Loading...
Planning Commission - 03/14/1994 APPROVED MINUTES iEDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, March 14, 1994 7:00 p.m. City Center Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer,Kenneth E. Clinton,Randy Foote, Katherine Kardell,Douglas Sandstad,Edward Schlampp,Mary Jane Wissner STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri STAFF MENIBERS: Donald Uram,Planner; Recording Secretary Jan Nelson I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE--ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Doug Sandstad. Foote was absent. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Kardell,to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0-0. III. MINUTES Sandstad said his comments regarding the steep grade of the driveway for Item N.A. were omitted. The following paragraph should be inserted as the third paragraph of Item N.A.: "Sandstad said he was concerned about possible problems because of the steep grade of the driveway." MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Bauer,to approve the minutes of the February 28, 1994,meeting as published and amended. Motion carried 6-0-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued from February 28, 1994 meeting:) A. JOYLAND by David Kraemer. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.76 acres and Preliminary Plat on 2.76 acres for three single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: 14506 Staring Lake Parkway. As described in the staff memorandum of March 9, 1994 from the Engineering Division, Uram said a revised grading and erosion control plan directs drainage from the roof into an existing catch basin located at the southeast corner of proposed Lot 1. He said the driveway has been tilted to the south and east so that the water will run off to the side rather than down the driveway. PLANNING COMMISSION 2 March 14,1994 After asking for the exact location of the catch basin, Sandstad asked if a curb is required for the driveway. Uram said there is none required. David Kraemer,property owner,said he had offered to meet with the neighbors regarding the property; however no one responded. Jeff Verdoorn, 9009 Victoria,presented a letter from the neighborhood that summarized their concerns regarding the proposed middle lot,including concerns that it does not meet current City codes regarding frontage and concerns about the grade and width of the driveway. Uram noted that,while the City does not have control over the grade of a driveway,there is a policy that says it should not be steeper than 12%,and this driveway does not exceed that policy. Ken Klink,9025 Victoria,said he is concerned because of the adverse effect this project may have on his investment. His primary concerns were the disruption of the view from the townhouses and other residences in the area, consistency in the neighborhood and drainage. He asked about the considerations that went into recommending a flag lot. Sandstad responded that a flag lot is one without conventional street frontage and is most often approved when there is a need to preserve a natural amenity on the lot. He said the Commission has approved many flag lots even though they do not meet other City codes. Verdoorn asked what natural resources are being preserved by this project. Uram said this project was designed to protect the natural slope on the lot and to protect against a separate driveway going directly up the side of the hill from Staring Lake Parkway in case the middle lot were to be developed with street frontage at a later date. Clinton said he had concerns regarding the Engineering Staff memo that stated there was no erosion damage because he has seen significant erosion in that area. He said he would ask the question whether there should be just two lots on this project. Kraemer said the engineering staff member walked the area in front of lot 2 where there is no erosion; however,there is erosion on the other areas. Bauer said his primary concerns are with the drainage issue and he thought the use of a shared driveway was a beneficial use on this property in order to preserve the natural slope. He said he struggled with visualizing the house on lot two and that staking would have been helpful. Schlampp said he was uncomfortable with the drainage issue and that changing the pitch of the road might cause a potential problem. • Wissner asked if Staff goes out to oversee the actual development. Uram said they do that only in special circumstances.;however,they will probably pay more attention to this project. He said there may have to be additional erosion control such as sodding and fencing along the side of the driveway. PLANNING CONUMSSION 3 March 14, 1994 MOTION: Kardell moved,seconded by Bauer, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Bauer,to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of David Kraemer for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.76 acres based on plans dated February 22., 1994, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 25, 1994 and the Engineering Memorandum dated March 9, 1994,and with additional erosion control measures to be required around the driveway. Motion carried 5-1-0 with Clinton opposed. MOTIONL Kardell moved,seconded by Bauer,to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of