Loading...
Planning Commission - 05/12/2003 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, MAY 12, 2003 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig, Fred Seymour, Kathy Nelson, Dave Steppat, Ray Stoelting, Paul Sodt, Bill Sutherland 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 Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Stoelting, Commissioners Brooks, Foote, Koenig, Nelson, Seymour, Sodt, Steppat, and Sutherland. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Brooks, second by Nelson, to approve the agenda. Motion carried, 9-0. III. MINUTES A. Minutes of the April 28, 2003 Community Planning Board Meeting MOTION by Steppat, second by Seymour, to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2003 Community Planning Board Meeting. Motion carried, 8-0. Koenig abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE #2003-03 by Roger and Kathleen Schumacher for 8555 Red Oak Drive. To permit a built-in swimming pool 66.5 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (840.5') of Red Rock Lake. City Shoreland Code requires a 100' setback. To permit a retaining wall 57.5 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (840.5') of Red Rock Lake. City Code requires a 100' setback. Planning Board Minutes May 12, 2003 Page 2 Roger Schumacher of 8555 Red Oak Drive stated he would like to build an in- ground swimming pool and the only place it can be situated is in the back yard. He said there isn't enough space on the lot to build it on the side or in the front. Because of the required 100 foot setback from Red Rock Lake, he is requesting a variance to the setback allowing him to build the pool and a retaining wall 66.5 feet from the lake. He stated he intended to remove 7 trees and the remaining 80+ will serve as screening between the lake and the retaining wall and swimming pool. Michael Franzen, City Planner, stated there are two alternatives that may reduce the amount of the variance requested. The first would be to build a smaller pool and the second would be to install a hot tub in the deck area. The four actions to be considered for this request include 1) to approve it as submitted; 2) to approve with modifications; 3) to continue the request; or 4) to deny it based on the conclusions in the staff report. Bill Satterness of 8597 Red Oak Drive stated that he is concerned about the integrity of the lake. He's aware there are two zones, one requiring a 100 foot setback and the other prevents removal of vegetation within the shore impact zone of 50 feet. He showed pictures he had taken of several back yards of homes on Red Rock Lake. He stated some of the homeowners had been removing vegetation and trees within the shore impact zone and that he has discussed this with Jean Johnson, the City's Zoning Enforcement Officer. Mr. Schumacher stated that although it appears there is no vegetation 55 feet back from the shoreline on his property, he has been unable to establish grass, partly because of drainage problems and the number of trees located on his property. Stoelting asked Mr. Schumacher what the hardship was in his case, since variances aren't generally granted unless there is a hardship involved. Mr. Schumacher responded that his wife has osteoarthritis and they feel a pool would be therapeutic for her. Steppat asked staff for clarification as to the reasoning behind the 100' setback. Franzen responded that the 100 foot shoreland setback was established by the Department of Natural Resources and adopted by the Legislature as an ordinance in 1982. The setback is to preserve trees, groundcover, reduce erosion, preserve wildlife and minimize hard surface area near the lake to preserve water quality. The City was required to adopt it and could have chosen to be more restrictive but could not choose to be more lenient. In 1996, the DNR made a modification to the ordinance providing for a shore impact zone. The shore impact zone is an area that must be preserved in a natural state which is 50% of the 100 foot setback. He stated that there have been four variances granted which is a very small percentage of the 1,000 lake lots in Eden Prairie. Planning Board Minutes May 12, 2003 Page 3 Steppat asked if the shoreland setback has been a standard consistently enforced. Franzen responded that there have been waivers granted through the PUD process with new developments which involves a tradeoff. An example would be the development on Mitchell Lake in which the City allowed some of the houses to get closer to the lake than the 150 foot setback and the tradeoff was that the developer dedicated a 7 acre oak wooded point which was a plus for the City. Brooks stated it appeared in the pictures shown by Mr. Satterness that there has been quite a bit of alteration to many Red Rock Lake lots within the 50' impact zone. He asked how the City enforces the setbacks. Franzen responded that it's very difficult to regulate these types of problems because of the number of homes situated on lakes. He said City staff relies on homeowners in those neighborhoods to alert them to this type of activity. The City can require remedial action in conjunction with the Department of Natural Resource such as replacing trees and vegetation that has been removed. Franzen stated there were a number of lots built before 1982, in the 1960's. In newer subdivisions developers build the homes as close to the lakes as possible. As a result, this limits expansion and placement of decks, pools and patios. Brooks stated he would like to see a better means of notifying people as to what they can and can't do in shoreland areas. Franzen stated newsletters are sent out to residents periodically. In the spring there are articles regarding decks, easements, and shoreland codes. He said it may be possible to expand on the newsletter and on the website to alert people to shoreland and impact setbacks. Another alternative, although somewhat costly, would be to send letters to homeowners who live on lakes. Brooks stated he understands wanting a pool but it's too much of an intrusion into the setback area. He said he would be agreeable to a 5 - 10% change but not as much