Loading...
Planning Commission - 06/10/2002 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY,JUNE 10, 2002 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8050 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Frantz Corneille, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Fred Seymour, Paul Sodt, Dave Steppat, Ray Stoelting STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Mike Franzen, City Planner; Alan Gray, City Engineer; Scott Kipp, Senior Planner I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chairman Frantz Corneille called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members Ken Brooks and Vicki Koenig were absent. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Steppat, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0. III. MINUTES Corneille made several corrections. On page 3, paragraph 3, the name should be Scott Carlson, and also on page 4. On page 5, paragraph 2, it should read, Dwight Jelle, engineer with Westwood Professional Services. On page 5, paragraph 4, Corneille questioned the wording with regard to the NURP pond. Franzen said he would revise it to read "Some trees will be lost due to construction of a NURP pond." MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Stoelting, to approve the minutes of the Community Planning Board held on April 22, 2002, as published and amended. Motion carried 7-0. IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ANNETTE ESTATES by Annette Kaufman. Request for Preliminary Plat of 2.46 acres into 3 lots. Location: 14758 Staring Lake Parkway. Franzen gave the staff report. This proposal is for the subdivision of a 2.46-acre site into three lots to permit the construction of two additional single-family homes. It meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Guide Plan, and the lots meet the minimum size of 22,000 square feet in the R1-22 zoning district. The existing and proposed houses meet City Code for zoning district setback PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 10, 2002 Page 2 requirements. The existing house is connected to City sewer and water, and the proposed houses will be connected to sewer and water, which is available in Staring Lane. Tree replacement of 43 diameter inches is shown on the plan. Franzen said the property owner was present to answer questions. Corneille opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak to the Board about this proposal. Erik Paulsen, 9158 East Staring Lane, said this project is an opportunity to connect this neighborhood with Staring Lake Park via a trail. There are about 48 homes in the neighborhood, with approximately 62 children, on West and East Staring Lane. Presently, the only way to get to the park is to walk in the right-of- way along Pioneer Trail, which has a 50-mile-per-hour speed limit. The City already owns land along the east edge of the most northern proposed lot. Paulsen said he had talked to Mayor Tyra-Lukens and Councilmember Ron Case. They supported the construction of a walkway. Steve Huffman, East 9261 Staring Lane, said his property is south of Annette Kaufman's, and he supported the project. Children cut through his property to get to he park, but this is a safer route than walking next to Pioneer Trail and he did not mind. He suggested that he and Annette Kaufman work together to accommodate a three-foot path through their properties. He was willing to give up some of his property to do so. Fox said staff has tried to stay true to the City's Open Space Plan by putting trails along the City's right of way, usually 40 feet away from houses. The City also would have to figure out what to do when the trail reaches Staring Lake Parkway because it would come out midway between signalized intersections. Eight feet is the standard width of trails, which is needed in order to maintain them properly. Another consideration is that the County plans to upgrade Pioneer Trail sometime in the future. If a trail were built adjacent to that road, it would have to be removed for the upgrade. Fox said if the neighborhood feels strongly about the safety of their children, he believed the City and County would be willing to put in a temporary trail along Pioneer Trail between Staring Lane and Staring Lake Parkway that would allow people to cross at a signalized intersection. Huffman asked what the neighborhood needed to do to secure the possibility of a temporary trail. Fox responded the neighbors should meet and put together a list of those in favor of a temporary trail. The City would have to work with the County because Pioneer Trail is a County road. However, if this were considered to be a significant safety concern, the County would addressed it. Fox indicated along the road right of ways or forty foot wide outlots is where they would put trails Huffman asked if the County was likely to agree. Gray answered he did not believe the County would have objections to a trail, as long as the City designs it and plans to put it in the right-of-way adjacent to the road. However, the County is in the planning process for upgrading the roadway and might tell the City they PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 10, 2002 Page 3 won't do it because they would have to tear out the trail in a few years. Gray said he didn't know when that would be, but possibly in two- to five years. Huffman asked if the trail has to be a paved surface. Fox said he would suggest a hard surface because otherwise it could be muddy in the spring. Foote asked Gray if there is adequate right-of-way along Pioneer Trail to put in a trail at this time, and how would it impact the neighbors along the right-of-way. Gray responded he would have to take a look at how much right-of-way is available and the topography. There would have to be sufficient width between the road and the trail to define it. Adjoining property owners might have objections to a trail. Existing trees, if they are in the County right-of-way, could be removed without obtaining permission of the adjoining property owners. The City would have to do a detailed study of the area. Nelson asked if it would be possible to put a pedestrian walkway across Staring Lake Parkway, if a trail were built on the City property rather than along Pioneer Trail. Gray replied that if that were done, the City would want to use pavement markings for a crosswalk because it would not be at a signalized intersection. There would also be signage to indicate a pedestrian crossing. Nelson wondered how doing that would affect platting of the lots. A 23,000- square-foot lot is not particularly wide and has minimum setbacks. She couldn't see taking any land from that size lot to build a walkway. She asked if there is any other way of dealing with this matter. Fox responded that if 40 feet were taken off the outlot along the north side of lot 1, then everything would shift to the south. Then a variance would be needed to meet the City's standard lot width. If the trail were placed between lots 1 and 2, it would take property from lots 1, 2 and 3. Seymour asked Huffman and Paulsen approximately how many children are cutting through their yards to get to the park. Huffman said he has seen between five and ten cut through his yard. Paulsen said there are probably the same number who uses the north portion of his property. He believed that would be the most logical place to put a trail because there are no trees in the way. Both Huffman and Paulsen said that taking 40 feet off each of the lots would be unreasonable. Huffman said he came to the Planning Board meeting to find out if a trail could be constructed, not to take land away from Annette Kaufman. Franzen said if a trail were to be built through private property and an outlot belonging to the City, staff would have to look at whether there are slopes and significant trees they may have to work around. It would take time to figure out which way is the most cost-effective. Steppat asked if the City would be liable if anybody were to get hurt on the trail. Fox replied the trail would have to be in the City-owned outlot so there would be no question whose property it is, should a liability issue arise. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 10, 2002 Page 4 Foote asked if the 40-feet would be in addition to the 15-foot setback to houses. Fox responded no; there would be 20 feet from the center in each direction. That would take care of drainage issues, snowplowing and maintenance, as well as screening for adjacent properties. There would still be a 15-foot setback to houses. Sodt said the only way he could see the trail going through there would be to take outlots from lots 2 and 3, because lot one is too narrow. That raises the question of what the City intended to do with the property it owns. Sodt asked if the owner were willing to donate a portion of her property to the City in lieu of the cash park fee, would that be an acceptable possibility for creating a path through the present City-owned property. Franzen said the City has the discretion to accept either land or the cash fee. Sodt suggested the Board approve the preliminary plat, with a request that the owner meet with City officials about what property would be needed for a trail, what the impact would be relative to what she plans to do with this site, and could land be donated in lieu of the cash park fee. Corneille asked what process would be followed to have the trail built next to the County road, and if that process would be longer than building a trail the owner's property. Gray responded there is no certainty that a feasible trail corridor exists. A feasibility study would be needed. In his experience, the County has never opposed construction of a trail in their right-of-way. Under County policy, when they reconstruct a road they build a trail at their expense; and when the City puts in a trail, the City pays for it. Gray said he has never seen the City build a trail within the County right-of-way when the County is planning to upgrade the road in a few years. The County might say the City would have to pay for it now and again later after reconstruction. Either way, a trail would be built with a life expectancy of three- to five years. Franzen said recommendations for trails generally come through the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, but the Planning Board could initiate a recommendation to the City Council. The Board should first determine if there is a need for building the trail, and then direct staff to look at alternatives for the trail, so it could select one alternative or the other. This proposal would then come back to the June 24 meeting of the Planning Board. Nelson asked how much a trail like this would cost the City. Gray replied a trail along the Pioneer Trail corridor might cost $20 to $25 a foot. If easements need to be purchased from private property owners, the cost could be substantially higher. In addition, there could be a substantial cost to cut down trees and to put in screening. Nelson asked how many thousands of dollars that might be. Gray answered there was no way to answer that before looking at all the construction issues. He was willing to find out what would be feasible, and what would work best in the long run. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 10, 2002 Page 5 Corneille asked if it would be best to ask for a continuance based on staff coming back June 24. Franzen said the Board could approve the project with conditions that could be evaluated by the Council without a recommendation from the Board. Or it could recommend a continuance to the June 24 Planning Board meeting, with staff to come up with comparisons of the various alternatives, and direct staff to arrange for a public hearing at the July 2, 2002 Council meeting, in order to keep the development on schedule. Scott Nelson, 9161 Staring Lane, had a map showing the topography of the project area. The northernmost site has a hill on it. Next to it there is a natural corridor where children now cross to get to Staring Lake Park. He wondered if children would just continue to use this route, even after money was spent to construct a trail. MOTION: Stoelting moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend continuance to the June 24, 2002, Planning Board meeting; that during this continuance to direct City staff to work with the project proponent, Annette Kaufman, to look into incorporating into the plans the need for developing a trail; that staff look at evaluating alternatives and make a recommendation to the Planning Board at its June 24, 2002 meeting. Nelson said she questioned forcing one property owner to lose some of his property for the convenience of the neighborhood, which would penalize the property owner for his generosity in allowing children to cross. Nelson said she would also like to have staff directed to see that this property owner is not penalized for his past generosity. Foote said he believed that would become part of staff's direction. Sodt agreed with Nelson about taking property from one property owner. However, if the developer would be willing to give up property from the development, that would be acceptable. That still doesn't deal with the problem of crossing Staring Lake Parkway safely. Franzen said he believed staff would work with the property owner. Motion carried 7-0. Huffman said he would not want to penalize Annette Kaufman in any way, and didn't come to the meeting to stop this project. He just wanted to explore the possibility of a connection to the Staring Lake Park because it is a land-locked neighborhood. Corneille thanked him and the other speakers for their comments. B. HTG ARCHITECTS BUILDING by James Grover. Request for Site Plan Review on .86 acres. Location: 9300 Hennepin Town Road. Jim Grover, president of HTG Architects, said the site is located along the frontage road of Highway 169, south of Anderson Lakes Parkway. The proposed PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 10, 2002 Page 6 expansion had been in their original plans. It would consist of an addition to the south of the present building of 2,743 square feet, plus an additional 983 square feet of basement to allow for archival space and mechanical equipment. Ten parking spaces would be added. The new addition would maintain the character of the building to fit with the neighborhood. The additional landscaping along the west side will provide a buffer to adjacent land uses from the building and parking. Drainage will continue to the north. The access driveway will be shifted south approximately 49 feet to meet Fire Code requirements. Franzen said this project meets all requirements of the Office zoning district. Staff recommends approval, as stated in the Staff Report. Corneille opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Board on this project. Royal Prevost, 9662 Clark Circle, said his home is immediately west of the development. He did not have any objections to an addition to the current building. He asked if the buildings immediately west of the development would obscure the new location of the driveway, because he was concerned that the headlights from cars coming in at night would be seen from his house. Grover responded that the driveway would be obscured. Prevost also asked if utilities would be brought in across an easement. Grover replied that utilities were already in place for the expansion. Prevost asked if additional parking would be on the east side of the building or on the south side. Grover replied there would be an expansion of the parking lot to the south, and the building will obscure it. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Steppat, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Stoelting, to recommend approval of the Site Plan on .86 acres, based on plans dated of May 30, 2002, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report, dated June 7, 2002, to the City Council. Motion carried 7-0. C. SMITH DOUGLAS MORE HOUSE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Franzen explained this process was begun as the result of a proposal to restore City-owned historic buildings to public use, by leasing it to Dunn Brothers Coffee, by which the City will receive money to maintain the house and make changes as necessary. A coffeehouse is permitted by Conditional Use Permit. The proposed use of the property is consistent with conditional use permit standards. The plan shows a 1,200-square-foot building addition east of the existing house, the location of parking on the south side, and location of the pond. It will have a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 10, 2002 Page 7 rainwater garden in place of a NURP pond, a more attractive way to treat runoff water. There would be 27 parking spaces to accommodate up to 81 seats for the building and outside patio area. The existing house has 2,450 square feet. The ground floor will be used for the coffeehouse and the second floor for offices. The house currently uses a well and a septic tank, but will be changed over to City sewer and water. Franzen said the Board should discuss whether the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area, if the use is compatible with the conditional use permit, and if the required waivers should be approved. Staff believes the use is compatible with the surrounding area and meets the requirements of the conditional use permit. When the final exterior colors are selected, the Heritage Preservation Commission will be asked for approval. Corneille opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the Board. Scott Malmsten, 16309 Lincoln Lane, said he lives directly north of the property. He wanted assurance that there would be sufficient screening between his house and the property, as there is now. Franzen replied that parking is on the east portion of the property. The City has a requirement for screening of parking. Staff will re-evaluate where to put plantings for screening. The plantings will be appropriate to the historic value of the property. Jean Jech, 