Loading...
Planning Commission - 01/27/2003 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY,JANUARY 27, 2003 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Frantz Corneille, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig, Fred Seymour, Kathy Nelson, Dave Steppat, Ray Stoelting, Paul Sodt. STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Mike Franzen, City Planner Al Gray, City Engineer Jane Hovind, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Corneille called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Corneille, Commissioners Foote, Koenig, Nelson, Sodt, Steppat, and Stoelting. Absent: Brooks, Seymour II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Koenig, second by Stoelting, to approve the agenda. Motion carried, 7-0. III. MINUTES A. Minutes of the December 9, 2002 Community Planning Board Meeting Nelson said on page 8, 4 h paragraph, fifth line, after site line it should say "from Anderson Lake Parkway." On page 10, 2nd paragraph, fifth line, it should read "If it's not restricted". The 3rd line from the bottom should read "Why can't this be made so kids can move into it." The last sentence should read "concept target group is a problem for the neighborhood." Sodt stated that on page 9, 3rd paragraph, first sentence should read "close proximity to 212." Page 10, 3rd paragraph should read "interested in what rationale there is for granting a variance." Koenig said on page 10, 4 h paragraph, last sentence, it should read "There will be professionals, singles and widowed people." Planning Board Minutes January 27, 2003 Page 2 MOTION by Steppat, second by Koenig, to approve the minutes of the December 9, 2002 Community Planning Board Meeting. Motion carried, 7-0. IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MEYER ESTATES by Larry and Judith Meyer. Request for Preliminary Plat of 1.15 acres into 2 lots. Location: 16519 Pioneer Trail Franzen presented the project which is located south of Pioneer Trail. It is a 1.15 acre site which the applicant is requesting to subdivide into two lots. Both lots meet the requirement of the R1-22 zoning district. Staff recommends it for approval based on recommendations on pages 2 and 3 of the staff report. Jim Davidson of 16501 Pioneer Trail stated he was concerned about access to the property. He said currently there is a cartway and a private easement. He asked whether the road could eventually become a public road rather than private drive. Al Gray, City Engineer, responded that there is a cartway that Mr. Meyer uses and he maintains a private driveway. If this were to become a public street it would have been done when the subdivision was developed and the City wouldn't construct a public street in this area at this time. He said property to the south has access to the south and he doesn't anticipate anymore units using the cartway. This would stay as a public right-of-way area but according to the Development Agreement, Meyer would maintain the private driveway. It would not be likely to see additional development use this as an access. Stoelting stated on Lot 2 there are two driveways to the existing house. There is a second driveway fairly close to the property line between Lots 1 and 2. He questioned whether there was an issue as to location of the driveway and its proximity to the property line Franzen responded the curve on the radius was a requirement of the Fire Marshal and the property owner is aware of this. With a modification of the property, by reducing the radius and narrowing the driveway, it would still meet a normal setback. When the project goes to the City Council the modification will have been made in the plans. MOTION by Nelson, second by Foote, to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 7,0. MOTION by Nelson, second by Foote, to approve the Preliminary Plat of 1.15 acres into 2 lots, based on plans dated January 13, 2003, and subject to the Planning Board Minutes January 27, 2003 Page 3 recommendations of the staff report dated January 24, 2003, to the City Council. Motion carried, 7,0. B. WILLIAMS PLACE by Pemtom Land Company. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Medium Density Residential on 1.9 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 2.95 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Low Density Residential on 1.37 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 49.33 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 49.33 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 3 8.10 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 6.46 acres, Site Plan Review on 6.46 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 49.33 acres into 84 lots, 6 outlots and road right of way. Location: East of Highway 212, South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, and north of Sunnybrook Road. Dan Herbst of Pemtom stated since the December 9th meeting he resolved some issues of concern for the neighborhood and staff. He thanked staff for their input and resident Marc Schwartz for assisting with disseminating information to neighbors. He said that 35.3 acres of the Williams property is guided low density residential and 6 acres are guided open space. Effort has been made to preserve the majority of the existing wetlands with the exception of .4 acres for the construction of the College View Drive connection to Highway 212. In the south and southeast the topography will be utilized as a privacy buffer to those neighbors and will be landscaped