Loading...
Planning Commission - 09/09/2019APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Christopher Villarreal, Carole Mette, Balu Iyer CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer; Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chair Farr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Commission members Pieper, Kirk, Villarreal, and Mette were absent. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Iyer moved, seconded by Weber to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by DeSanctis to approve the minutes of August 26, 2019. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10197 EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD (2019-15) Request for:  Guide Plan Change from Rural to Low Density Residential on 1.05 acres  Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.05 acres  MUSA Boundary Extension on 1.05 acres Perry Ryan, of 19655 Waterford Place, Excelsior, presented a PowerPoint and detailed the application. No variances were being sought on this proposal. His family owned this property since 1998 and wished to develop it as a single-family home. The driveway to the proposed house had already been constructed in 2013. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 9, 2019 Page 2 Road construction along Eden Prairie Road was done in 2012 and the second stage began last autumn with tree removal and construction. Main line sewer and water were being constructed down to Flying Cloud Drive and the utility stubs had been added to the property; utilities were in place but not hooked up. He expected completion this fall. Ryan read from the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and MUSA Boundary as listed in the staff report. The R1-44 was defined as a “zoning district [which] allowed single family detached homes with a minimum lot size of one acre.” Lots in the area range from 0.5 acres to 1.5 acres. He commended the work of staff on this project. There would be a 14 percent loss of trees. The house would be standard, with standard setbacks, most of the grading involved less than a 3:1 slope, with some possibility of retaining walls. DeSanctis asked Ryan to elaborate on species of trees lost and planned mitigation of loss. Ryan replied as part of the public improvement project it was mainly oak trees and replacement needed to have three trees based on their caliper inches. He planned to have screening up front and he did work with City staff on additional screening from headlights and car traffic. DeSanctis asked, since there area was experiencing more frequent heavy rain events, if he anticipated modification in slope or grading, construction materials or any remedies against mudslide. Ryan replied he did not .The steep slopes were located outside of the lot and a tremendous job had been done on stabilizing loads. He would do the same thing with fiber blanket and mixed seed. There was no excess erosion down to Flying Cloud on these steeper slopes which exceeded his. Higgins stated she was curious about the home to be built and asked for a general outline. Ryan replied it was a typical 50-foot by 50-foot pad like other houses at the south end of the ridge. It would be a two-story walkout with a three-car garage, a standard Eden Prairie higher end home. Klima presented the staff report. The applicant was requesting approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a MUSA extension and a request to rezone the property. She noted that 6,000 square feet of the property was already within the MUSA boundary. The MUSA boundary followed the topographic line when it was created rather than following property lines. Staff recommended approval with the following revision: the property be rezoned R1-44 rather than R1-13.5; the R1-44 district would not allow for any further subdivision; a significant portion of the property is likely unable to be developed due to geographical conditions; erosion would be reviewed at time of building permit review. Farr noted conflicts between the applicant’s narrative versus staff’s, and asked if a condition to the commission’s motion was required. He wanted to know if a Wetland Determination Report was required and if the tree replacement was indeed a 1:1 ratio rather than the applicant’s stated 1.33 requirement. Klima PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 9, 2019 Page 3 replied the 1.33 replacement ratio was a former code requirement. Bourne replied the replacement would follow the 1:1 ratio. The Environment Resources Coordinator reviewed plans and would require a WDR (Wetland Determination Report). Even though this might come back with a negative finding the applicant must go through the process. Farr asked for and received confirmation the MUSA line would follow the property lines rather than the topographical line. Klima explained this was a balance between local and regional policy which allowed staff to look at specific conditions of each property more than a topographical analysis would. Farr noted the water and sanitary sewer were already in and asked if this was a part of the entire utility improvement project in anticipation of other lots similar to this, and if so, would there be other lots subject to future review. Rue replied it was fairly typical to put in utility main lateral lines or development stubs where they are appropriate. For example, the Notermann property was provided some stubs. It was cheaper to put them in now than later and tear up a road. All utility work was being done on this project at the City’s expense and property owners would be assessed a connection service connection fee as set out in the Code, with the exception of Lion’s Tap, which had an assessment for part of the lift station and service lines. Farr noted the plans indicated a road continuing west before turning south to meet Flying Cloud Road, creating new lots immediately west of this property, and asked for a summary of how those properties were established and how the utility lines were protected via easement or right-of-way. Rue replied the property to the west of the subject property was City-owned and there would be no development. The parcel between the old and new alignment the City had purchased. The rest of it to the west was to be preserved. The City followed the existing roadway to shorten the length of the utility lines and to service Lion’s Tap. A study was done on how best to serve that area. A new alignment would have added 800 feet, and there were extra services to new parcels that were rural and undeveloped. There was some development potential there and this provided service connections. Farr asked for and received clarification the applicant’s western property line would abut City property. He noted the lot has been regraded and asked if there were trees that have been banked and set aside for the lot to make up for the loss of trees. Rue replied that tree loss in the City’s utility improvement and trees would be replaced at 30 percent. Plantings were planned along the slopes of Eden Prairie Road, and three trees would be planted in front of this property. Farr asked if specific language to address the requested zoning of R1-13.5 was required in the commission’s recommendation. Klima replied the recommendation as stated in the annotated agenda would be appropriate as the commission was an advisory body, and staff would clarify with City Attorney regarding the original request of an R-1.13.5 zoning prior to City Council review. Iyer asked if the utility stubs had sufficient capacity to connect with extra lots, if any. Rue replied the service lines would be adequate for a typical single-family PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 9, 2019 Page 4 home and could serve a couple hundred properties. Iyer asked, due to the lay of the land, if it was safe to build a single family home on the applicant’s property. Klima replied the staff conditions address this, along with the analysis Ryan and staff went through to identify an approximate location. A building permit review would include a land alteration review, erosion control measures, and a slope analysis. DeSanctis asked for and received confirmation any archeological study of the property would be the applicant’s responsibility. MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Higgins to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by DeSanctis to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Rural to Low Density Residential on 1.05 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-44 on 1.05 acres, and MUSA Boundary Extension on 1.05 acres based on plans stamp dated August 23, 2019 and information contained in the staff report dated September 5, 2019. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. B. COSTCO FUEL FACILITY EXPANSION Request for:  Planned Unit Development District Amendment with waivers on 18.18 acres  Site Plan Review on 18.18 acres Klima stated the applicant wished to continue the item to October 14, 2019. MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by DeSanctis to continue the public hearing to October 14, 2019. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Higgins to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:33 p.m.