Loading...
Planning Commission - 08/08/2022APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 2022 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Frank Sherwood, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Rachel Markos, Carole Mette, William Gooding, Robert Taylor, Dan Grote CITY STAFF: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Parks & Natural Resources Manager; Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL All commission members were present. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Markos to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 9-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the minutes of June 27, 2022. MOTION CARRIED 9-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. OLYMPIC HILLS 8TH ADDITION Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 0.19 acres • Planned Unit Development Amendment with waivers on 0.19 acres • Preliminary Plat on 0.19 acres Brian Field from Anderson Engineering presented a PowerPoint and detailed the application. The site was zoned RM-6.5 multi-family low density residential. Field displayed photographs of the existing site including overhead, north, south PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 8, 2022 Page 2 and east views along with views of the corner lot with an open field and the right- of-way. The waivers requested were a front yard setback from 30- to 20 feet and a lot depth of 100 feet. Field stated the minimum rear lot depth on outlot C was a 95-foot average depth. He stated the site had ample room for home construction and the proposal was in line with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal included a 4,000 square foot residential house with a three-car garage and an 1,800 square foot foundation. He displayed the site grading and drainage swale (east) plan, water service and sanitary service. Barnhart gave the staff report. The applicant proposed to replat one outlot on 0.19 acres to allow for the construction of a single-family home. The lot was originally intended to be a tot lot for the Olympic Hills development when platted in the late 1970s, but it was never constructed. A landscaping plan would be required for this project. The future lot owner would be responsible for the maintenance of the right-of-way sod and landscaped area. The setback waiver was requested in part because of the right-of-way adjacent to the property and the lot depth in this triangular shape of land. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions outlined in the staff report. Mette asked if the intent was for the golf course to retain ownership, and Field replied the intention was to sell. Taylor asked if the setback waiver was intended to keep the landscaped area. Field replied the 30-foot setback would not allow for a conventional building path whereas the 20-foot would, and the eventual owner would maintain the landscape. Kirk asked if the outlot was designated open space in original PUD, and Barnhart replied it was an outlot only used as a tot lot. Farr stated he was disappointed with the proposal, as he determined that a tot lot, whether formalized or not, had been part of the development and the clear intention for this open space in this neighborhood. He at minimum would expect an apology and compensatory damages before approaching the commission with a development like this. Barnhart replied the tot lot was not a formal requirement, and there had been no documented request by the neighborhood for the use of this tot lot which was also not generally requested in developments. Mette asked if the City Attorney had looked into this, and Barnhart replied the Attorney had not. Mette observed more outlots around the golf course and asked if any of those theoretically be converted into buildable plats in the future. Barnhart agreed it was theoretically possible though some might not have sufficient street frontage. Olympic Hills was an arm of the developer, but the development agreement was with the original developer. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 8, 2022 Page 3 Jerry Pitzrick, resident at 9322 Overlook Trail, stated this was a tot lot, and that it would remain so was the expectation all along, that Olympic Hills would take responsibility for this land which the neighborhood instead took care of for the last 20 years. He noted that with the filing of a formal complaint, the three weeks’ time for the owner to respond, and another two weeks for the City to respond to the landowner’s nonresponse, an answer for the neighbors was delayed five weeks. He stated the neighborhood was not imposing a terrible burden but rather had cared for a property the owner had abandoned and had also abandoned its original agreement out of arrogance. The existing single family lots were 25 percent or more larger than this proposed lot and thus not similar in size. The drawing on page 20 showed the front yard setback decreased by one-third and encroachment on the backyard setback. The development would be35 feet away from the neighbors’ four-season porch, about the width of Council Chambers. He invited commission members to visit the site and see the situation for themselves As a civil engineer, objected to the grading plan and warned the