as Mr. Schumacher is requesting. Koenig asked if there is a provision recorded during the transfer of a deed to let people know that lake property is affected by the shoreland ordinance. Franzen replied that if there was it would be recorded as a conservation easement and there would be a deed restriction. Some of the newer subdivisions built in the last 5 - 7 years have included this restriction. Koenig asked how likely it would be that this is the case for Red Rock Lake. Franzen responded he didn't believe it was. Sodt stated that ignorance is no excuse and homeowners need to investigate property and restrictions before purchasing it. Foote asked for examples of tradeoffs the City had gotten for variances to setbacks. Franzen responded that the lots on Bryant Lake were very large, 1 - 3 acres in size and that was a factor. The lake property was developed before the shoreland Planning Board Minutes May 12, 2003 Page 4 ordinance came into effect. Because the lots were so large variances were allowed because of the low percentage of hard surface area. Foote stated that 5 - 10% would be allowable for a variance but this is too much. If the pool was brought closer to the house and reduced in size, it might be something that could be considered. Steppat asked if Mr. Schumacher had considered moving the pool closer to the house or redesigning it. He responded that he is unable to move it closer to the house because Building Code requires a 10' setback from the house. Steppat asked staff if a waiver from the house distance would be acceptable. Franzen responded that in order to determine a waiver he would need to check with the Building Department since this has to do with Building Code and possibly safety considerations. Nelson stated it seems that the home has been built as close to the setback as possible by the developer. She said the developer was aware of the shoreland ordinance and that they are important and homebuyers should be aware when purchasing lake property there are going to be restrictions. There doesn't appear to be a hardship and there doesn't seem to be a reason to accept it; she said she would vote against the variance. Sodt stated that variances require an undo hardship and it doesn't appear that there is one in this case. He said if this variance was approved, it would be doing away with the 100 foot setback and he is against this variance. Koenig stated she agrees with the other board members. This seems like an extreme variance for something that can only be used three months out of the year. MOTION by Brooks, second by Nelson to close the public hearing, Motion carried, 9-0. MOTION by Steppat, second by Brooks, to recommend continuance to the June 9, 2003 meeting, to allow the proponent to prepare an alternate plan. Foote stated that he was against continuing the variance because the best that could be done was to place the pool with a 75 foot setback and he didn't feel comfortable with that. Steppat stated he would like to give Mr. Schumacher an opportunity to come back with an alternative plan. Nelson stated she agreed with Foote that even with an alternate plan there would still be a huge variance. It would be a different matter if Mr. Schumacher had a large side yard. Planning Board Minutes May 12, 2003 Page 5 Chair Stoelting called for a vote on the motion. Brooks, Foote, Steppat and Sodt voted aye; Koenig, Nelson, Seymour, Sutherland and Stoelting voted nay. Motion failed, 5 nays, 4 ayes MOTION by Nelson, second by Koenig, to recommend denial to permit a built-in swimming pool 66.5 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (840.5') of Red Rock Lake. City Shoreland Code requires a 100' setback. To permit a retaining wall 57.5 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (840.5') of Red Rock Lake. City Code requires a 100' setback. The variance request is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City Code as it encroaches into the shoreland setback. Vote: Foote, Sodt, Koenig, Nelson, Seymour, Sutherland and Stoelting voted aye; Brooks and Steppat voted nay. Motion carried, 7 ayes, 2 nays Chair Stoelting informed Mr. Schumacher that he had 15 days to appeal this decision to the City Council. B. PONDS EDGE by LandGeeks, LLC. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 8.63 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 8.63 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 7.16 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 District on 1.47 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 8.63 acres into 15 lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Pioneer Trail, west of Stable Path. Michael Vincent of LandGeeks, LLC, presented the project. He stated it includes reintegrating a small piece of the Ponds Edge development and blend it with Stonegate. It includes reengineering the lot layout. Franzen stated staff recommends approval according to the recommendations on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. Items A, B and C are project details that need to be shown on the plan before proceeding to the City Council. These include a conservation easement over the wetland and wetland buffers, tree replacement and extending storm sewer outlets for proper drainage. Scott Carlston stated he was speaking on behalf of the development. He stated its important to continue what started with the Stonegate development which consists of expensive homes and in order to provide a transition between Ponds Edge into the Stonegate area, four of the Stonegate lots are planned to become part of the Ponds Edge development. There are no natural breaks between the development and, as a result, the same covenants need to be in place for both developments, such as fencing, architecture, accessory buildings, etc. Carlston said there are things that can be done in the contracts to restrict tree removal. He stated he has addendums added to development contracts to prohibit tree removal by homebuyers. Planning Board Minutes May 12, 2003 Page 6 Nelson stated that she has concerns about the 44% tree loss and that putting them back on Outlot A didn't seem reasonable. She asked staff whether they really need a waiver to setbacks. A 25 foot setback doesn't seem like enough and it appears they are trying to squeeze extra lots in. Franzen responded that if they were developing at the maximum of 2 1/2 units per acre that tree loss would be an issue but this project is one unit per acre less and the City didn't recommend taking out lots. The City has approved front yard setback waivers in the past to increase the buffers and minimize impacts to wetlands. Koenig asked staff to explain wetland public value credit and how that works. She said her understanding was that the wetland mitigation is two to one on the property plus public value credit. Al Gray, City Engineer, explained that when the wetland restoration is done the rules allow a certain amount of public value credits. The way this is structured is consistent with the rules and regulations of the state wetland act, the watershed district and the City Eden Prairie wetland ordinances. The credits would come from the storm water pond. Koenig asked if they would mitigate solely on the site. Vincent showed on the site map where they would be removing vegetation on certain lots and replacing it around the wetland. Koenig asked staff whether there will be a lot of trees lost. Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources, stated that there will be a loss of nine trees due to construction and the majority will be cedar trees. He said Stonegate had a loss of 37% which may sound like quite a bit but in terms of tree cover on the site there were 23 significant trees and, as a result, the removal of just a few trees results in a higher percentage lost. Koenig asked if there was a mass of trees on the east side of the pond. Fox responded that those trees would not be affected, only the westerly side of the site. Koenig asked staff to address the transition issues. Franzen responded that the City doesn't require a transition for single family homes. If it was a townhome development, the site plan review section would allow for changes regarding architecture, landscaping and transition. Stoelting asked if it would be possible on lots 13, 14 and 15 to move the front setbacks back five feet to 20 feet which would increase the wetland buffer and move the homes closer to the road. Franzen responded that is a possibility but it would be important to allow for enough room in the back for decks and other structures. Since Stable Path Road is a 66 foot right of way as compared to typical 50 foot right of way, there is more green space between the house and the road even with a 25 foot setback. Nelson asked about the lot where they will be filling the wetland area and whether it will create a wet basement on that lot. Planning Board Minutes May 12, 2003 Page 7 Gray responded they would need to look at the soil to determine what they could do. He said it's important to keep basements above the high water table areas. It's a site specific problem for the builder. MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Foote to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 9-0. MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Foote to approve the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 8.63 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 8.63 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 7.16 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 District on 1.47 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 8.63 acres into 15 lots, one outlot, and road right-of- way, based on plans dated May 7, 2003, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated May 9, 2003, to the City Council. Motion carried, 9-0. C. WOODDALE CHURCH MASTER PLAN by Wooddale Church. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 31.07 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 31.07 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Public Zoning District on 31.07 acres, and Site Plan Review on 31.07 acres. Location: Shady Oak Road and Bryant Lake Drive. Joe Christensen presented the project. He stated that the request is for additional parking and a change to the approved setback to parking. The master plan from the 1980s,has a 75 foot setback. The church would like the setback changed to 25 feet. John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc., displayed a site map and indicated there have been a number of phases of construction over the years. The larger setbacks were discussed and at that time Eden Prairie was very rural. Today, Eden Prairie is much more built up, particularly the area around the church. Their reason for asking for a 25 foot setback is that they want to be able to create more parking. He said they are planning to add an additional 250 parking stalls. Joe Christensen stated that straightening the entrance will improve circulation and the additional stalls will provide more convenient parking. Franzen stated that there are two code setbacks when there are two public frontages. One needs to be at 50 feet and the other at 25. The reason for the 75 foot setback is to screen parking, the future parking deck and as a tradeoff for the height waiver. Grace Church has a 50 foot setback with a berm and trees because there are 3,500 parking spaces long Pioneer Trail. Wooddale Church will have almost as much but only 900 parking spaces front Bryant Lake Drive. Roger Winfelt of 6621 Golden Ridge Drive feels their request is very reasonable. There are no residences and it's all freeway. Planning Board Minutes May 12, 2003 Page 8 Seymour asked if the trees on the east side of Bryant Lake Drive are part of the church property. Uban responded they are part of the public right of way and will be maintained by the church. Seymour asked whether the City has done this in the past. Franzen replied that because this is the MNDOT right of way, it's up to them to allow the trees. The only case that Eden Prairie has allowed trees in the street right of way was with Hartford Commons. As a rule, the City does not allow it. MNDOT has allowed plantings in the right of way at Southwest Station along 212. Sodt stated the need is to screen the ramp, the church needs to be visible. He