Loading...
Planning Commission - 06/13/2005 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,JUNE 13, 2005 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Larry Kacher, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz,William Sutherland STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Al Gray, City Engineer Mike Franzen, City Planner Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Kirk, Stoltz, and Sutherland. Nelson arrived during the Duck Lake Knoll presentation. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 23, 2005 A quorum was not met to approve the minutes. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DUCK LAKE KNOLL by Epic Development, LLC. This is a request for a Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning District on 1 acre; and a Preliminary Plat of 1 acre into 2 single family lots and road right-of-way. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 Page 2 Perry Ryan, of Ryan Engineering, representing Epic Development, presented the proposal. He stated that they are proposing to rezone 2 lots that will be 125 feet wide. He used the overhead projector to illustrate this proposal. He stated that initially the proposal was for 3 lots to be on this parcel of land. Because of the tree loss it would create, the proposal was not supported by staff. They have come back tonight with a new plan to have 2 lots on this parcel of land. He stated that in keeping with the 2 lot subdivision, the houses would be built out to the side yard setback and that is where the tree loss would be calculated. The City proposed another layout for a revised two lot subdivision, stating the tree loss would go down significantly. Mr. Ryan felt that the City's layout would really limit the lots. Staff recommends the first lot being 149 feet wide and the second lot being 95 feet wide. Mr. Ryan stated the challenge is that it is hard to put a 95 foot wide lot next to a 150 foot wide lot and he would rather not. Stoelting asked Kipp to review the staff report. Kipp stated that this is a two lot proposal. It does not require a rezoning of the property. Tree loss is calculated at 51%. The City's recommendation to shift the property line 27 feet would reduce tree loss to 29 %. The Commission would require a new public hearing for a three lot proposal. He stated that Staff recommends approval of the two lot plan based on recommendations on page 3 of the staff report, which includes revision of the plat to shift the lot line 27 feet to the west for a 95 foot wide lot prior to City Council. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Glen Olson, of 17200 W. 67h Street Circle, stated that he boarders the back lot of lot one. And Jason Wallace, neighbor, would boarder the other lot and the Madison's would be to the north of the lots. He stated that he does support the two lot proposal but would like to see less tree loss. He also stated that there is a diseased oak tree on the lot and he would like to see that tree removed. He is an advocate for saving trees and does feel that it is a shame to see the area destroyed. Stoelting asked Mr. Olson if he was speaking for the Wallace's and the Madison's. He also asked if lower tree loss was acceptable. Mr. Olson stated that the neighbors would be coming forward with their opinions and that the lower tree loss would be acceptable to him. Stoelting asked Fox about the diseased trees on the property. Fox stated that the assessment was based on the total inventory and that the large diseased oak tree was not counted in the loss. Fox stated that for the most part the trees are very healthy. Tom Madison, who resides directly north of the project, stated that he does not support the plan of the developer,but does support the City's plan of moving the house back. He also stated that another concern of his is drainage, which accumulates between his house and the oak trees. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 Page 3 Koenig asked Kipp if the City addressed the issue of just putting one house on this property. Kipp stated that currently there is one house on the property and pointed out that the developer has the right to subdivide this property consistent with the zoning of the property. Seymour asked the Staff to address the drainage issue. Gray stated that there are improvements to the plan that would address the issue. One is that the interior lot could be graded to take it east to the roadway, and secondly there is a storm sewer in the roadway that could supply supplemental drainage to that area. Stoelting asked if these improvements would be at the cost of the project proponent or the City. Gray stated that it would be part of the project and the responsibility of the proponent. Stoelting followed up with asking Kipp to address the issue that if this was not included in the staff report then a motion would have to be made to include that and Kipp confirmed that it would. Koenig questioned Fox if the burr oak trees are resistant to construction damage. Fox stated that it would be based on the condition of the trees, the age of the trees and the timing of the construction. He stated that the most critical thing is to stay out of the drip line of the trees. The City's recommendation is to be careful in the placement of the homes and to use fencing to protect the tree roots. Koenig stated that the site looked small in order to protect all of the trees at the drip line and questioned Fox if they would have enough room to do the construction. Fox stated that because of this, the fencing is