for privacy. Properties to the west include Modern Tire, Abra Auto Body, an office building and a parcel of land previously approved for a body shop. The site will be named Williams Place. The original plan called for 113 single family homes on 39.7 acres and 60 townhouses on 4.8 acres. The revised plan now consists of 79 single family homes on 3 8.10 acres and 48 townhouses on 6.46 acres. There are a variety of lot sizes creating transition areas to the other neighborhoods. Some lots were increased in size and others were reduced. Traffic flow has been adjusted and the road system will solve safety and transportation issues. There will be decreased opportunity for people driving through to other locations. There will be significant landscaping along the boulevards and to the north and along the commercial areas to the west. The areas entering the site will also be landscaped. The larger lots will accommodate single family detached homes since the Active Adult product can no longer be used because of increases in prices. Storm water ponds will be located in the center of the site and to the east near the wetlands. The road system will include public sidewalks connected to all of the streets. All four entrance areas will have screening with landscaping. At the entrance at Collegeview and Highway 212, the topography drops considerably which requires a large retaining wall. The plan is for a monument with the name of the development (Williams Place), a 12 foot boulder wall, a 6 foot screening fence and evergreen landscaping. In summary, the new neighborhood will have four distinct entrances and the layout of the roadways improved considerably. There will be a signal at the 212 Planning Board Minutes January 27, 2003 Page 4 intersection. Densities will be compatible with the neighborhoods. There will be boulder walls in other entrances as requested by the neighbors. The development plan is compatible with the comprehensive plan. An entrance off of Aztec Drive will be used by the contractors during the entire construction. Franzen stated the staff recommends approval according to recommendations on page 4 and 5 of the staff report. Two revisions need to be made before this goes to the City Council: 1) The architecture, trim, and materials on the ends of buildings need to be improved, and 2) additional tree replacement proportional to removal of current trees will be necessary. Marc Schwartz of 9303 Coldstream Lane stated that since the initial meeting there have been many productive discussions between staff, neighbors and Pemtom. Residents of the neighborhoods are highly supportive of the new plan. He said compromises had been made by City staff and Pemtom and he wanted to thank them. He commented that concerns include: 1) Consider appropriately placed stop signs throughout the development at the intersections; 2) place a traffic light at Homeward Hills Road and Anderson Lakes Parkway; and 3) upgrade Creekwood Park. He said the neighborhood would like the park updated and would welcome the opportunity to work with the City with input. Doug Schluter of 8936 Darnel Road stated he was not aware of any input from neighbors in the Darnel neighborhood. He said when Herbst originally proposed this they were told the lifestyle homes he was proposing would bring a lower level of traffic. Now with single family homes there will be more traffic. He asked if a new traffic study would be done with the new proposal. He said he wasn't clear as to why Aztec Road couldn't be used as an access point into the development. It seems it would be easy to put a cul-de-sac on access out of Darnel. He said he has heard there is to be an expansion of Anderson Lakes Parkway. He asked what thoughts have been put into these traffic patterns if Anderson Lakes Parkway is expanded. This is just one more reason for people to cut through the neighborhood. Gray responded that the traffic numbers presented at the December 9 meeting were based on single family generation rates which was a worse case scenario. The reduced number of homes in this plan will result in a 20% reduction in road trips than estimated at the December 9 meeting. From a planning standpoint and land use in the area, Aztec Drive isn't a good connection as it doesn't provide any benefits for the neighborhoods; the 212 connection is a good one. With this road pattern, there would not be a lot of through traffic. The residents in these neighborhoods will take routes through the development that are more convenient. When looking at the Darnel neighborhood, connection to the south was deemed to be desirable. In regard to Anderson Lakes Parkway, there are plans to expand the road to four lanes. Timing is important as it will be a controversial project and will be done in stages. There are also plans over the next few months to widen the Preserve Boulevard/Anderson Lakes Parkway intersection to accommodate Planning Board Minutes January 27, 2003 Page 5 increased traffic. The City will continue to monitor traffic on Anderson Lakes Parkway and propose the staged upgrade as traffic justifies. There's no definite time frame; it could be over a 12 to 15 year period. At the intersection of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Homeward Hills Road, a temporary signal might be appropriate and should last 8 - 10 years. It's unlikely that a permanent signal will be installed as there would need to be additional lanes and turn lanes installed. Gray said they would look at the plans and there would be