David Kraemer for Preliminary Plat on 2.76 acres for three single family lots based on plans dated February 22, 1994., subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 25, 1994,and the Engineering Memorandum dated March 9, 1994,and with additional erosion control measures to be required around the driveway . Motion carried 5-1-0 with Clinton opposed. B. RICHARD THOMPSON ADDITION by Richard Thompson. Request for Preliminary Plat on 2.215 acres into 2 single family lots. Location: 6387 Craig Drive. Uram said this is a proposal to relocate the lot line so that Mr. Thompson can sell his existing home and build an additional house at the bottom of the hill. Thompson has • purchased a lot on Chandler Court in order to provide access to the building pad. Uram said there is a drainage and utility easement along the north edge of the lot off Chandler Court which is meant to protect the wetland area. Bob Fetterman,6359 Country Road,said he owns an adjacent site next to the wetlands area. He said his back yard is under water now,and this home will drain even more into his backyard. Doreen Seal, 6368 Chandler Court, said there has been no maintenance on the Chandler Court lot in the past three years so she was concerned about what it will look like after development. She said she is also concerned about the lowland area for the driveway and if there will be a culvert under the driveway to help the drainage. She said there is a need for a street light there. Joseph Pobiel,6360 Chandler Court,said half of his backyard is underwater,and he is concerned that more water will run off from this project onto his property. He was also concerned that the unused portion of the property would be maintained. Uram said the amount of runoff from a single family home will be negligible compared to the drainage problems that have been described. Uram asked if the neighborhood had talked to the Engineering Department about the drainage problems in the area. Fetterman said they have been told several stories about the drainage situation,and noted that they have tried to drain it,but it doesn't seem to work. PLANNING COMMISSION 4 March 14, 1994 Bill Putnam,6411 Craig Drive,asked if the extra lot will be developed and the woods cleared. Thompson said he has not been able to maintain the property because it is wet and that he will not clear the woods on the lot. Bea Oertel, 6371 Country Road, said she had water backed up three inches by her house and that the drainage is a big problem. Bauer said he was uncomfortable with the idea that there was a project before this one that created a substantial problem. He said Staff should take a look at the other development to see what is causing the drainage problems. Uram said that is an issue that needs to be addressed;however,it is above and beyond the consideration of this subdivision. Sandstad asked if this proposal will have an impact on the drainage of this area that has a problem already. Uram said runoff from a single family home will not have an impact. Bauer said it was distressing to hear that they have talked to staff and have not gotten results. He said he would like to have that checked out. Clinton said he thought we should look into the problems brought forth by the neighbors. Schlampp said he thought we should continue the hearing and go to the Engineering Department and the Watershed District to get a determination of whether the area is . wetland or a spring. He said it was very important to thoroughly investigate the problem because some remedies might compound the problems that exist. Sandstad said he thought the project was reasonable as it is,however he would titre to be certain that it will not aggravate an existing drainage problem in the area. MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell,to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION: Bauer moved,seconded by Kardell, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Richard Thompson for Preliminary Plat on 2.215 acres based on plans dated March 11, 1994,subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 11, 1994,and with the condition that Staff investigate the drainage problem in the area and provide a definitive statement that this project will have no additional negative impact. Motion carried 5-1-4 with,Schlampp opposed. MOTION: Bauer moved,seconded by Sandstad,to direct Staff to work with the Engineering Department to visit the neighborhood and meet with the residents who have expressed concern to analyze the problem in the area and report back to the Commission in the next few months with the results. Schlampp said he voted against the original motion.,not because there is a problem with . the project but because there is a problem if the lot is on a wetland since it could not legally be built on. Uram noted that they have not received any calls or letters of concern about the project from the Watershed District.,the DNR or the Corps of PLANNING COMMISSION 5 March 14, 1994 Engineers. Schlampp then asked if this is a DNR wetland. Uram said it is not classified as a DNR wetland. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried 6-0-0. C. PIONEER RIDGE by R. H. Development,Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 6.9 acres and Preliminary Plat on 6.9 acres for 16 single family lots. Location: Mitchell Road and Pioneer Trail. John Helmer,the project developer,reviewed the request for 16 single family lots. Uram said they have met with Centex Homes and are trying to coordinate the development of all three projects in this area in order to design the street connections. Schlampp asked what price the homes will be. Helmer said they will probably be $200,000 and up. Al Krause, 15911 Cedar Ridge Road, said he was concerned about traffic that will now be channeled onto Corral Lane which is only a 24-foot road. Sandstad asked about the status of the Sandy Pointe and McGraw developments. Uram said Sandy Pointe is almost complete,but McGraWs property is still being used as a business and is not anticipated to be developed in the near future. • Wissner asked if it would be necessary for the road to go through to Corral. Uram said he thought it would provide a benefit to the Corral Lane neighborhood since it would provide an additional access route for the area. Ryan Gideon,representing Centex Homes, said they are involved in the project to the west of this one and they would like to have the road connecting to their development shifted to the north in order to provide their project with a better layout for development. Helmer said they would have no difficulty with that. Jennifer Schroer, 15820 Corral Lane,said she was very concerned about the increased traffic that would occur on their street if a street is put through to Corral Lane. She said they like it as a cul-de-sac and would prefer to have another row of single family homes along the north edge of the project. Bob Waldron, 15710 Corral Lane,said he thought it was important to maintain the integrity of their neighborhood and that he did not believe any of the neighbors wanted access to County Road 1. Ken Lindeman, 15901 Corral Lane, said he is satisfied with the way traffic flows now. He said he was concerned about a natural waterway on one of the lots. Kathy Lindeman, 15901 Corral Lane, said the lot with the water problem received a variance so that the house could be put closer to the lot line in order to avoid an area with a drainage problem. PLANNING COMMISSION 6 March 14, 1994 Bauer said he didn't see that the configuration of this parcel lends itself to anything other than what is proposed,and there does not seem to be another answer regarding the roadway through. Wissner said she thought the two accesses to County Road 4 seem to be very close together. Uram said the access point to County Road 4 is set due to the construction on that roadway. Schlampp said he thought a lot of concerns could be addressed by making the street through the project a cul-de-sac and widening it. Uram said that if it ends in a cul-de-sac, variances will be required because of the width of the lots. Sandstad asked if there is any possibility of removing the connection to the Centex project. Uram said he would not recommend that. Kardell said a cul-de-sac is usually used in circumstances where we are trying to preserve certain natural features. She said she would favor anything that improves the traffic circulation in neighborhoods. Clinton said he is concerned with the integrity of the Commission if we now reverse our opinion and recommend a connection into the cul-de-sac that we previously recommended should be a cul-de-sac. Uram said that Staff originally recommended that the street be pushed through and that the concerns then were for through traffic from Mitchell Road to County Road 4. Sandstad noted that if the road out to the west is moved to the north,the cul-de-sac would be reduced. He said he thought we should take another look at this situation and see if it can be improved upon. Uram said the Commission needs to make a decision on whether a through street is necessary because the developer put that on at the recommendation of Staff. Uram said he thought it could be worked out without a cul-de-sac and suggested that the project be scheduled for the City Council,but have it continued for two weeks for Planning Commission review of revised plans. MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Clinton,to continue the public hearing to the March 28, 1994 meeting and to publish the project for the City Council meeting on April 4th. Motion carried 6-0-0. D. PURGATORY CREEK ESTATES by Post Construction. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open Space to Low Density Residential on 2 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2 acres and Preliminary Plat on 4.98 acres for 7 single family lots and 1 outlot. Location: 12381 Sunnybrook Road. Barry Post,property owner,and Peter Knaeble,project engineer,reviewed the proposal. Knaeble said the project meets the requirements of the shoreland ordinances,has an 11% 40 tree loss and they have reduced the proposed wetland fill to .3 acre. There is a 50-foot sanitary sewer easement on part of the property. PLANNING COMMISSION 7 March 14,I994 Schlampp said he was concerned that we have already disturbed the wetlands with the sewer and now we are going to disturb it again. He said he does not like to fill wetlands. Uram said this issue is the primary one for discussion on this project;however, Staff believes that the project is reasonable and they have agreed to mitigate the wetland