something that should be required at all times during construction. Stoelting asked the project proponent in regards to moving the pads would he have any problems with what the City has proposed. And secondly, to address the issue of developing some sort of drainage solution for this property. Mr. Ryan stated that they would like Staff to support their proposal. hi regards to the second issue,he stated that there is a catch basin at the neighbors to the north area of the property. He used the overhead projector to illustrate this. He stated that what they are proposing is to move drainage along the common lot line. They would work with Gray to minimize drainage to neighboring property. Koenig asked the project proponent to address the issue of why he does not support the staff's proposal of the two lot plan since it would be reducing tree loss. Mr. Ryan stated that he believes that the one lot is too small in comparison to the other lot. Stoelting asked staff for comment. Kipp said that the commission has three options to consider. If the Commission supports the proponents plan, it can recommend approval of the their plan. If the commission supports the staff report recommendation to revise the plan, it can recommend approval, based on the recommendations of the staff report. Lastly, if the Commission does not support Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 Page 4 the proponents plan, and would like to send a strong message to the City Council, it can recommend denial of the plan,based on the environmental impact on the natural resources of the property, specifically the oak trees. MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Kacher abstained. MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Seymour, to deny the request for Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning District on 1 acre; Preliminary Plat of 1 acre into 2 single family lots and road right-of-way,based on plans stamped dated May 20, 2005, subject to the recommendations of the Staff report dated June 10, 2005, to the City Council,based on the following findings: need for a larger lot is outweighed by the impact of the trees. Stoelting asked Rocheford if the denial was because Staff feels there needs to be a larger lot. Rocheford clarified by stating that the project proponent wanted a larger lot at the expense of greater tree loss. Koenig stated that the tree loss is nearly double what it is in residential areas and asked Stoelting if it could be put in the record that tree loss is too high. Stoelting said that it states that the project developer's plan is 5 1% versus the City plan, which is 29 %. Koenig stated that the average residential tree loss is between 30- 35%. Stoelting asked Kipp to address this issue. Kipp stated that a recommendation for denial based on the lot size would not be appropriate since the developer meets the Code for lot size,rather, the denial should be based on the environmental impact. Koenig asked if they are conforming in lot size, does Staff need to withdraw the motion for denial. Rocheford stated that if Mr. Ryan wishes to have the lots divided equally and not follow the staff recommendation, then it would be appropriate to deny the request. Mr. Ryan stated that they wanted equal lots and that they would be willing to work with Staff to minimize the tree loss. He stated that he feels it is unfair to have one lot larger than the other lot. He also does not believe that the tree loss would be 51%. He stated that it would be a burden and challenge to market this property. Rocheford stated that he is concerned with the neighbor to the north and the tree loss that would affect them. Stoelting asked Mr. Ryan if he would be willing to compromise the lot line. Mr. Ryan stated that there should be a fair balance between his proposal and the neighbor to the north. He stated he feels that the neighbor to the north is receiving more attention to the tree loss than the proposed project. He stated he Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 Page 5 would be willing to work with Staff in regards to tree loss but would like to keep the lot lines as proposed. Kipp stated the shifting the lot line so lot 2 is 95 feet would be consistent with what is in the area. He stated that if Staff is recommending denial they should deny the proposed plan based on the high tree loss. Seymour stated that he is prepared to vote for denial of the project based on what was proposed at the meeting. Stoelting asked Rocheford to address his previous motion. MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Koenig, to deny the request for Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning District on 1 acre; Preliminary Plat of 1 acre into 2 single family lots and road right-of-way,based on plans stamped dated May 20, 2005, subject to the recommendations of the Staff report dated June 10, 2005, to the City Council,based on the following findings: that tree loss would be 51%. Stoelting asked for an individual ruling. All Commission members voted for denial, with Kacher abstaining. Stoelting suggested that the project proponent work with the City to preserve tree loss. Motion carried 5-0. Kacher abstained. B. PRAIRIE ESTATES,by T.H. Parker, Inc. Request is for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 6.47 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 6.47 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to R1- 13.5 on 6.47 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 6.47 acres into 10 lots, two outlots and road right-of-way. Thomas