traffic controls at the intersections but not necessarily stop signs. Tony Swanson of 9220 Dartmouth Avenue stated the new plan allows more people to travel through Dartmouth going south. He asked how many homes were in the eastern side of the development. These residents will go past his house heading south. He stated he and his neighbors were not asked for input and he is not satisfied with the traffic pattern. Herbst responded there were approximately 50 homes on the eastern part of the property. Paul Dunn 8913 Darnel Road thanked Pemtom, staff and the Planning Board for its flexibility. He said their concerns with the original plan were traffic flow and the overall feel and look of the neighborhood, including density. If there can be agreement on traffic control issues, the reduced density is good and we feel comfortable with the new plan the way it is. The light at Homeward Hills and Anderson Lakes Parkway is very important and the lack of a controlled intersection will cause people to look for other alternatives. Driving the volume through the west and Darnel Road and Anderson Lakes Parkway would make it difficult with additional traffic; the signals will help mitigate this added traffic. He believes the demographics of the single family neighborhood blends well with the existing neighborhoods. Dartmouth and Princeton are sharing the traffic load rather than Darnel being the major route. Foote stated that he appreciates Pemtom working with the neighborhoods. He asked Herbst about tree loss and which lots it impacts on the north end. Herbst showed the northern area where the road system enters will impact the trees in this area. Foote stated he thinks that people in the Darnel neighborhood are going to be shocked by that tree removal. Herbst stated he will work on that and look at reducing the tree loss. He said that if the trees were spread out more they could work around them but they are clustered and need to be removed to accommodate the road and drainage systems. Steppat stated it's really nice to see the process work. Both sides and staff have compromised and worked together well. He asked how many Active Adult units remain in the current development. Herbst responded that because there weren't enough homes and lot prices and roads have gone up in cost, there won't be any Active Adult lifestyle homes; the homes are all single family. Steppat stated he thought Herbst was initially correct in his original assessment that the adult lifestyle homes are important. Herbst stated he believes in it but the process has to work for Planning Board Minutes January 27, 2003 Page 6 the neighborhood. Steppat urged Herbst to consider that type of housing in the future if he has the opportunity. Koenig asked Herbst in regard to the Collegview area whether he had planned to fill the wetland when he submitted his original plans Herbst stated that he did. She asked if the whole area will be filled. Herbst responded it probably would be because of the boulder retaining wall. Koenig asked where he would be mitigating wetland. Dwight Jelle of Westwood responded by showing where the boulder walls will be located and he stated that they won't be filling the entire wetland to the south. Koenig asked how many acres will remain open space. Herbst respond it will be less than the original plan; approximately four acres. Koenig asked if it was wetland or available land. Herbst responded wetland and storm retention ponds. Koenig stated it's not really open space if it's a wetland. She asked Gray with the addition of four cul-de-sacs how the City would address emergency vehicle access. Gray stated the four cul-de-sacs are not long in length so they should be fine for emergency vehicles. On the east side of the site the street will be extended and that area will have to be a cul-de-sac. It's more of an indirect street pattern and with only one more cul-de-sac. Nelson stated she was pleased with the plan and the neighbors and Pemtom working together. She said there are several outlots listed. In the past, there have been problems with outlots. She asked if there will be conservation easements over the outlots. Gray responded there would be for drainage and utilities. He said when there are problems with outlots it occurs in larger single family neighborhoods where they have had public improvements for instance with trails and they aren't being maintained. The problems come in with private use and infrastructure that's not maintained. These outlots won't be a problem since they will have wetlands that will be protected and areas for utility access. Nelson asked if the five yard setback could be against the 10 yard setback in the sideyards. She would like to see more than 10 feet between structures. Franzen responded this could be a condition of approval to maintain 15 feet between structures. Nelson asked Herbst if he would consider making exterior grounds maintenance available to the single family homeowners on an individual contract or fee basis, similar to what's available in the townhome area. Families might appreciate this and it could be very beneficial to the neighborhood. Stoelting stated that the compromises have made the Board's job easier. He asked Herbst how he will proceed with developing the project and if there is an area that he would start to develop first. Herbst responded it will be done all at one time. Because of utility connections and storm sewer work it will all be graded under one contract. Stoelting asked where homes would be