Planning Commission - 11/07/1988 MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 7, 1988
City Hall Meeting Room
6:30 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Charles Ruebling,
Doug Fell, Richard Anderson, and Robert Hallett
MEMBERS ABSENT: Edward Schuck
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Bob Lambert, Director of
Parks and Recreation; and Sue Anderson, Recording Secretary
1. COMPREHENSIVE PARK AND OPEN SPACE PLAN REVIEW
Bob Lambert presented the Comprehensive Park Plan with its recommendations
and priorities as follows: Neighborhood Park Improvements, Outdoor Swimming
Facility Development, Determination of Golf Course Development (community
park functions) , Trail System Development, Land Acquisition (adult athletic
field complex; neighborhood parks; community park; passive open space
preservation), Special Use Facilities, Purgatory Creek Recreation Area
Development, Resolution of Community Center Function (hockey facilities),
Miller Park/ Youth Facility Development.
• Hallett inquired if trap and skeet range were considered and to clarify the
swimming pool .
Lambert stated that a trap and skeet range was not considered. The swimming
pool would be an outdoor facility, which was the highest mentioned item of
the twenty-nine considerations. Lambert stated the pool was requested due
to the difficulties of the lake water quality and maintaining clear water.
The City was investigating using a water curtain on the lake. There could
be a possible environmental problem using copper sulfate. Miller Park would
be a possible site for the outdoor pool. Another option would be a wave
machine pool or a pool with a sand floor.
Dodge stated a regular swimming pool would be more feasible and in greater
demand for small children and mothers.
Ruebling inquired if Miller Park would be the site for a basin pool or could
they do a wave pool there. Lambert replied that a basin would be less
expensive. He added that a youth oriented park would require 100 acres to
allow for sufficient parking. The City did have to consider that some
people prefer pools and some like the lakes.
Fell commented that at the Baker Park, rest periods had been initiated every
hour as a means of checking on people. Fell also inquired if the City was
looking to accommodate residents needs or attract new people with outdoor
• activities.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 7, 1988
Lambert responded that it should meet the needs of the residents now and be
an attraction later.
Hallett inquired if would ever be possible to have a walkway around Mitchell
Lake.
Lambert replied that it is not possible to have a walkway around Mitchell
Lake but with the planned underpass at Highway 5 Miller Park could connect
with Round Lake. It is a major challenge on how to acquire a trail along
the west side of Mitchell Lake. Hopefully Orin Thompson will dedicate the
land to the City.
Hallett inquired if Purgatory Creek will be connected. to the- school
property. Lambert responded that the prople from school can walk from
school property to the creek to Staring Lake.
Anderson inquired about the community center being used for a hockey
facility.
Lambert stated that the Community Center will be a true community center.
It presently serves basically swimming and hockey. A true community center,
in his mind, is where kids can go and use a variety of facilities. At
present, the kids have no drop-in facility. He felt the City should be
providing a facility for the 12 - 16 year. olds. He referred* to the City of
• Rochester's game room with enough staff, and supplied with pool tables and
foosball tables.
Anderson inquired if the school could provide this atmosphere. Lambert
stated the schools need the gym for sport events, plus kids need a neutral
territory.
Hallett stated that the City really needs a YMCA. Lambert felt the
Community Center serves as our YMCA. Anderson felt a hang-out for youth
would be destined for trouble.
Lambert stated that a second' sheet of ice was proposed two years ago, and
the Hockey Association and Figure Skating Club said they would buy all the
ice time. Public time on the ice is still protected.
Hallett stated there would have to be.a bond issue before another rink was
built.
Hallett inquired about the Flying Cloud expansion with reference to the
conflict of the adjoining wildlife refuge, and why it was not addressed in
this proposal. Lambert said the landfill was more damaging to the wildlife
than the air strip. He added that environmental impact for Flying Cloud is
the noise from the aircraft.
Lambert spoke about Smetana Park, a 40-acre site, with steep wooded slopes;
• with trails it would be a very nice area.
MOTION:
Fell moved and Anderson seconded to accept the Comprehensive Park Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 7, 1988
• Motion carried 6-0-0
7:30 p.m.
II. REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED'RECREATIONAL VEHICLE CODE
Jean Johnson presented the proposed Recreational Vehicle Code, and stated
that this summer the Council worked through the aspects of a recreational
vehicle code, and the results are not satisfactory to everyone.
Recreational vehicles can be in the rear or side property in accordance with
revised Ordinance No. 22-88. The changes would restrict no more than 2
units per lot and a height restriction of 7' or less could be stored on a
lot on the side of a lot no closer than 10 feet from the lot line.
Recreational vehicles over 7' could be stored in the rearyard, but no closer
than 10' from the lot line or in the frontyard, but no closer than 15' from
the curb of the street. All recreational vehicles parked or stored outside
must be in a safe, operable condition and exhibit current license or
registration plates or tags if the vehicle is one for which a license or
registration plate or tag is required by law for its operation, and no
recreational vehicle shall be used for living, sleeping or housekeeping
purposes when parked or stored in a one-family residential district or a
multi-family residential district.
At this time the Council was requesting input from the Planning Commission
and residents. A grandfathering clause was incorporated into the ordinance.
Grandfathering is interrupted in that if the present boat is sold, the new
boat will be in accordance with the new ordinance changes.
Dodge observed that the grandfathering clause does not remedy the original
complaint by the neighborhood. She also inquired if grandfathering was for
perosn or the vehicle on the site.
. Fell stated he would suggest tying the grandfathering to the vehicle not the
area of storage. Staff has recommended this to the City Attorney.
