the lot area only, retaining wall height would be limited, foundations would have to be approved by a structural engineer, and a restoration and erosion plan would be required. Franzen recommended approval of the zoning request based on the Staff recommendations. Conservancy easements would be required on specific lots along the steep slope. Sandstad asked Franzen to summarize the memo from the Park & Recreation department. Franzen replied that the issues remained the same as in the earlier proposal. The proponent would gift a portion of the property to the City when it was financially advantageous to the developer. An outlot along the Minnesota River was required. The access points to the Minnesota River bottoms was the issue. Franzen noted that this plan had not yet been scheduled for a hearing before the Park & Recreation Commission. Franzen added that the Park & 3 Recreation Commission meeting was not a public hearing but Staff would inform interested residents of the date. Clish asked how big of a risk it was to develop the property on the slope. Franzen indicated that the City had learned a lot over the years regarding property on the steep slopes. The lots on the slope would require walkouts and an extra course of block in the foundation. Ed Schlampp, 10901 Riverview Road, stated that he owned the property which bordered the entire eastern portion of this property. Schlampp believed that certain areas should not be heavily developed and further believed that the original plan proposed to be high density for the slope area. Schlampp wanted this area to be a beautiful site from the river. Schlampp stated that he had asked the Browns to moderate the plan to lower the density. Schlampp added that the plan was suppose to be revised to provide R1-13.5 zoning only for the rim area. Schlampp believed that the current proposal was merely a duplicate of the original. He added that this plan would still require heavy grading. Schlampp appreciated Staff s effort in straightening out the storm water system. Schlampp noted that there had already been two 100 year rains this year. He stated that the drainage will all go into the Minnesota River. Schlampp believed that the plan needed to be modified to lower the density. Schlampp stated that the drainage from Riverview Road drained to the east and added that he did not believe a 10" storm drain was sufficient. Schlampp was concerned because the overflow was draining onto his property and washing the soil away from his land. Schlampp stated that the addition of homes would block the absorption of water and increase the runoff. Schlampp did not believe that the plan had been worked out enough to stop the erosion problem. Schlampp stated that Valley Oak Road was a dedicated road with too steep a grade. The road was only used by Williams Pipe Line to gain access to their property. The area where Valley Oak Road is located would go back into this plat and Schlampp • questioned how Williams Pipe Line would get their heavy equipment to their property. Schlampp believed that this plan had many problems which needed further consideration. Sandstad asked Franzen if Valley Oak Road would be vacated. Franzen replied no; not at this time. He added that if a development proposal were to be presented and approved it could be vacated. Schlampp was concerned that the erosion problem would get worse. He stated that he did not want to stop the development, but wanted some discretion used. Schlampp believed that the plan should be looked at further. Norman stated that there would be grading required even if the lots were larger. Schlampp stated that there would be significant grading with the plan as proposed. Simonsted stated that the problem with the Riverview Road storm water drainage was a City problem and not part of any problem created by this proposed development. Simonsted stated that a lot time had been spent to come up with what the developer believed to be the best possible solution. Simonsted believed that the plan had been well thought out. Simonsted stated that the dedicated road could be a private road; however, it was not part of this plat. Simonsted said that the plan was developed to create a controlled storm water runoff. Simonsted noted that only one-half of the area was being proposed to be rezoned to R1-13.5. 4 Philip Bly, 10720 County Road 18, believed that Mr. Schlampp had raised many valid concerns. Bly asked if the Planning Commission had the authority and the money to buy the property. Bly understood the landowner wanting to get a return on his investment in this property. Bly stated that he would like to see the public sector invest in this property; however, he also understood that budgets were limited. Bly believed that access to the Minnesota River could be accomplished by spurring off across the property. Gay Clark-Pope, 10541 East Riverview, asked if there was a point where the City would say no to developers. She believed that this proposal was a crime. Pope noted that the environmental recommendation was to leave this property alone. Pope wondered whose interests were really being considered; those of the citizens or those of the developer. Gayle Diehl, 10530 West Riverview Drive, asked if the Planning Commission was or was not recommending access to the floodplain area. A letter dated November 9, 1992 was officially incorporated into the minutes. Diehl stated that when they had considered buying their property she had spoken to Mr. Lambert with City and had been told that the Sewer Commission Road would be kept private. Kevin&Laura Bluml, 10540 West Riverview Drive, stated that they were concerned with many of the same items as Mrs. Diehl. Bluml believed that the map sent out to residents was inaccurate. Bluml stated that because many of the lots in this area had 600 foot frontages neighbors adjacent to the property had not been notified. Bluml stated that the original spill in this area was a man-made disaster Bluml added that the neighborhood had been promised that the damaged area would be restored; which has