built initially. Herbst said that would be up to the builders as to where they build their models. Stoelting asked Planning Board Minutes January 27, 2003 Page 7 about the Modern Tire area and whether there will be a problem with noise in that area since the homes in the northwest corner will be fairly close to that business. Herbst responded that other than landscaping better noise insulation, such as upgraded windows, could be installed in homes to reduce noise inside the home. It will depend on what the home buyer will be willing to pay for improvements. Stoelting asked how far Modern Tire is from the closest home. Herbst responded 300 feet. Koenig stated she misses the Active Adult units and said she was very excited about that part of the proposal. She appreciates the changes and compromise but believes there's a market for the adult housing. In the previous plan density was concentrated but there was more open space. This development seems more dense and there is more tree loss. Corneille praised the neighborhood, City staff and Herbst for working together. Matt Hillmer of 8560 Darnel Road stated he is concerned that traffic will be increased and said it seemed the cul-de-sacs in the first meeting were not accepted and now they're okay. Dana Kulics of 9195 Dartmouth Avenue asked whether the plan was the City's idea or Pemtom's. She said that with the heavier density, the entrance from 212 should be taken out and a further traffic study should be done. She encouraged a study be done to signalize the Anderson Lakes Parkway and Homeward Hills intersection. Gray stated that will take a good look at signalizing the Anderson Lake Parkway and Homeward Hills intersection. The street pattern was developed to prevent additional traffic taking shortcuts through the area. By making the pattern more indirect, it reduces that opportunity. He said there won't be another traffic study because in the original study staff used the number of single family units based on 9.6 trips per day and that's what is expected for this neighborhood. City staff did some traffic counts in another neighborhood off Anderson Lakes Parkway near Highway 169. It's an enclosed neighborhood with three outlets which averaged 9.5 trips per unit per day. This plan will reduce total traffic numbers by 20%. There will be differences in what streets people use. There might be more trips out of the southeast corner but those numbers were the lowest with less than 300 vehicles per day and this may increase. People will choose exiting on a signalized intersection during busier times of the day. The heaviest traffic areas will have approximately 1,000 trips per day which is not unreasonable. There are residential streets in Eden Prairie in the 2,000 range. Molly Stoffel of 9293 Dartmouth Avenue said she is concerned about traffic and exiting out of the development on Princeton to Homeward Hills. She said a lot of the traffic turns left and it's a blind turn and very busy. Most go down Dartmouth by the fire station to a controlled intersection. She asked if anything can be done at Planning Board Minutes January 27, 2003 Page 8 the T of Princeton and Homeward Hills to make it a controlled intersection. Gray responded that a stop sign on Homeward Hills wouldn't be appropriate. It would be an unbalanced traffic situation and people would ignore the additional stop sign. Nancy Bergstrom of 12512 Cockspur Court expressed concern about traffic on Darnel. The original traffic projections on Darnel was 930 trips per day and that will be reduced by 20%. Darnel is not a wide road and when two cars meet coming from opposite directions and there is a car parked on side of the road, one of the drivers needs to wait to let the other go through. Because of this it seems Darnell wouldn't handle anymore traffic. Gray responded that 28 foot wide residential streets do well with volumes of 2,000 vehicles per day. There is no need to widen streets and with parked cars it can slow traffic down. On Evener Way you still would have problems with parked cars and cars meeting, someone has to let the other one go through. MOTION by Stoelting, second by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 7,0. MOTION by Stoelting, second by Foote, to approve the request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Medium Density Residential on 1.9 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 2.95 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Low Density Residential on 1.37 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 49.33 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 49.33 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 3 8.10 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 6.46 acres, Site Plan Review on 6.46 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 49.33 acres into 84 lots, 6 outlots and road right of way,based on plans dated January 17, 2003, and subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated January 24, 2003, to the City Council, and maintain 15 feet between structures. Motion carried, 6-1. Koenig voted ney C. THE COVE 2ND ADDITION by Rick Lamettry. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review within the R1-22 zoning district with waivers on 3.