water runoff would affect houses to the north. He asked if the engineer had planned for a 100- year storm event. The plans showed a bend in the water flow which would naturally flow in a straight line. He also expressed concern about the creation of a blind corner, as his mailbox had already been hit multiple times and there were accidents. Rue stated there were plans to improve the lots and agreed this would be converted into a 90-degree intersection. Pitzrick stated the original developer did not construct the road correctly. He pleaded for a unanimous vote against the development to send a message to the developer for breaking their commitment 45 years ago no hardship no cost, and if the commission was not ready for a unanimous vote, to open the discussion to the public. Pete Truhlar, resident at 9335 Overlook Trail, handed Pieper a copy of the petition signed by the neighborhood and added one resident did not for fear of retaliation. He spoke against the loss of green space, trees, and the play area for the kids, and voiced concern about safety. He also invited the commission members to visit his home and see how the development would impact him, being so close to his four-season porch. Ted Folstad, resident at 9285 Overlook Trail, stated he was also an engineer and noted this plan did not conform to the design on file. He was also concerned about safety with the street already needing repair. Pete Platzke, resident at 9337 Overlook Trail, spoke against the development. Judy Folstad, resident at 9285 Overlook Trail, spoke against the development. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 8, 2022 Page 4 Kathryn Cinkle, resident at 9265 Overlook Trail, spoke against the development. Bill Cole, resident at 9295 Overlook Trail, spoke against the development and added his understanding that the lot would not be developed drove his decision to purchase the property. Andrea Platzke, 9337 Overlook Trail, spoke against the development and added his understanding that the lot would not be developed drove her decision to purchase the property. She also expressed concern for the safety of children who currently used the lot Anna Grossbach, 9330 Overlook Trail, spoke against the development. Dave Gramling, 9210 Overlook Trail, spoke against the development and added Olympic Golf Course had not paid a single tax dollar on that land for 45 years, whereas it limited their club’s membership of their private course. Joseph LoCascio, controller at Olympic Hills Golf Club since 2017, replied that the Club came under new ownership in the mid-2000s and believed the property had been taken care of by a lawn service. After that the Club resumed responsibility of the lawn care under LoCascio’s watch. Brian Field clarified the rendering Pitzrick saw was not to scale and the setbacks were being met. Rudy Luther, new General Manager at Olympic Hills Golf Club, gave some background and explained that having seen this lot as a possible development, crafted a proposal with the intent to have a new single-family home. The golf course redesign done was also intended to help the community. Judy Folstad, returned to the mic and asked if the commission members would like this development in their own community. MOTION: Sherwood moved, seconded by Farr to close the public hearing. Motion carried 9-0. Mette agreed she would be upset if an understanding would be breeched, however, she also understood the rights of developers. She agreed the neighborhood had a case and the City Attorney needed to review this as it appeared there was an agreement to have this be a tot lot. She concluded she would vote against the proposal. Markos noted developers gave outlots to the City so the City could control them, and she was curious why this outlot was not given to the City. Certainly, the situation was different in the past, but she wondered why so many little properties were still owned by the Golf Course. She asked also if the plans for the road should be improved before the development. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 8, 2022 Page 5 Barnhart replied he had no answer as to why the outlot was not acquired in 1976. Processes changed over time for this reason. Bourne added this was not a unique situation, as other developments had brought forward recreational outlots that were never developed. Recently it was the City’s idea they should be deeded to the City. Recreational outlots were tax-exempt, and the owner had the option to repurchase them. He could think of several large developments in which such agreements were not kept. Taylor stated he had listened carefully to the history and appreciated the community stepping up and asked where the developer had been all this time while neighbors were maintaining this outlot. He asked for more feedback and if there were alternative options. Luther reiterated he had not been involved prior to 2017 and nothing was brought to his attention as to the lack of maintenance. Here merely saw a development opportunity to build a home for a new member of the community. Rue stated he did not know why the road was built in 1976 they way it was; the plat showed a curve with an eyebrow cul-de-sac instead, and the concerns heard tonight about safety were not known