not happened. Bluml did not believe this was a safe situation. Bluml did not believe that this area should be considered for a park. Bluml • believed that the City should fulfill its promises made several years ago. Simonsted stated that the Brown family had been residents of Eden Prairie since 1917. The Brown family has contributed a significant amount of land to the City in the creek area. Simonsted noted that the Brown family also lost a lot of property because of the spill. Simonsted did not believe that this project should be tied into to the spill situation. Scott Wallace 12465 Sunnybrook Road, stated that it was interesting to note the number of citizens which had come forward regarding this plan. Wallace noted that the property being dedicated to the City was in the floodplain area and was undevelopable. Wallace believed that the Planning Commission should listen to the people which wanted to preserve the natural resources. Wissner asked Wallace what he suggested be done. Wallace recommended possible tax abatement programs or other means to protect the natural features. Clish asked Wallace if he did not want to see any development of the property. Wallace replied that there were dangerous soils in this area and asked why the City would approve development in such a sensitive area. Norman stated that while she appreciated the citizen's concerns she concurred with Staff s recommendation. 5 Bauer concurred with Norman that Staff and other hired experts had stated that this proposal was feasible and enough safeguards are included in the Staff recommendations. Franzen thought that it could cost several million dollars to purchase this property. Franzen noted that Bloomington allowed more development along the bluff area than Eden Prairie. Franzen stated that the property has legal status which was already approved R1-22, 30 years ago and based on the City's ordinances the property can be developed. Franzen noted that the City's storm water drainage requirements had changed and that other ordinances had been introduced which improve developments in environmentally sensitive areas. Franzen believed that the City had learned from past experiences to make the development acceptable. Sandstad believed that if the property were not rezoned the number of units would result in the same impact to the property and, therefore, the only impact would be aesthetically. Franzen replied that the road took up a large portion of the required grading and the environmental impact would be the same with fewer lots. Wissner asked if there was still a significant amount of property in this area to be developed. Franzen replied that there were still several property owners which could develop property in this area; however, some of the floodplain area had been purchased for a Wildlife Refuge area. Norman asked what the City's plan was for a park in this area. Franzen replied that the land would be given to the Wildlife Refuge. Bluml believed that the development proposal should be separated from the park proposal issue. Simonsted stated that the Browns were trying to gift this property to the City and that the Browns ID were in the same situation related to the spill as all of the other neighbors. Bob Brown, stated that the property was not cleared from a suit with Williams Pipeline and this needed to be clarified. Bauer stated that he supported the proposal. Bauer noted that the Planning Commission did not have a budget to purchase property. Bauer believed that the Planning Commission and Staff worked hard for the residents of the City and further that they asked developers to go the extra mile to make developments the best that they can be. Bauer noted that the Planning Commission could not always get everything that it wanted, but that the projects were handled in the most conservative method possible. Bauer believed that park land property was a poor choice of words for the property being gifted to the City. Bauer believed that the wording could be changed so that it did not appear that the City was getting a worthless piece of property. Clish stated that she was in favor of the proposal with qualifiers. Clish believed that possibly it was necessary for the City to consider special ordinance requirements for bluff development. Clish noted that the proposal was within the City's current requirements and, therefore, there would be no appropriate reason for denial. Norman asked what were the results of the Minnesota River Bluffs Committee developed to study this area. Franzen replied that it was not a charge of that Committee to look at specific proposals. 6 Sandstad asked what the final result of the Committee's study had been. Scott Wallace replied that the Committee had established a frame work and master plan. A prioritization of conservation areas had been established for the City. Clinton stated that the City did not have the necessary funds to protect the bluff area. Clinton believed that the issues raised by the residents were related to topography and would be present with any proposed development. Clinton questioned if the homes would look right in the area. Clinton did not believe that the bluff area in Bloomington looked right. Clinton believed that the development process was orderly and that Eden Prairie and the State of Minnesota was outstanding in promoting controlled development. Wissner believed the developers had done everything possible to make this an acceptable proposal. Wissner further believed that the developer had incurred extra costs for the project because of the required studies. Wissner stated that the Brown's were good citizens and did not believe that they would proceed forward with a project which would not be good for the community. Norman stated that the project did meet all the necessary requirements and would support the project. Norman believed that the park issue should be left out until lawsuits were settled. Norman believed that access to the Minnesota River was important for the residents. Sandstad stated that he had voted for approval on the last