asked if the developer had talked to the neighbors to the south of the church. Uban responded they haven't as of yet but plan to have a neighborhood meeting when Wooddale has developed the master plan. Sodt said the church wants to increase parking spaces. He asked if they had thought of putting the ramp in another area where it wouldn't interfere with setbacks. Uban responded that the large parking area in the southwest corner and the other one is at a good entrance location. Existing parking is at the level the ramp will be at. It will not be very visible. Franzen stated that Dave Pavelka, who owns a home to the south of Wooddale Church, stopped at City Hall and reviewed the plans and had no problems with the parking lot expansion. The 1988 approved plan showed a deck out front and in the back. Koenig stated that in the 1980s the additional setback was in exchange for the 200 foot variance in the height of the spire. Koenig said with the City Council there was a lot of discussion regarding the height of the spire. It has a lot of impact, even now, with it being more urbanized. She asked staff if the church is willing to work with the berm whether it will cause an increase in tree loss. Franzen stated tree loss will be the same. Koenig asked if the pond is to be relocated and enlarged. Uban responded it is proposed to be relocated and enlarged. Brooks stated that in the 1980s the City granted a height waiver for the spire in exchange for a larger setback. He agrees with staff that there should be a 50 foot setback. Steppat asked how the 50 foot setback would affect the plan. Uban responded it would reduce parking and place a burden on the church. Since the office buildings don't have to do that they feel the church should not have to either. The right of way is large and they want it to be smaller so that it's convenient for people to park Planning Board Minutes May 12, 2003 Page 9 there. The use of the parking lot is generally on Sundays, not everyday; it should be attractive and convenient. Nelson stated that he is concerned about the trees. She said the church is very noticeable from 212 and the trees do screen it. If the trees are removed it may startle night time drivers. She expressed her concern about cutting back setbacks. With site lines and the potential safety problem with trees removed. The City should be very careful about setbacks. She stated they need a tall berm and a 50 foot setback. Once trees are removed and if they're not happy with the result, they can't put them back. Foote stated it looks as though losing 15-20 parking spots is not that much to lose. It's important to include as much berm and setback there as possible. Stoelting asked about the office building across the street and whether it has a ramp. Franzen replied it does. Seymour stated there are a minimal number of spaces lost by a 50 foot setback and with the future ramps, there is no reason to reduce it. Koenig stated she is also uncomfortable going with less than a 50 foot setback. Sutherland asked whether plans have been developed to the elevation of the decks. Uban responded the they are the same elevation as other parking. A wall will go around the upper portion. He emphasized that they do need all the parking. They have already eliminated 80 stalls and with costs rising 20 or 30 stalls may not seem like a lot but it is a significant impact and cost issue. Foote asked Uban if the pond is bigger than it needs to be. Uban responded that the pond is perfectly sized. Sutherland asked which area of the parking lot would lose the parking spaces and how many decks are they putting in. Uban responded there will be two decks, and a third in the back in the future. Koenig asked about the 80 spaces they lost. Uban responded they were lost on the perimeter when the trail was built. Staff wanted grade separation around the trail and eliminated what amounted to 80 stalls. MOTION by Sutherland, seconded by Brooks to close the public hearing. Motion carried,9-0. MOTION by Sutherland, seconded by Sodt, to approve a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 31.07 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 31.07 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Public Zoning District Planning Board Minutes May 12, 2003 Page 10 on 31.07 acres, and Site Plan Review on 31.07 acres, based on plans dated May 9, 2003, subject to staff recommendations of the staff report, deleting 1A and allowing a 25 foot setback, to the City Council . Vote: Brooks, Foote, Koenig, Nelson, Steppat, and Stoelting voted nay; Seymour, Sodt, and Sutherland voted aye. Motion failed, 6 nays, 3 ayes MOTION by Steppat, seconded by Koenig, to approve a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 31.07 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 31.07 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Public Zoning District on 31.07 acres, and Site Plan Review on 31.07 acres, based on plans dated May 9, 2003, subject to the recommendations of the staff report, including the 50 foot setback, to the City Council. Vote: Brooks, Foote, Koenig, Nelson, Seymour, Steppat, and Stoelting voted aye, Sodt and Sutherland voted nay. Motion carried, 7 ayes, 2 nays Brooks asked staff if the proponent can go before the City Council with their plans as submitted. Franzen responded that if the Board makes the recommendation, the church should prepare new plans. The church can also go before the City Council and ask for the reduced 25 foot setback presented here. VI. MEMBERS REPORTS VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. PLANNERS'REPORTS A. Pictures—Joel Westacott took a group photo of the Planning Board. B. Joint Meeting Cancelled — Franzen informed the Board members that the joint meeting on May 15th of the Community Planning Board and City Council regarding the Golden Triangle Land Use Study has been cancelled. Franzen reminded members that due to the Memorial Day holiday on May 26th, the Planning Board meeting is cancelled. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Koenig , second by Nelson to adjourn. Motion carried, 9-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.