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3.2 acres into 3 lots. Location: 6861 and 6871 Beach Road. Paul Thorpe of HTPO presented the plan to take two lots on Bryant Lake, combining them and dividing them into three lots. He showed the concept plan. There are requests for waivers to the setback from the lake and wetland, proposing to create a wetland buffer strip on the new lot. Franzen stated the plan is a modification of an old subdivision approved in 1964. At that time there weren't tree, shoreland or wetland ordinances which now come into consideration with the current proposal. The lot size and street frontage are Planning Board Minutes January 27, 2003 Page 9 consistent with the rules for the R1-22 zoning district and shoreland ordinance. The tree loss is at about 20%. The area closest to the lake is undeveloped as it is a bluff and there is a lot of tree cover and the area could be the buffer to the wetland. The staff is recommending approval, subject to recommendations on the staff report including a conservation easement over wetland area on Lot 2 and tree replacement mitigation in the area closest to Beach Road. Bob Fransen of 6851 Beach Road stated when he bought his home he thought platting was secure. He said this plan doesn't benefit the neighborhood. Most of the land is part of Lot 13 and is heavily wooded with mature oaks. The property around the lake and the neighborhood would be damaged by this development and he is opposed to it. He asked whether there had been an Environmental Impact Study (EAW) done. Franzen responded the State Rules say that there needs to be a minimum of 275 single or 375 multi family homes for an EAW. Theodore Vickerman of 6871 Beach Road stated in the 60's when the property was developed they made some mistakes. He said his lot is only 60% usable. He said he has 500 feet of shoreland which could have been divided and another home put in there to enjoy the view. All homeowners have grass up to the lake and now they're saying you can't get to the lake because of the trees. This is something that needs to be discussed. Bruce Paradis of 12530 Beach Circle stated the lot next to him was sold and the property was razed and now sitting empty. He felt the idea of splitting lots is a concern. He asked what was meant by a wetland waiver. He said the shoreland code states 60 and 75 feet setback from the ordinary high water level needs to be maintained and any additions or changes to existing houses need to comply to existing code. Substantial redevelopment has occurred and questioned whether current houses meet that setback. He asked about development on the bluff. He asked if the neighborhood could ask to rezone the area with a higher minimum lot size to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. he stated his concerns about the depletion of the quality of the lake because of additional runoff and increased traffic on the lake. He stated he's afraid the precedent for splitting the lots will result in more requests for the same. Mark Omlie of 6661 Beach Road stated he is concerned about integrity of the neighborhood, tree loss and how a house will fit on the site. They should have to meet the 100 foot setback. Foote stated that the project just doesn't make sense but it fulfills all the requirements. He asked Franzen what could be done from a legal perspective. Franzen stated there need to be reasons for doing something based on zoning and subdivision regulations. Staff reviews whether it meets the lot size, setbacks, and other things that are clearly black or white. There are other discretional areas Planning Board Minutes January 27, 2003 Page 10 allowed by ordinance such as tree loss. A concern is the slope and how much tree cover and grasses are being kept to prevent erosion. If the tree loss is too much or too little the Board has discretion with that. The character of the neighborhood is not defined in the code since every neighborhood is different. The shape or frontage may not fit but often when reviewing the records it can be determined why a lot exists. In the Centex area there was a proposal to split two lots into three which was not approved. In that instance, the creation of the large lots on the slope was in exchange for small lots done somewhere else. With this project the right-of- way for Beach Road does not follow the road right-of-way. This created additional frontage around a curve. Franzen stated in determining the bluff staff did a review of the slope to determine the location of the toe and top. To measure, we start with the high water mark and measure slope and where it's over 18%, that's the toe of the bluff. Take that point and back track 50 feet. Measure from this point to the top where it breaks at less than 18% grade. It needs to meet several criteria: 1) It has to drain towards the water; 2) it must be in shoreland area; 3) it has to rise 25 feet in the air; 4) must average 30% or greater across the area that is measured; and 5) determine where the bluff is located. The half of the property closest to the lake has the bluff and the area closest to Beach Road is not a bluff as defined by code. Sodt stated that he shares a concern about building on the lot but that's not enough of a reason for us to deny it. That will be up to the builder to determine how to best situate a house on the property and not one the Board should address. In regard to the tree loss if they are meeting the 119 inch caliper replacement, they are meeting that criteria. If the waivers are relative to existing conditions he can't see a reason to deny the project. Nelson asked given the shoreland frontage whether this lot would be able to have a dock. Franzen stated the shoreland ordinance does allow access to the lake — they can build