Anderson inquired if a trailer with four units on it would be in violation
of the 2-unit ordinance. Johnson replied that a trailer with four
snowmobiles would be considered one unit.
Anderson inquired if the grandfathering definition was spelled out in this
ordinance. Ruebling responded that the definition of the term is defined in
another portion of the City Code. Anderson felt the definition should be
more defined in this ordinance.
Discussion continued on front yard storage, setbacks, wood piles over 71 ,
tarps over vehicles. Fell inquired about the enforcement of this ordinance.
It was stated that enforcement would take place on a complaint basis unless
its a dangerous situation. The City will not go look for violators.
Michael McCosky, 7151 Topview Road, stated he and 12 neighbors signed a
petition regarding the boat in their neighborhood. It was so large there
was scaffolding and a blue tarp around it. The sight of it ruined the
neighborhood image from October to March. He added it was detrimental to
Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 7, 1988
their property value. He and his neighbors were concerned that the City was
not taking - care of its citizens; and they felt that community services
should prevail to keep their area looking like a neighborhood, not a storage
area for 18' boats.
Bud Schwartz, 15051 Scenic Heights Road, inquired as -to how many have
complained. He felt if only one neighborhood was having a problem, why
didn't they form a neighborhood association. Why did the whole City have to
adapt to please one neighborhood. He added that to restrict the vehicle to
71, well that constituted at least 90% of the vehicles being sold and bought
today. He concluded that the ordinance was full of figures that did not
make any sense. He also stated that the wording of a bike path was
confusing as ever7 neighborhood does not have a bike path, but rather a
sidewalk.
Harry A. Bloomquist, 6441 Kurtz Lane, inquired how he could obtain a copy of
the newly revised ordinance. Staff informed him it would be mailed to him
upon his request.
McCosky stated tht this ordinance change is not just for his neighborhood,.
it would be for the good of Eden Prairie in the years to come.
Anderson referred to the Preserve Association and its enforcement. He felt
alternative suggestions to the-recreational vehicle ordinance changes should
be considered. If a person can afford a huge boat, they can affort to store
it off the residential site. He felt the ordinance is too vague and not
fair to anyone; more thought should be put into this.
Ruebling stated as he read Ordinance 22-88, there is not an answer as to
legal position. Enger responded that to- enforce the ordinance, 5 signatures
of homeowners was needed.
Enger made the point that the City cannot abdicate policy order to a
neighborhood. It would however, tone down immediate reaction. It would
create public notice expectation; as you buy a recreational vehicle you
would be okay if the neighbors did not object to it.
John C. Martinsen, 7225 Eden Prairie Road, stated that when you have a
vehicle that is 40' long, it should be considered a home, and they should be
allowed to live in it.
Rita Greeve, 7275 Topview Road, the resident at the house in complaint
against the petition. She presented photos of the vehicle in question,
letters from the neighbors that do not object. She could not understand the
City's action of jumping the gun for one complaint.
The Commission informed her they were not here to write an ordinance, only
give general direction to the Council as to how it should be regulated, how
the grandfathering clause should be implemented, the safety, and placement
of the vehicles in the front yards.
• Schwartz stated he was retired and moved around from site to site for 3
months to 6 months a year, which was why he was so interested. He felt the
people at the meeting tonight were not the RV owners.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 7, 1988
Martinson stated that a draft of the ordinance here tonight will affect many
people. Perhaps if the ordinance was drafted by RV owners and non-owners,
both sides would have their input and come to a mutual agreement.
MOTION:
Hallett moved and Dodge seconded to close the public comments at this time
in order for Commission to begin discussion.
Motion caried 6-0-0
Anderson felt this ordinance could be adopted but felt the people must
understand the long-term results.
Dodge felt the issue of sleeping and housekeeping, if its totally denied or
acceptable at times, should be mentioned in the ordinance.
Ruebling felt the conditions of the grandfathering clause needed to be
outlined and listed and tied to vehicle. He continued that Commission
should extend the concern for safety regulation, length of absence of
vehicle from the site, two vehicles under 7' or reasonably close.
Schwartz stated that the ordinance was going to be passed by the Planning
Commission. It was explained that the statements being made were the
• Commissioners' recommendations for the ordinance, which would be reviewed by
City Council . At that time, he would have another opportunity to input his
suggestions.
Bye felt there was a strong viewpoint in the homeowners association. The
neighbors may want to appoint a citizens committee. She assured the
audience the ordinance would not be passed without public intervention.
Ruebling commented that if Ordinance 22-88 is recommended, the only change
is the 15' setback, thereby solving only a safety issue. The change is not
doing anything, since grandfather clause still allows the present RV's to
sit in front of the houses. A big problem has been created and no one is
happy.
Enger agreed that it did not respond to anyone's hopes. Be the residents RV
or non-RV, the ordinance should be for the community.
Commission recommended the draft be sent back to Council, a committee formed
and a middle ground be met with Staff.
Ruebling commented that this was initiated a year ago with a solution that
no one is happy with. If we have a regulation, it should have teeth and
this could be produced with a citizen's committee. It has to do something
meaningful that people can understand.
McCosky stated that he felt there was a true need to regulate the
recreational vehicles but in an understandable manner and it should be
enforceable. He continued that he would like to serve on the committee
along with the people at this meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 7, 1988
MOTION:
Hallett moved and Anderson seconded the motion to deny the adoption of the
RV ordinance due to citizen concern and the lack of strength in the draft.
The above recommendations along with input from homeowner's associations
should be considered by the Council.
Motion carried 6-0-0
III. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Ruebling to adjourn the meeting at
9:00 P.M.
Motion carried 6-0-0
•