Parker, of 5100 Norman Drive in Minnetonka, presented the proposal with the assistance of Charlie Howie, engineer of the project. Mr. Parker stated that the property is 6.5 acres with two single-family homes. He also stated that the current owner, who owns both of the pieces of property, would be moving out of the area. He stated that their current proposal does meet the requirements of the City. Charlie Howie presented the plan to redevelop the two existing properties. He illustrated the proposal using an overhead projection. He showed access to all lots. He stated that Staff wanted to keep a substantial amount of wetland in outlot B, which they have done. Mr. Howie also stated that portions of lot 10 would be placed within a wetland conservation easement. He stated that they will also be dedicating additional right of way for 62nd Street. All the lots meet the setback requirements by the City. Outlots A and B will be dedicated to the City. They have met all of the City's requirements except for the length of the cul-de-sac, which they will be seeking a waiver from the City to have that extended. Mr. Howie stated that the tree loss would be met within the City standards. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 Page 6 Stoelting asked Mr. Howie if an Environmental Assessment was completed and Mr. Howie confirmed that it was. Stoelting asked Kipp to review the staff report. Kipp stated that this property is to be rezoned to R1-13.5, which would be consistent with the surrounding area. He stated that there is a large wetland that will be dedicated to the City. He explained that when the City looks at a wetland they try to contain as much as possible in an outlot to maximize wetland preservation. The Commission can support a PUD waiver for average lot depth of less than 100 feet for Lot 10 to accommodate the staff recommendation for the wetland to be placed within the outlot. The other waiver for the length of the cul-de-sac is supported by the staff because the majority of the property served by extending cul-de-sac and provides public access to other neighboring property for future development. Kipp stated that the City recommendation is for approval. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Stefan Peterson, of 6311 Country Road,had a question regarding outlot A and how it would be configured. He also was concerned about the tree loss. Mike Lanigan, of 6251 Country Road, had the same concerns as Mr. Peterson in wanting to maintain as many trees as possible. He was specifically concerned with what would happen to the trees on the east side of the project. His other concern was the outlot pond and the concern for safety for children in the neighborhood. Mr. Lanigan also asked if the sidewalks would still be kept. John Marshalla, of 17039 Claycross Way, wanted to address the trees in lot 10 and asked if they are normally tagged as to which trees are staying and which trees are going. Kipp stated that the developer does look at all of the trees as part of preparing development plans. Fox confirmed that the developer does do a complete inventory on the trees;but they do not have to inventory elms,box elders, and willows. Mr. Marshalla stated that he and the neighbors do enjoy the trees in the area and he is concerned because it looks as if half of those trees will be taken out. Mr. Marshalla also asked if lot 10 was going to have access via a driveway from Claycross Way. Kipp confirmed that was correct. Mr. Marshalla asked where the house was going to be placed. Kipp stated that it would be placed in the largest developable portion of lot 10. He stated that it does provide for a house pad design and could possibly be a custom built home. Mr. Marshalla reiterated his concern for the tree loss and asked if they had a plan in place for the planting of new trees. Stoelting stated that there is a landscaping plan that the developer submitted. Stefan Peterson wanted to know the elevation of the lot in the northeast corner, north of the pond and what kind of homes were going to be built in that area. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 Page 7 Charles Gould, of 6285 Duck Lake Road, stated that he has lived at this address since 1962, and was concerned about the tree loss in the area. He stated that previously they were promised sewer and water by the City and have not received that yet, and now has some concerns with this forthcoming project. Stoelting asked Mr. Gould if his concern was that he was going to be assessed for storm sewer or sanitary sewer. Mr. Gould stated that was his concern. Stoelting summarized the questions and issues that were brought before the Commission and the project proponent. They are as follows: 1. Outlot A and how it will be configured and also what will be the impact to the trees in the area. 2. The issue of the sidewalks on the east side of this property and also the impact to the trees in that area. 3. The outlot pond and how safe it would be. 4. Waiver for the cul-de-sac and is there a possibility that it could be moved more towards the east. 5. Would there be storm water pipes between outlot A and the wetlands. 6. What are the expectations for lot 2; will there be elevation changes. 7. Concerns for lot 10; what is the landscaping plan, and provide an explanation of the access driveway on this lot. 8. The property owner to the southwest of this project plan has some concerns about tree loss and assessments. 