project and believed the present plan to be an improvement. Sandstad stated that he would like to add a recommendation the Planning Commission encourage the City to use whatever method possible to have the property involved in the 1987 washout relandscaped and maintained. Norman requested that the Planning Commission be given a report on the final results of the Minnesota Bluffs Committee. Franzen replied that he would provide that information. MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. Bauer believed that the City should not take title to any property with environmental problems and suggested that an environmental audit could be requested. Norman did not believe that an audit was enough. Franzen stated that the City would be aware of any legal issues related to the property. Bob Brown stated that it was not known at this time if there would be a lawsuit or not. Clish asked if the improvement of the storm sewer in the Riverview Road area was included in the recommendations. Bauer recommended that this be handled with a separate motion. 7 MOTION 2: Bauer moved, seconded by Wissner to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 4.69 acres based on plans dated November 6, 1992 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 6, 1992 as amended to read: Item #5 - Prior to the City considering acceptance of land as a gift to the City for public open space, proponent shall provide a Level I environmental audit to determine the extent of potential pollution on-site. ADD Item 7 - The Planning Commission recommend that the City use whatever method possible with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to relandscape and maintain the property damaged in the 1987 washout. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 3: Bauer moved, seconded by Wissner to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Preliminary Plat of 26.26 acres into 19 lots and 2 outlots based on plans dated November 6, 1992 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 6, 1992 as amended to read: Item #5 - Prior to the City considering acceptance of land as a gift to the City for public open space, proponent shall provide a Level I environmental audit to determine the extent of potential pollution on-site. ADD Item 7 - The Planning Commission recommend that the City use whatever method possible with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to relandscape and maintain the property damaged in the 1987 washout. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 4: • Bauer moved, seconded by Clish to recommend that in light of the discussion regarding concerns related to Riverview Road and storm water runoff that City Staff analyze the situation and return with a report to the Planning Commission on the results. Motion carried 6-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS Brad Moe, 14372 Westridge Drive, stated that he was too late for the discussion related to the Carmody Subdivision but would like to address the Commission regarding concerns. Sandstad informed Moe that the Commission would listen to the comments; however, the Commission had already taken formal action on the proposal. Sandstad also informed Moe that he could address concerns at the City Council meeting and requested that Staff notify Mr. Moe of the date of that meeting. Moe believed that the lot would best be served as a single lot development. He noted that the lots in this neighborhood were larger. Moe believed that the dimensions in the plat drawing were not accurate. Moe stated that he had obtained a copy of the City's Development Review Process and noted that many of the requirements had not been fulfilled. Moe questioned how Staff could recommend the project with the requirements not being fulfilled. Moe stated that a survey had not been done. He believed that the house as proposed would be placed poorly on the lot and also question if there was adequate radius for a turn around in front of the garage. Moe was concerned about tree loss in the back yard. Moe questioned how building could be allowed on 8 drainage easement property. Moe did not understand how the proposal could be passed this far without these issues being addressed. Sandstad recommended that Moe talk with Staff and pass along his concerns to the City Council. Sandstad noted that there were no other residents which voiced concerns. Franzen stated that he had spoken with Mr. Moe on the phone. He believed that the issue was not what was required but when it was required. Franzen stated that the Staff Report requested a registered land survey. Franzen said that he would be happy to discuss the concerns with Mr. Moe. VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS VU. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 PM. Motion carried 6-0- 0. 9 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING CONE%HSSION Monday, November 9, 1992 7:30 p.m. COAE%HSSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Cynthia Clish, Katherine Kardell, Karen Norman, Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Donald Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA H. MEMBERS REPORTS III. NIINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. SUBURBAN CHEVROLET by Metropolitan Corporation for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 16.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.2 acres with waivers, Zoning District Amendment within the C- Reg-Ser District on 16.2 acres and Site Plan Review on 16.2 acres. Location: Southeast corner of Valley View Road and Plaza. Drive. 2. CARMODY SUBDIVISION by Thomas and Grace Carmody. Request for rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of .86 acres into two lots. Location: 8595 Mitchell Road. 3. RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS by Hustad Development. Request for rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 4.69 acres and Preliminary Plat of 26.26 acres into 19 lots and 2 outlots. Location: South of Riverview Road. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS VII. ADTOURIVMENT