fill. Uram said another issue is the conservancy area which is encroached in one section. As a trade-off,Posts are giving Outlot A to the City for preservation. Lovene Russell, 12101 Sunnybrook Road, said she disapproves of filling in wetlands and that wetlands should be preserved. Scott Wallace, 12465 Sunnybrook Road,said this project will run into an area that is in a 100-year floodplain. He said the mitigation proposed is not in the same area,but is on the other side of Homeward Hills. He noted that the project will block the neighbors' view of the conservancy area. Lee Smith, 12500 Sunnybrook Road, asked who will monitor the development and how closely it will be monitored.. She was concerned about the amount of fill as it seems to keep changing. She noted that the proposed Lot 4 is on the sewer easement. A discussion followed regarding the sewer system connections in the area. Smith said there were 90 loads of fill hauled in to the project in 1991 in violation of code that has not been removed despite the City's request to remove it. She said the land is used to stockpile construction garbage which is occasionally burned as "recreational" fires and there is a general disregard for ordinances and laws by the residents and owner of the property. Bob Classe, 12491 Sunnybrook Road, said he has concerns regarding possible water problems and problems with his septic system as a result of this project. Gerard Wersal, 12645 Sunnybrook, showed a picture of the fill that had not been removed. He said there is no similar cluster of homes along Sunnybrook and there have been no variances regarding the wetlands. He said the Metropolitan Council has recommended denial of the project and he thought the project should be redesigned so that there is no need for encroachment on the wetlands. Libby Hargrove, 12640 Sunnybrook Road,said this will increase the parking problems that now exist on Sunnybrook Road as well as increasing the traffic on the road. She said the land is adjacent to a City park which has a very small parking facility. She said parking on the sides of this narrow dirt road presents a traffic hazard for the residents. Dean Longsyo, 9448 Creekwood, said he owns the lot to the west of the project. He said the density of the project seems high,and he was concerned that there are no elevation • drawings to see how it would affect his lot. He said he is also concerned about filling wetlands and about the sewer system. PLANNING COMMISSION 8 March 14, 1994 At the request of Sandstad,Uram reviewed the regulations regarding wetland mitigation. He said mitigation is required for two times what they are filling and it must be done somewhere within the Watershed District. He said the approval process for projects involving mitigation is quite lengthy and there is ample time for public input. Knaeble noted that this project should not cause any more parking on Homewoard Hills Road and that the seven-lot project will be an improvement over the current rental property. He said the homes will be built by a first-class builder and that the entire development will be monitored by several governmental bodies because of the wetland issue. MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell,to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. Schlampp noted that,while he is opposed to filling wetlands,there are Iaws that say this is a possibility if it is done correctly and that the proponents are operating within the water conservation act. Wissner said she was concerned about where we stand if the homes are approved and then the homes develop water problems. She said she thought a couple of the homes could be eliminated to help keep problems from developing down the road. Kardell said she thought the homes would be an improvement over what exists there now She said she was disturbed that the concerns of the neighbors have not been addressed; however,those are not necessarily related to this project. She was concerned about possible inaccuracies in the staff report regarding the sewer connections and said she would prefer to see a less dense project. MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Clinton, to continue the request of Post Construction to the March 28, 1994 meeting. At this point,the proponents requested that the project go forward to the City Council. Bauer withdrew his motion with the consent of Clinton. MOTION: Bauer moved,seconded by Wissner,to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Post Construction for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2 acres based on plans dated March 11, 1994,and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 11, 1994. Motion carried 5-1-0 with Schlampp opposed. MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Wissner, to recommend to the to the City Council denial of the request of Post Construction for Preliminary Plat on 4.98 acres for 7 single family lots and 1 outlot based on plans dated March 11, 1994,, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 11, 1994. Motion carried 5-1-0 with Schlampp opposed. PLANNING COMMISSION 9 March 14, 1994 E. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORE by Homart Development. Request for PUD Concept Review on 75 acres,PUD District Review on 75 acres with waivers for exterior building materials,building and parking setback,Zoning District Amendment in the C-Regional Service Center Zoning District, Site Plan Review for construction of a 90,000 sq. ft. Kohl's Department Store, and Preliminary Plat of 42 acres into 2 lots. Location: East side of Eden Prairie Center. Dick Yackee,Homart Development, introduced the project and the development team, Greg Hollenkamp,representing Kohl's Department Store,reviewed the plans for the project. Bauer asked about the material on the dock wall. Hollenkamp said it is block in the same banding as that on the main building. Sandstad asked if the current Eden Prairie Center building meets codes for exterior material. Uram said it met the codes in place in 1976 and that this proposal is consistent with the original structure. Uram asked what their timetable for development is. Yackee said they want to open on October 15th with an alternate opening date of April 15, 1995. He said they had come before the City Council to have a grading plan approved so that the pad can be ready by April 15th. • In response to a question from Clinton, Yackee described the process required to develop the pad for this project. Schlampp asked how many parking spaces are being removed. Yackee said the original plans included parking for anticipated expansion and that it exceeds the requirements. Kardell said she did not see the issue of tree replacement addressed in the recommendations and she thought there should be some requirements for trees. Uram said the landscape plan will be reviewed. Sandstad asked that the Commission see the landscape plan sometime in the next three months. Gualtieri suggested that the issue of adequate lighting of the parking area also be addressed. MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Kardell,to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Kardell,to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Homart Development for PUD Concept Review on 75 acres based on plans dated March 11, 1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 11, 1994. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Kardell, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Homart Development for PUD District Review on 75 acres PLANNING COMMISSION 10 March 14, 1994 with waivers based on plans dated March 11,, 1994,and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 11, 1994. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Kardell, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Homart Development for Zoning District Amendment in the C-Regional Service Center Zoning District based on plans dated March 11, 1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 11, 1994. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Kardell,to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of 14omart Development for Site Plan Review based on plans dated March 11, 1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 11, 1994. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Kardell, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Homart Development for Preliminary Plat of 42 acres into 2 lots based on plans dated March 11, 1994,,and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 11, 1994. Motion carried 6-0-0. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS • VII. NEW BUSINESS VH1. PLANNERS' REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Wissner,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 14, 1994 7:00 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Community Development; Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Donald Uram, Planner I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE --ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA M. MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued from February 28, 1994 meeting: A. JOYLAND by David Kraemer. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.76 acres and Preliminary Plat on 2.76 acres for three single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: 14506 Staring Lake Parkway. • B. RICHARD THOMPSON ADDITION by Richard Thompson. Request for Preliminary Plat on 2.215 acres into 2 single family lots. Location: 6387 Craig Drive. C. PIONEER RIDGE by R. H. Development, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 6.9 acres and Preliminary Plat on 6.9 acres for 16 single family lots. Location: Mitchell Road and Pioneer Trail. D. PURGATORY CREEK ESTATES by Post Construction. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open Space to Low Density Residential on 2 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2 acres and Preliminary Plat on 4.98 acres for 7 single family lots and 1 outlot. Location: 12381 Sunnybrook Road. E. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORE by Homart Development. Request for PUD Concept Review on 75 acres, PUD District Review on 75 acres with waivers for exterior building materials, building and parking setback, Zoning District Amendment in the C-Regional Service Center Zoning District, Site Plan Review for construction of a 90,000 sq. ft. Kohl's Department Store, and Preliminary Plat of 42 acres into 2 lots. Location: East side of Eden Prairie Center. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VHL PLANNERS' REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT