Loading...
Planning Commission - 10/16/1978 AGENDA •.,._ - w • • _ w7 t n llllgloving Commission rVrN • . M .. .�. ( 769 Monday,October 1378 1:30 PM, City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Rod- Sundstrom, William Bearman-; Matthew Lev i t L, Richard �ynch;.' .f iv). .Redpath, Liz Retterath;' Oke Martinson STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Planning Director; jeth • . . Johnson, Planning Assistant; 'Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary . INVOCATION - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1978 III. MEMBERS REPORTS IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Discussion of proposed Ordinance designating the "Management of Shoreland in the City of Eden Prairie, and Regulating the Use, and Development thereof" . V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS VI . OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PLANNER' S REPORT ~ --__-_ - Ili. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLAF+NiING COMMISSION .approved MONDAY, OCTOBER 169 1978 7:30 PH CITY HALL OMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rod Sundstrom, William Bea aw, • Matthew Levitt, Liz Retterath, Oise Martinson COMyIISSION ME148FRS ABSENT: Richard Lynch and Paul Redpath STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Planning Director Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA 140TION: Retterath moved to approve ti°:e agenda as published, seconded by Bearman. Motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 259 1978 y i►ar• MOTIft Martinson moved to accept the minutes of September 25, 1978 meeting as p+!blished, seconded by Levitt. Motion carried 3:0:2. Retterath and Bearman abstaining. • III . MEMBERS REPORT - None. Iv. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Discussior of ro sed Ordinance desi nati the "liana event of Wrelandin the City o en Prairie, and 5eEJ1jti!1gthe Use-, an Deyelooment thereof" . rrrra�r�■ r Planning Director Enger explained the importance of retaining PUD provisions in the Shoreland Management Act `rom a planning sta,dpoint, noting the near completion of the updated Comprehensive Guide Plan and the importance of the 5horei and Hanage wit Act as a controlling factor in land use. Stundstrom questioned the Staff suggestion of lots fronting on or adjacent to shoreline meeting criteria of the State's lot restrictions, with non-abutting lots regulated by City Zoning Ordinance/PW lot site. setbacks etc. Enger explained that since the intent of the ordinance was mostly to protect Lakeshore, the State draft did not ccmte"late using the restrictions to the depth of 300 or I,CW feet. The require- wnt for 1/2 acre to I acre severed lots in &I : shoreland areas would have a profound effect on the pie devil opment of the City. Searaan requested more precise terrinology in place of the wand 'feasible' , as"'used on page 17 under Subd. 1 mW 2. ,approved Minutes - Planning Commission - 2 - October 15, 1978 Levitt inquired how the different classifications of the lakes could be changed. The Planner responded the State Department of Natural Re- sources has a formula for classifying waters acc,rding to various criterea such as the existing character of the lake, how open it is , what the shorelanu is in ratiio to the size of the lake etc . , and the City has to illustrate that the formula can not apply in certain instances . He noted that classifying lakes as Natural Environment makes all categories more restrictive. Bearman noted the provisions of the Purgatory Creek Study and asked whether the Study or Shoreland Management Ordinance would to more important. The Planner explained that in adopting a definitive and restrictive shoreland ordinance, it would be one more procedure for the developer, and that the Purgatory ' reek Study would be in excess of the Shorreland Management Ordinance. Enger pointed out that there were instances such as Anderson Lake - and Neil Lake, where studies cr 'plans had been made, which shouldbe treated separately. Beaman felt the restrictions on the docks .should be more flexible in size to allow opportunities for educational uses or use by the handicapped. It was suggested that the docks be restricted to a maximum 450 ft. area , with a maximum of 75 ft. length, in ;,,-der to allow flexibility. The question of permits was discussed for construction of docks, and how they would be administered, noting tEit the $5.00 fee payable when applying for a tempororary structure would not cover the cost of administration . Bearman. suggested adding provision that all structures abutting a lake be required to nook up to sewer znd water to prevent any future problems and that $35.00 be --egljired for both permit and variance request (pg.20) . for docks and structures would avoid confusion. The Planner explained that there is the need to define the distance tram the lake of installation of a septic tank, thereby also eliminating the need for "abetting lot" restriction. The Commission was in agreement that the PUB provisions were needed, for the sake of land use planning, and that standard City lot sizes alwtting behind shoreline. Enger' summarized the concerns of the Commission as far as lard uses in relation to the proposed Shoreland Management Ordinance as : 1 ) Need for PUD provision 2) abutting lot question and whether lots behind can be standard City lots 3) Nrting of different types of land uses - rove _uses have differentc effec : than others. V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS through PLANNER'S REPORT None. IX A R D�,OU Nt4EhT MOTION: Beamman moved to adjourn at 9:00 PM, seconded by Martinson. Notion carried unanimously. Beamman left at 9:05 PM. AGENDA FOR JOINT MEETING Eden Pra ;rie Planning Commission/ and Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Monday, OctoLer 16, 1978 9:00 PM, City Hall PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Rod Sundstrom, William Beannan, Matthew Levitt, Richard Lynch, Oke Martinson, Paul Redpath , Liz Retterath PARKS, RECREATION AND kATURAL P.ESOURCES C"ISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Richard Anderson, Dave Anderson, Steve Fifield , William Garens , Robert Kruell , Robert Johnson!, and George Tangen STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Planning Director; Jean Johnson, Planning Assistant Donna