to him. The City redid this road two or three years prior and from a feasibility standpoint it did not make sense to rebuild the street unless it was necessary. The City would request some type of petition and plan ahead for that. Kirk stated the most troubling was the clear expectations of multiple homeowners that this outlot would not be developed and this was clearly communicated to the neighborhood over multiple years. Eden Prairie famous for its open space, and such unanimity of feedback made him unable to vote for this. Gooding noted the applicant came before the commission due to the waivers, which required a balance, and in his mind the testimony of neighboring homeowners made valid reasons for him to reject these waivers. Farr stated this application was simply not acceptable for approval, as there had been no apology or any attempt to make amends. He emphasized the applicant should meet and mend fences with the neighborhood and negotiate. He added he was disappointed at this proposal and the waste of this commission’s time. Sherwood asked for and received confirmation from fellow commission members this development was built on spec, i.e., there was no existing homeowner for this property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 8, 2022 Page 6 Mette reiterated the fact that theoretically, without the request for waivers, all outlots could be instantly converted and sold for development without the commission’s knowledge, and Gooding agreed this was a huge concern, stating he could not support the proposal. Kirk stated the commission and perhaps the City needed to have a very clear understanding of what an outlot meant; he had thought it was clear and it evidently was not in this case. Barnhart replied the creation of an outlot established a use for the property but that could change. Every situation was different and required research, and he did not have a general response, but in this situation, he did not find any impediment to this outlot’s purpose being change. Pieper took a straw poll of the commission’s prospective vote on this measure. Mette asked for and received confirmation a denial passed tonight would still be sent to the City Council, which could vote as it saw fit. MOTION: Mette moved, seconded by Farr to recommend denial of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 0.19 acres; Planned Unit Development Amendment with waivers on 0.19 acres; and Preliminary Plat on 0.19 acres based on the plans stamp dated July 22, 2022, and the staff report August 8, 2022. Motion carried 9-0. B. CODE AMENDMENT FOR BUILDING MATERIALS Barnhart presented the staff report. This Code Amendment would speak to three areas of the Building Code standards. One was to establish a maximum of fiber- cement panels/siding to be used as Class One materials on residential buildings. The prohibition against painted brick would also be removed. Third, what percentage of Class One materials would be allowed in single-story buildings would be clarified. None of these represented a policy change. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to close the public hearing. Motion carried 9-0. Farr noted a minor correction on page 304, in which “external” should be changed to “exterior” in the acronym EIFS. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Taylor to recommend approval of the Code Amendment Chapter 11 Exterior Building Materials with the minor change noted by Farr, based on the staff report dated August 8, 2022. Motion carried 9-0. C. CODE AMENDMENT FOR SIGNS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 8, 2022 Page 7 Barnhart presented the staff report. This was a housekeeping issue to make the sign code content neutral to comply with the US Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent adjustments made by the City. The proposed amendment regarding signs would reinstate allowances for incidental signs that was accidently omitted in this previous amendment process and make housekeeping clarifications in the Sign Code. MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Gooding to close the public hearing. Motion carried 9-0. MOTION: Mette moved, seconded by Markos to recommend approval of the Code Amendment Chapter 11 Signs, based on the staff report dated August 8, 2022. Motion carried 9-0. D. CODE AMENDMENT FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Barnhart presented the staff report. Here again there was no change in practice or policy, but another housekeeping issue to update City Code language with changes at the MPDS and MS4 permits. Farr reiterated the importance of uniform zoning codes throughout the state which helped communities at the local level, including Eden Prairie. MOTION: Gooding moved, seconded by Sherwood to close the public hearing. Motion carried 9-0. MOTION: Markos moved, seconded by Kirk to recommend approval of the Code Amendment Chapter 11 Stormwater Management, based on the staff report dated August 8, 2022. Motion carried 9-0. PLANNERS’ REPORT MEMBERS’ REPORTS Pieper credited Farr with a quote attributed to him (Pieper) in the recent Sun Sailor. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Taylor to adjourn. Motion carried 9-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m.