paths and a dock. Nelson asked whether the home near the bluff would have a back yard. Franzen stated there is no level area east of the walkout level. Nelson stated she believes that this could not be a walkout lot. She asked if the building permit would allow a walkout and patio or few windows. Franzen stated that if it's on the lake they're going to maximize the window view. Franzen asked the surveyor to explain the difference in elevations and how much level area there is between the lower level and the lake. The surveyor responded that there is a walkout area to the lake. There is a separation between the first floor and the lower level walkout of 11 feet. Nelson stated that since the developer is meeting requirements and it seems to be a logical plan, there is no reason not to allow it if they can stay back from the bluff and mitigate tree loss. Planning Board Minutes January 27, 2003 Page 11 Stoelting asked how staff deals with a rebuilt home, such as the one on Lot 1 which has a 75 foot setback. Franzen responded there is a provision in the ordinance that allows adjustment of setbacks with existing homes. In this case, an existing foundation was used and a garage was added. The house doesn't need to be set back 100 feet. If it was a new development, it would have to meet the 100 foot setback. If a current homeowner makes changes such as an addition to the home, they need to maintain the 75 foot setback. Stoelting asked how the developer would mitigate erosion control and management of the bluff. The builder responded that a silt fence will be installed to stop erosion. Stoelting asked staff if the silt fence was sufficient. Gray responded this will prevent erosion during construction but the question will be how will they restore and stabilize the area. There are fabrics that can stabilize it and they will need to manage runoff at a lower elevation. Stoelting asked the developer how they will manage slope stability. The builder responded that he would use a retaining wall. They would cut close to the area and try not to disturb much of the slope. The wall is stepped down the slope. Koenig asked if there have been any other lots on Bryant Lake that have been subdivided. Franzen responded on the east side of the lake the Perkins property was subdivided. There were numerous variances from the City Code and issues on this subdivision are different. Koenig asked if they would be setting a precedent. Franzen stated it would all be based on the code and whether it met the requirements; each site will be different. Corneille asked about quality of the lake. Franzen stated that there are septic tanks and drain fields which have been failing and can cause problems. The north end of the lake had agricultural uses that went away and helped the quality of the lake. One house by itself with runoff and erosion control shouldn't be a problem. The City will look at a number of sources to decide what needs to be done to prevent erosion and runoff into the lake. Corneille asked that if there are a lot of other neighbors who decide to subdivide, when that would become a problem. Franzen stated because of the placement of the structures and setbacks from the shoreland, it is unlikely that the situation will be repeated. Koenig stated theoretically they could ask for a variance on the shoreland setback. Franzen stated that is true, they could ask for a smaller lot size. They would need to go before the Board of Appeals for waivers, come to the Planning Board and prove a benefit to the City or property for granting the waiver. Corneille asked how someone would go about asking for a change to increase the minimum lot size. Franzen stated the neighborhood can petition for a code change. Regardless of minimum lot size someone is going to ask for a waiver. To prevent further subdivision neighbors need to create covenants that would keep it the same forever. There is a process to do that. Planning Board Minutes January 27, 2003 Page 12 MOTION by Stoelting, second by Nelson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 7-0. MOTION by Stoelting, second by Nelson, to approve the request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review within the R1-22 zoning district with waivers on 3.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3.2 acres into 3 lots,based on plans dated January 16, 2003, and subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated January 24, 2003. Motion carried, Foote ney, Steppat ney, Koenig ney, motion passed, 4,3. Sodt stated no one has given a good reason not to allow them to go ahead with this since they meet requirements. The wetland waiver seems reasonable. Foote stated that putting a house in there will result in too much tree loss and erosion issues. Steppat agreed with Foote that they would be wedging the house in there. It doesn't fit well and the lot is unique. Koenig stated the project is inconsistent with lot sizes and the neighborhood and she doesn't see any need for more houses on Bryant Lake. Nelson stated she agreed with Sodt and said the tree loss will be mitigated to some extent and she can't see any reason to deny it. Corneille stated that because they do meet the requirements he could see no reason to deny it. He voted aye. VI. MEMBERS REPORTS VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. PLANNERS'REPORTS X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Stoelting, second by Foote to adjourn. Motion carried, 7,0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.