Stanley, Planning Sezretary Robert lambert, Director of Community ty Services I. Art-ROVAL OF AGENDA 11 . M HERS REPORTS III . REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Discussions of proposed Ordinance designating the "Management of Stureland in the City of Eden Prairie, and Regulating the Use, and Development thereof" . V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS V I. NEW BUSINESS VIM . PLANNIER'S REPORT will. XT • APPROVED MINUTES FOR JOINT MEETING A PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION October 16, 1913, Monday 9:00 PM, CITY HALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rod Sundstrom, Matthew Levitt, Oke Martinson , Liz Retterath PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: William Bearm3n, Richard Lynch and Paul Redpath PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Anderson, Dave Anderson, Steve Fifield , William Garens, Robert Johnson, Robert Kruell , and George Tangen STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: _"i,%is Enger, Planning Director Robert Lambert, Director of Community Service Donna Stanley, Planning Secretary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Approved. MEMBERS REPORTS s} None. III . REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Discussion of proposed Ordinance designating the "Management �hol"e and in the C i t of Eden Prairie anJ ReRq7atinq the Use,- and_eve opment thereo City Planner Enger explained that the basic concerns of the Planning Commission were with land uses only, and they were not interested in changing the intent of the Ordinance. The Planner- nrpcantPd the mjinr CADnrPrn% of tha Planninn ttaff- reinstatement of P.U.D. variance ability suggested in the original Sta-tie Shoreline Management Act to the revised version by PR 6 NR - Commission; application of setbacks , minimum lot sizes , lot widths , regarding severed areas to the shoreline lots only to protect against crowding potential around the lake or stream Itself; and proposed i classifications of lakes. Minutes - Joint Meet. Plan. Cosh./ Approved PR b NR Commission - 3 - October 169 1978 Various P.U.D. situations were discussed by the Commissions and their effect on development. Kruell , referring to the Edengate project, pointed out that the Flood Plain Ordinance was presently being violated by filling within the 100' restriction. Enger responded that he would look into this violation. Chairman Anderson suggested dealing more specificiaily with the shoreland remaining. Community Director L&nbert asked whether the P.U .D.provisions would be acceptable if it did not affect lots along the lake shore. PR & NR Commissioners were not opposed to, this, but did want strict restrictions. Tanqen requested the Staff to prepare Draft P.U.D. with some of these -ideas- that have been expressed tonight. The Planner summarized the ideas offered and agreed to come back with a Map showing areas already planned , and determine what would make sense as far as land use for lakes and other bodies of water as shown in the Guide Plan, and outline specifically what type of land use we would like to see in these remaining areas. Chairman Sundstrom, noting that these were not land uses , listed the following thoughts the Commission had discussed : definition of size of dock - concern with allowing for use for educational purposes and for the handicapped; su9gestion of more precise terminology on pg. 17for the word "feasible" ;&suggestion of same fee for permit and variance requests to eliminate confusion. The Comissions agreed that there was a need for both Commissions to have the opportunity to communicate, and they expressed the desire to meet periodically. V. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS - None. VI . NEW BUSINESS - None. VII . PLANNER 'S RrEPORT - None. VIII . AOJOURWENT - Meeting adjourned at 10:45 PH. Approved Minutes - Joint Meet. Plan. Com./ - 2 - - October 162 1978 PR & NR Commission Director of Community Services, Bob Lambert, explained that the PR & MR Commission feels that the P.II.D. provision seemc. to be a way arc-.-Id everything that the PR & NR Commission is trying to accomplish with the Shoreline Management Act. Chairman of PR & NR Commission ,Dick Anderson asked the question of how can we best protect our most valuable natural resources - by PUD or by Ordinance? He felt that taking the strictest approach was the best way to accomplish this. Kruell , PR & MR Commission, explained that the City can compromise from a 1 ,000' restriction on abutting pots, but it is difficult with anything less. He did not feel the City had the mechanism to protect wetlands. Tangen, PR & MR commission, added that they had discussed and were aware that 1 ,000 ft. may not be applicable in some areas because of topography. Tangen added further that he would rather see a variance from this Shoreline Management Act, than through PUD, because of the control . The Planner asked what other types of thinking could be considered before giving a variance, referring to Pg. 8 of the State Regulations . He pointed out that the City will have overlapping areas in cases such as in the Purgatory Creek Study or Anderson Lakvs Study. Levitt, Planning Commission , pointed out that a great deal of shoreland in Eden Prairie is under City ownership, and there is some that is not but will be. He felt that the Planning Commission was not in disagree- ment about abutting lots, butt want the P.U.D. provision available because of land that does not abutt the shoreline , such as in the Centex project. The City Planner felt that with the need for neighborhood parks , ww need the money generated from lotr with more than one unit per acre. Kruel 1 explained, that from the PR & NR Commission standpoint, they want to remove the higher density development away from the shore, noting that in the P.U.D. process in order to increase the taxbase, a density trade-off is made with the developer. Chairman Sundstrom pointed out that he did not feel there should be P.U.D. flexibility on thQ abutting lots , but beyond that. He. felt we should ask whether we were uncomfortable with the types of development or density trade-off - is this non-preservation? Chairman Anderson stated that he is in favor of most of the land that is remaining to be in public ownership. Garens left at 10:00 PM.