8047 Curtis Lane, said she lives across the street from the property. She asked if the parking area would be hidden from the street. Franzen said staff would look at this to see if it is visible from the road and will screen it appropriately. Parking is approximately 150 feet back from County Road 4. Jech asked if the proposed sign would have a historic appearance, and if it would actually be six feet in height. Franzen said Dunn Brothers Coffee is allowed by ordinance to have a sign, but it would have to be a certain scale and have the right kind of architecture to blend with the house. It would have a stone base, with wood for the columns, and a style that reflects the historic period of the house. Jech asked if Dunn Brothers Coffee does not succeed, would another company be allowed to come in that would not be as appealing, or would need more parking space? Franzen replied that if there were any changes in the future, the process would begin again and there would be a public hearing. The City would not want to do anything to take away from the historic appearance of the house. The types of businesses that would be acceptable are restaurants or other food services, such as a tearoom, or else some type of office, such as an architect's office. Jan Cohen, 9332 Shetland Road, asked what the proposed use is for the garage behind the house. Franzen said he believed the garage will remain as it is. Cohen asked if it could also be used for the community. Franzen said she could make a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 10, 2002 Page 8 request to the Heritage Preservation Commission to be allowed to present her idea for use of the structure. Paul Huber, Huber Funeral Home, 16394 Glory Lane, whose property is adjacent to the Smith House, said he has discussed with Don Uram a proposed walkway between Dunn Brothers' parking lot and his. Franzen said he knew that the question was raised but was not aware anything had been done. Huber said his property is at a higher grade and, therefore, would require building steps between the two lots. Foote said he suspected there would be a need for overflow parking and wondered if there is a cross-easement between the two lots. Franzen said he was not aware the City had asked for an easement for parking, but there may be an opportunity for both parties to benefit from that. Foote said this is unique property, and he could envision many people willing to visit it, so there could be more people than 27 parking spaces will be able to accommodate. Steppat asked about the size of the addition. Franzen said it would have 1,200 square feet. The house portion will be used for the dining area, and the service area will be in the addition, with the preparation area on the north side of the addition. Sodt said he believed the entrance to the property is right in, right out, and wondered if this would be a problem for someone coming south on the road. Gray said they would have to go south and turn around. There is a place to turn left at Huber's Funeral Home, so it should not be a problem. Stoelting said he understood the Board was being asked to approve the concept plan. It will then go to the Heritage Preservation Commission, and they will look at the final designs. He asked if this plan would be coming back to the Board. Franzen replied it will not be coming back to the Board. The level of information the Board has at this meeting is for the purpose of making an advisory recommendation to the City Council. When the building permit is granted, the project would go before the Heritage Preservation Commission. They will look at plans for the interior of the house, to approve paint samples, the type of furnishings, etc. MOTION: Seymour moved, seconded by Stoelting, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. Foote said he was glad to see this project come to fruition. The idea of adaptive reuse is a good one. MOTION: Seymour moved, seconded by Stoelting, to recommend approval of Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.7 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.7 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Rural Zoning District on 1.7 acres, Site Plan Review on PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 10, 2002 Page 9 1.7 acres, and Conditional Use Permit, based on plans dated June 7, 2002, and the recommendation of the Staff Report dated June 7, 2002, to the City Council. Seymour amended the motion, seconded by Stoelting, to direct staff to review the landscaping plan for appropriate screening, and to explore a walkway between this property and Huber Funeral Home property. Foote asked what the purpose of the walkway would be. He wondered if it would be used for customers of the coffeehouse who park at Huber Funeral Home, and if Mr. Huber was willing to allow this. Mr. Huber indicated he was willing. He stated that, typically, funeral homes and restaurant facilities make good neighbors, in that after a visitation people will go over for refreshments. If there were a walkway, they would not have to get into their cars and drive over. Sodt said he knew Earl More, the previous owner of the house, and he would be very happy with this type of use of his property. The motion as amended carried 7-0. VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen said at the next Planning Board meeting the issue of the walkway on Annette Estates will be revisited, and an amendment to the Bluff Country Village plan will be considered. The amendment involves the senior units in the townhouse segment. The developer wishes to take the senior units from the east side to the west side of the road, and use the other side for offices. Franzen said he planned to attend a meeting on June 11 at the City Center, where the developer will make a presentation to the neighbors who live within 500 feet of the property. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Stoelting moved to adjourn the meeting. Chair Corneille adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.