9. Address the wetlands. Thomas Parker addressed the issue of lot 10 and described how it was to be configured using the overhead projector. He stated that initially they were going to divide it into two lots but decided to keep it as one large lot. He also stated that the foliage in the area, as well as the wetlands, would remain untouched. Mr. Parker stated that lot 10 would definitely have a woodsy feel to it. Mr. Parker stated that the sidewalks would also remain untouched. In regards to lot 2, Mr. Parker stated that the spruce trees would be untouched and that there would be a driveway access to this area. The home that would be put on this would be a one level rambler. He also stated that Mr. Labotta's property, which is located by the cul-de-sac, would benefit him at the time he chooses to develop because he would get three lots out of his property, not just two,because one lot can utilize the proposed cul-de-sac. Mr. Howie used the overhead protector to illustrate the tree loss to the lot 10 area. He stated that there would be 4 significant trees that would stay in that area. He said that the reason that lot 10 could not be moved is because of the sewer pipe that drains in that area. Mr. Howie pointed out that with their landscaping plan, they are saving a substantial amount of trees. He also addressed the pond issue stating that it would be between 4 and 5 feet deep and that they would be willing to put a fence around the area if required to do so. He also addressed the issue of the movement of the cul-de-sac in regards to the waivers. He stated it was placed Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 Page 8 in that location to provide the best access to the property. It was a recommendation by the City. Kipp stated that the cul-de-sac was placed there in order to allow full development of the property and also for access to the neighboring property. He stated that this was the most efficient use of the right-of-way. He also stated that the wetland area has been delineated and is fully within the development area. The staff is recommending that portion of lot 10 be included in outlot B. Kipp stated that the sidewalk would remain intact, except for a portion where the sewer line will be installed. Gray stated that in regards to the storm water pond, it is partially for esthetic value and that is why they are not fenced. In regards to safety, the City has not had any issues with that. Gray said that in regards to assessments, the City would not be doing any assessing on this property since the developer will be completing all the infrastructure improvements. Stoelting asked if development plans in the area have deviated from what was approved with regard to the trees in the area. Fox stated that at the time of neighboring development there was no tree preservation polity or ordinance. Fox stated that the developer is not responsible for mitigating the non-significant trees. Stoelting addressed the Commission for comments. Koenig asked Fox if moving the cul-de-sac to the east would save more trees. Fox stated that shifting the cul-de-sac to the east would not save any more trees. He stated that the developer is putting in over 100 trees. Koenig asked if it would help the tree loss to have less lots. Kipp stated that this developer is not over developing the land and that it is a reasonable development for the area. Removing an additional lot or two would not appreciably affect the tree loss. Nelson asked if the reason lot 2 is facing the driveway was because of its height and she stated that it would seem more reasonable to extend it to Country Road. Kipp stated that the access to W. 62nd is the most feasible approach. Nelson asked about lot 10, in regards to wetland going further into the lot and has there been any consideration for putting the west end into the wetland permanently instead of including it with lot 10. Kipp stated that Staff is recommending that the majority of that wetland be placed in outlot B. This is to preserve the wetland. Nelson asked if it was ever thought of to put it into outlot B versus a conservation easement. Mr. Howie stated that marketability wise,it was not considered. Kacher stated that he is concerned with consistency and that this project seemed to have the same tree loss as the previous proposal and questioned why would the Commission turn down one project and recommend support of another project. Kipp stated that there is a difference between landscaping trees and naturally occurring trees. Fox stated that the previous project had 25" diameter oak trees Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 Page 9 where this project has 16" spruce trees. Nelson stated that in regards to tree loss, both cases are very different. Seymour made the point that in this proposal, the Staff is addressing 10 lots versus 2 lots. Rocheford stated that he agrees with Nelson in that these are two separate cases in regards to tree loss and he would be in favor of this project. Paul Forrest, of 6227 Country Road, which is directly across the pond on the proposed project asked how far the pond will be setback from the sidewalk where the kids will be walking from the bus stop. Mr. Howie used an overhead projection to show where the pond is located; which would be 40 feet from the back of the sidewalk. He also stated that two more spruce trees can be added to the area to act as a buffer. Fox also added that three parks in the City have ponds in them and there have been no problems. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Kacher, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Kacher, to approve the request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 6.47 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 6.47 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to R1- 13.5 on 6.47 acres; Preliminary Plat of 6.47 acres into 10 lots, two outlots and road right-of-way,based on plans stamp dated May 19, 2005, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated June 10, 2005, to the City Council. Also recommending a waiver for average lot depth of less than 100 feet for lot 10 allowing for the wetland to be placed within the outlot. Motion carried 6-0. C. EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE STATION No. 4, by the City of Eden Prairie. Request is for a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 3.66 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 3.66 acres; Zoning District Amendment within the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District on 3.66 acres; Site Plan Review on 1.32 acres; Preliminary Plat of 3.66 acres into two lots and one outlot. Scott Neal, City Manager for Eden Prairie, stated that they are here to propose the fourth fire station for Eden Prairie and will be in the southwest quadrant of Eden Prairie. This has been part of the City's development plan for over a decade. Miles Britz, project architect for SEH Inc., presented the proposal. He used the overhead projector to illustrate exactly where the fire station would be located, which would be between Dell Road and Linwood Court. He stated that the fire station would be built on the southern area of lot 2. Mr. Britz pointed out that Miller Parkway would be created this year to allow direct assess to the fire station. He stated that they have created a rain garden for storm water run off. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 Page 10 This will also purify the water because there are drain tiles in the water gardens to recharge the water. He showed an image of the fire station and how the design would blend in with the residential area. Stoelting asked Mr. Britz where the 27 parking stalls are going to be located and why so many stalls. Mr. Britz stated that it is based on the number of firefighters. Stoelting asked Kipp to review the staff report. Kipp stated that an underlying plan approval for a commercial development took place in 1985 but was not constructed. He pointed out that the fire station is authorized for any zoning district. He also said that lot 1 will be sold by the City for commercial development. Kipp pointed out that there are some waivers associated with the project, and includes setbacks, lot size and building height. Staff recommendation is for approval. Stoelting asked Kipp about the front yard building setback and questioned which road it would be, Linwood Court or Miller Parkway. Kipp said that it is along Miller Parkway. The staff report indicated Linwood Ct. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Craig and Mary Peterson, of 8430 Kimball Drive, had three questions and one comment. The first question is would there be a stoplight or stop sign at the cul- de-sac. The second question would be if the stop sign can have a flashing light when the fire trucks come up. The third question would be when the fire trucks come out could they go the other direction because of the many children on Linwood. Their comment was that a lot of money has come into the land and they want the City to be careful about what they put into lot 1. Stoelting asked Gray to address the traffic flow issue of the fire station and the concept of the flashing light. Gray stated that there are a lot of fire stations that exist in residential environments without a lot of conflict;because of this he does not see a need for a signal at Linwood Court because this is not a high traffic area. Mr. Britz stated that the reason the vehicles go out on Dell Road is because 90% of their calls will have to have access to go either north or south on Dell Road and not the other direction. There will be a 4 way controlled stop light at Dell Road and Linwood Court. Stoelting asked Mr. Britz if there were any sidewalks in the area. Mr. Britz stated that there are walkways on Dell Road and they will be straightened out per MNDOT. There will also be new walkways developed by MNDOT. Stoelting asked Mr. Britz what will be going into lot 1. Mr. Britz stated that the developer has no actual plan for what will go in there but that they City has controlled of what will be placed in that area. Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 Page 11 Seymour stated that he liked the design of the fire station. MOTION by Kacher, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Kacher, seconded by Nelson, to approve the request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 3.66 acres; Planned Unit District Review with waivers on 3.66 acres; Zoning District Amendment within the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District on 3.66 acres; Site Plan Review on 1.32 acre; Preliminary Plat of 3.66 acres into two lots and one outlot,based on plans stamp dated May 20, 2005, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated June 10, 2005, to the City Council. Motion carried 6-0. VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS IX. NEW BUSINESS X. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen stated that there is one project on the agenda for the June 27, 2005, meeting. It will be a proposal for a maintenance building. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Nelson, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.