Loading...
Planning Commission - 07/28/1986 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 28, 1986 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS (7:35) A. BLUESTEM HILLS, by Brown Land Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 26.86 acres and Preliminary Plat of 31.56 acres into 65 single family lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Bennett Place, west of Jackson Drive. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII . ADJOURNMENT • MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 28, 1986 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Virginia Gartner, Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling STAFF PRESENT: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: • Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to adopt the agenda as printed. Motion carried--4-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to approve the minutes of the July 14, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--4-0-0 IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. BLUESTEM HILLS, by Brown Land Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 26.86 acres and Preliminary Plat of 31.56 acres into 65 single family lots, one outlot, and road right- of-way. Location: South of Bennett Place, west of Jackson Drive. A public hearing. • Mr. Peter Knaeble, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed development with the Commission. He stated that only six of the 60 trees on the Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 28, 1986 property were proposed for removal and that only one of those six was an oak tree. He noted that the existing home on the property would be located within one of the proposed lots as shown and that no variances would be necessary for the house. Mr. Knaeble stated that the proponent was planning to dedicate an outlot to the City for the area adjacent to Purgatory Creek. Mr. Knaeble stated that sanitary sewer and water were available to the site from Jackson Drive on the east. He noted that the existing system would service the northeasterly ten lots, only, and that the remaining 54 lots would have to be serviced from a different system. At this time, a lift station was being proposed. Regarding grading on sensitive areas of the property, Mr. Knaeble explained that the developer would be instituting restrictive covenants for those lots abutting Purgatory Creek, approximately fourteen total homes, which would include provisions for individual grading plans and bonding for the grading work to be done on each lot. He added that the mass grading of the property would be done only to the right-of-way line of the public streets in the project. Each individual lot owner would then be responsible for the grading on their own lot, and would be encouraged to prepare plans with the special features of their particular lot in mind. Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, stated that provision had been made • whereby each lot survey would be prepared by one firm. The purpose of this would be to provide for consistent grading control throughout the plat, between lots, and to assure as much quality control for the grading and erosion control on the entire property as possible. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of July 25, 1986, and stated that all proposed lots met the requirements of the R1-13.5 Zoning District and Shoreland Management requirements. In addition to standard requirements regarding grading, utilities, erosion control, streets, and park dedication, other specific concerns about the project were raised during Staff review. Planner Uram noted that Staff was concerned regarding erosion control for the property in areas where the slopes were three-to-one, or greater. He stated that the developer had agreed to maintain all such slopes on the property until such time as bonds for individual grading work were posted by individual lot owners. With respect to provision of sanitary sewer for the westerly 54 lots, Planner Uram noted that the proponents had signed a petition for the City to prepare a feasiblity study for a gravity sewer system to service this area. He noted that it was City policy not to use lift stations if at all possible. Planner Uram pointed out that a temporary lift station may be necessary as an interim measure, but that the proponent would be responsible for the cost of installation and maintenance until such time as a gravity sewer was installed. • Planner Uram stated that another area of concern was the road network in the vicinity. He pointed out that this area of the community had been under a great deal of pressure from development recently. He mentioned three land development proposals in the immediate area. Staff suggested that Meade Lane be extended to the north to provide for better vehicle circulation in Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 28, 1986 the area and, from a safety point of view, to provide for better emergency vehicle access to the neighborhood. Mr. Knaeble responded to the Staff recommendations. He stated that the developer was amenable to revising the grading plan to allow for positive overflow storm water drainage for the landlocked basin within Block 3. He stated that the developer was also amenable to replacing trees lost due to construction of the storm sewer down to Purgatory Creek, and that a tree inventory would be provided showing trees located 25 ft. outside of the construction area for purposes of replacement of such trees if they were damaged, or destroyed, during construction. Mr. Knaeble stated that the developer had submitted a petition to the City requesting that a feasibility study be done with respect to provision of gravity sanitary sewer to this property. In the event that it was not a possibility, or not possible just for the immediate future, Mr. Knaeble stated that the developer was willing to provide for a permanent, or temporary, lift station for the sanitary sewer. Mr. Knaeble noted that the developer had no objections to maintaining all slopes of three-to-one, or greater, and providing a cash maintenance bond for this. Also, the developer would provide the restrictive grading convenants on the individual lots and would provide for dedication of scenic . easement(s) over the area adjacent to Purgatory Creek. Regarding the proposed construction of gravity sewer for this development, Mr. Knaeble indicated that other adjacent properties may be affected, and, therefore, subject to assessment. This may also be the case for the upgrading of Bennett Place north of the property. With respect to the extension of Meade Lane to the north, Mr. Knaeble stated that the developer was not in favor of this extension due to the location of a 20 ft. high ridge between the Bluestem property and the property to the north. Also, he noted that it appeared unlikely that and coordinated development of the area to the north would take place due to the multiple ownerships of land in this area. Dodge asked when it would be determined whether the lift station could be temporary. Planner Uram responded that the results of the feasibility study petitioned by the proponent would provide the answer as to whether it was possible. The City Council would then make a decision as to whether it should be installed, or not. Dodge asked for further explanation about the need for extension of Meade Lane, as recommended in the Staff Report. Planner Franzen stated that it was suggested that Meade Lane be extended to the north because it would allow for circulation through the area since it also connected to the west/southwest at Franlo Road. Dodge stated that she felt it was important • to determine the need for such an extension now, before homes were built in this area. Gartner asked if the materials of a lift station could be reused. Mr. Wayne Brown, proponent, stated that the pumps within a lift station were reusable, representing approximately 50% of the total cost of the equipment. Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 28, 1986 • Anderson asked for explanation of the difference in tree loss calculated by Staff and the proponent. Planner Uram explained that the plans of the proponent did not take into account the all the grading work that would take place on the property. Also, extension of storm sewer south to Purgatory Creek would likely cause the removal of several trees. These had been included in the Staff review of tree loss with the City Forester. Bye expressed concern about the sensitivity of the natural features in this area and asked if it had been determined what impact the construction of the storm sewer to Purgatory Creek would have on these natural features. Mr. Knaeble responded that the storm sewer pipe was located between two lots at a point where it was least likely to disturb the natural features of the area. Bye asked about impact on the properties to the east and southeast from erosion that may be caused by the storm water run-off. Mr. Knaeble responded that there would be an energy dissipating system installed in the storm sewer. He statd that the rate of run-off should then be close to, if not less than, what is was currently. Bye asked about the direction of storm water run-off from the lots located north of the proposed subdivision. Mr. Knaeble responded that there was an existing low area to the north of the storm sewer system in Bluffs East, east of the proposed subdivision. He noted that when Bennett Place was improved, then those lots north of the proposed subdivision would likely flow through the proposed subdivision, instead of to the east. Planner Franzen stated that, in general, all the projects located south of County Road #1 drained into Purgatory Creek. He added that the City Engineering Department and Watershed District would likely consider a larger area than just the proposed plat to study as concerned storm water drainage. This would have to be accomplished prior to final design of the utilities. Bye stated that she was concerned that the entire area be studied in order to avoid problems in the future, noting that this area had a history storm water drainage concerns. Planner Franzen stated that it would be an area- wide study, not just a study of the land within the project boundaries. Bye also expressed concern regarding the traffic circulation for the area. She stated that Bluestem Lane appeared to be one long cul-de-sac and that she felt there should be alternative access available for emergency vehicles and school buses. Planner Franzen stated that Staff was also reviewing traffic for this general area, not just as it affected the proposed development. He noted that, due to the multiple ownerships in this vicinity and the topography, it may not be possible to provide the "most desirable" system for transportation. Anderson asked who would be responsible for the construction of the trail system along Purgatory Creek. Planner Uram responded that he had discussed this with the Director of Community Services, Bob Lambert. Director Lambert • had stated that the City was in the process of purchasing property along Purgatory Creek for purposes of trail construction. It was likely that the City would do the ultimate construction of the trail along the creek, with completion of the system about ten years away, or more. Planner Uram stated that there were trails shown within the subdivision for purposes of • Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 28, 1986 pedestrian circulation. Mr. Harold Johnson, 9995 Bennett Place, stated that he was concerned about the impact of grading from the proposed development as it may affect his lot. He stated that the soils in this area were sandy and easily erodible. Mr. Johnson also expressed concern for the visual impact the subdivision would have on his lot. He stated that his home was built with an orientation overlooking Purgatory Creek and that he was concerned that the homes not be too high and obstruct his view. Mr. Knaeble responded that the elevation of the street within the proposed subdivision was at approximately 830, while Mr. Johnson's home was at an elevation of 865, making the homes considerable lower than the Johnson home. Mr. Knaeble stated that he would likely be looking over rooftops of the subdivision, but that his view of Purgatory Creek and the Minnesota River would not be blocked by construction within this development. Mr. Knaeble stated that, with respect to grading, the developer planned to restore all slopes to at least three-to-one and to re-establish the growth disturbed by grading. Mr. Johnson stated that, in the Spring, a large amount of water gathers in the area designated for Block 3 of the proposed development. He also expressed concern that the storm sewer system be adequate to handle the . large amount of Spring run-off. Mr. Johnson asked about the proposed width of Bennett Place, after its improvement. Mr. Knaeble responded that the it would be approximately twice its current width, or 28-32 ft. wide, depending upon City requirements. With respect to the water seen "standing" in the vicinity of Block 3 of the proposed subdivision, Mr. Knaeble stated that, currently, the water percolated out of the area, it did not remain standing for long. Mr. Johnson asked about future assessments that may be against his property due to this development. Mr. Knaeble responded that street and utility assessments would be on the subdivision, only. If, and when, Bennett Place was improved, Mr. Johnson's property may be subject to assessment for those improvements. Planner Franzen stated that Mr. Johnson may wish to discuss this matter at the City Council meeting on the development as they were the ones to make such decisions. Mr. Doug Moran, 10788 Jackson Drive, asked what the value of the homes would be. Mr. Brown responded that the lots along the creek would likely have values up to $300,000, while those adjacent to the Jackson Drive area would likely be $125-150,000. Mr. Moran stated that he was concerned about the impact of the proposed development upon Jackson Drive. He stated that Jackson Drive appeared to be a long street, but that there were no sidewalks for pedestrian circulation on the street. He expressed concern that Jackson Drive would be used as an alternate route to the east to Franlo Road and County Road #1 and if that became the case, there should be sidewalks for the children in the neighborhood so they would not have to walk in the street. Mr. Knaeble stated that the sidewalk for pedestrian circulation was being provided along Meade Lane, connecting to Grant Drive, where sidewalk had already been Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 28, 1986 • installed for pedestrian circulation. He pointed out that Grant Drive was a more direct route to the east and had been platted wide enough to support the sidewalk for pedestrians. Planner Franzen stated that the Staff could review the possibility of installation of sidewalks along the proposed and existing portions of Jackson Drive, if the Commission requested. Gartner asked when the development to the east was planning to begin construction. Planner Franzen stated that it could be as early as Fall, 1986, or Spring, 1987. Gartner asked when this project was planned to begin. Mr. Brown responded that plans were to complete a portion of the grading yet in 1986. Mr. Tim Koloski, 10076 Meade Lane, asked if the slope to the west of his lot would remain in tact. He also expressed concern about standing water and, therefore, the adequacy of the storm water drainage system for the proposed development. Mr. Koloski asked if there would be covenants on the lots which were not adjacent to Purgatory Creek. Mr. Brown responded that there would be covenants on all lots, but that the final details of the covenants had not yet been completed. Mr. Koloski asked if the hill located at the east end of the development would remain as is. Mr. Knaeble responded that grading would take place in that area. Mr. Koloski asked about the hill behind Meade Lane. Mr. Knaeble stated that it would be graded down. Anderson asked if the property owners adjacent to the proposed extension of Meade Lane had be talked to about the potential extension of the road. Planner Uram responded that two of these land owners were aware of the recommendation, but that others had not been talked to as yet. Planner Uram explained that the design proposed by Staff for the extension of Meade Lane was done in such a way to maximize the development of the lots that would be adjacent to it. The Staff had not discussed alternatives with the homeowners directly. Mr. Krueger explained that the plat was designed in such a way that the lots in the northwest area of the proposed development would not have water in their basements. The water table was at least two feet lower than any basement floor elevation, per City Code requirements. A swale was also being proposed as an alternative location for storm water drainage in case the storm sewer system became blocked. Dodge asked about recourse available to residents if the grading of the proposed subdivision negatively impacted their lots. Planner Franzen stated that the City required site restoration bonding through the developer's agreement with the proponent. This bond was kept in full force and effect until all ground cover was re-established to the satisfaction of the City. • Mr. Rod Haanen, 10108 Meade Lane, stated that the prevailing winds in the neighborhood were from the west. He expressed concern about blowing dust and debris toward his neighborhood during the construction process. Mr. Knaeble stated that the City had strict requirements about such things during the construction process. He stated that all prudent dust and debris • Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 28, 1986 control measures would be instituted as necessary. Mr. Haanen asked what type of homes would be built on the lots. . Mr. Brown explained that the homes would be custom-built to fit the individual lots. He added that he expected that the project would take approximately three, or four, years to build out. Mr. Haanen asked if the road system would be built all at once. Mr. Brown responded that the roads would be completed in phases. He added that, depending on the timing of Bennett Place improvements, the construction process would likely begin near Meade Lane. It was also a possibility that the northeasterly ten lots would be the first to be developed. Mr. Haanen added that he shared the concerns of the previous speakers with respect to storm water drainage for the area. Ms. Sally Brown, 10080 Bennett Place, stated that water does not remain standing in that area, but dissipated over a period of two, or three, days after heavy rain, or snow melt. She asked how many lift stations already existed in this portion of the City. Planner Franzen stated that he knew of at least two, but was uncertain whether there were others. Ms. Brown stated that, since 1964, when first discussions took place about development of this property, lift stations had been the method suggested for provision of sanitary sewer to the area. She asked why gravity sewer was being required, • instead of allowing a lift station. Ms. Brown also asked when the City had amended its tree replacement policy to require the amount of replacement recommended in the Staff report. Planner Franzen stated that it was now City policy that gravity sewer be installed whenever possible. With respect to tree replacement, Planner Franzen stated that the City Council had recently requested that the Staff review tree replacement in residential projects. In the past, only commercial or industrial projects were subject to the tree replacement policy. However, the City Council had expressed concern that not requiring tree replacement in residential areas may allow for the character of the sites to change drastically if development caused the removal of larger trees. Ms. Brown asked what the expected grades would be for the recommended extension of Meade Lane. Planner Franzen responded that more information was needed to evaluate this alternative, which was also requested in the Staff Report. Gartner stated that she did not feel the extension of Meade Lane was the only alternative for provision of traffic circulation through the area. She added that she felt the timing of the development would be adequate to service this general area. Planner Franzen indicated that it had been intended that Meade Lane become a minor interior neighborhood collector servicing this area of the City. • Bye expressed concern that the phasing of the development not be done in such a way that the new residents would be encouraged to use Jackson Drive, instead of Meade Lane, as a through street to the east and north. Mr. Brown stated that he would prefer to develop the Meade Lane area first, also. • Planning Commission Minutes 8 July 28, 1986 MOTION: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to continue the public hearing on Bluestem Hills to the August 11, 1986, Planning Commission, with direction to the Planning Staff to publish the item for the August 19, 1986, City Council meeting. Bye stated that she felt there were still details which needed to be worked out with the Staff, but which could be accomplished prior to the City Council meeting of August 19th. She stated that the Commission should have the opportunity to determine at its August 11th meeting whether the changes were as expected, or whether other significant issues were raised by the changes made in the plans. Other commissioners concurred. Planner Franzen stated that the most significant change resulting from any of the Staff-recommended changes to the development would involve deletion of two lots from the plat, which would be considered a minor change to the development overall. Motion carried--4-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS • None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Anderson, seconded by Bye. Acting Chairman Gartner adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.