Loading...
Planning Commission - 08/28/2000 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY,AUGUST 28, 2000 7:00 p.m., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Kenneth E. Clinton, Frantz Corneille, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Susan Stock, Ray Stoelting STAFF MEMBERS: Krista Flemming, Planner I Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Mike Franzen, City Planner Alan Gray, City Engineer Scott Kipp, Senior Planner Leslie Stovring, Environmental Coordinator Donald Uram, Community Development/Financial Services Director I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Corneille called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Corneille, Brooks, Clinton, Foote, Koenig, Nelson, Stock and Stoelting; Staff: Franzen, Gray, Fox. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Foote second by Stoelting to approve the agenda for the August 28, 2000 Community Planning Board meeting. Motion carried, 6-0. III. MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MEADOW CROFT by Gregg Brown. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 14.59 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.08 acres, Zoning District Change from rural to R1-13.5 Zoning District on 7.08 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 14.59 acres into 5 lots and 2 outlots. Location: 9950 Dell Road. COMMUNITY PLANNING MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2000 PAGE 2 Gregg Brown said he has lived in Eden Prairie since 1969; he wanted to build a house on the property and he has been working on it about a year. Dwight Jelle said the project is along old Dell Road along Hwy 212 and Pioneer Trail, south of Settler's Ridge. This was farm land that was allowed to grow back to its natural state. A 1987 storm destroyed wetlands. There was some interest to recreate these. He described the detailed tree survey. Portions of the site have been affected by erosion. Runoff has opened up some ravines. This was corrected in Settler's Ridge. The proposal shows five lots; four were approved in 1999. A limited study was done on where the MUSA line would be. There was a more detailed study done subsequently showing the location of the MUSA line. He showed a slope analysis. Staff recommends moving driveways down the slope 15 feet. He said they want to keep driveways outside of MUSA line and houses inside the MUSA line. He showed pictures of the erosion. They want to create a road from Dell Road along the contours. Stormwater would run into the ravine. There is a lot of water washing down and across Dell Road. The ditch will collect stormwater; the watershed district would like it to go back to the creek. It will contain the erosion. There will be a water quality manhole by the creek; a culvert will be replaced. The benefit to the city is the dedication of Outlot A; they have increased its size since the last plan. He said the impervious surface would remain the same whether there were three or four lots. Franzen said the site is currently guided low density residential and open space. It is zoned rural and there is one residence on the site. Council approved the Brown Addition PUD Concept plan with waivers for 13 lots platted as Phase I(Settler's Ridge 4h Addition) and a concept plan for the future Phase 11 development of Lot 13 into a maximum of 4 additional lots. The proposed project is to review the preliminary plat for development of Phase IL Development of Phase 11 was dependent on a MUSA line expansion of 1.65 acres that was approved as part of the PUD. If the City had not supported the waivers for the Brown Addition for reduced front yard setbacks, smaller lot sizes, a private road, and decreased bluff setbacks; and the MUSA Line Amendment(17 total lots), the resulting plan would have been a public road with 10 lots inside the MUSA Line and one lot outside of the MUSA line (11 total lots). The entire site has benefited from the city granting the waivers in exchange for a better development plan with limited development on the bluff and preservation of open space for the area associated with Phase IL The city granted approval for three additional lots. Tree loss is calculated on gross acreage; the 63% loss in the proposed development area may suggest that five lots is too much on steep slopes with erosive soils. Fewer lots with restricted house pad sizes and locations would preserve more tree cover needed to minimize COMMUNITY PLANNING MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2000 PAGE 3 erosion potential. Staff recommends the project be continued for revisions to be consistent with the original proposal for the number of lots. Foote asked what the comparative tree loss would be if one lot were eliminated. Franzen said it would depend on the location and size of the houses in the revised plan. Stoelting asked about the original concept, which stated there were three houses in addition to the existing house. Franzen said they were located in approximately the same area for the proposed plan and new plan. The lot configuration is approximately the same. Brooks asked about the location of the driveway inside or outside of the MUSA. Franzen said it was not favorably considered by the Met Council. They said the MUSA line should be limited to minimize erosion of slopes. Koenig asked whether Fox could add anything on erosion from loss of vegetation. Fox said the concern was not the large trees but the understory trees which would break up the rainfall. Stoelting said he heard there was a financial hardship and it has not been made clear where this is and why it was not in the original concept plan. Brown said he was a general contractor. He understands the costs of the project. The issue of the storm sewer is not the price of the land it is the infrastructure. Doing this for such a small area is hardly affordable. Stoelting said the infrastructure cost was an issue; it seems unusual that the stormwater must be pumped. Brown said it would be a gravity flow and water quality manhole for a catch basin. The private streets are not the cost; it is the sanitary storm sewer. Stoelting asked about the cost of the infrastructure. Brown said over$300,000 in costs for the infrastructure only. It is an excessive development cost for a few lots. Nelson asked whether if they were not taking the sewer to lot one it might take down the cost enough to make fewer lots more reasonable. COMMUNITY PLANNING MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2000 PAGE 4 Brown said that was not an option because the line must go to the filtration pond. Corneille said cost is not the issue for the Board; it is grading and tree loss, consistency with the approved plan and if the proposed plan is appropriate on steep slopes. Clinton asked why they wanted to grade outside the MUSA line. The developer said they looked at how they could slide the houses down the slope in order to get the road and houses into the line. It became environmentally insensitive and resulted in 20 foot high retaining walls. These were custom houses; some grading would occur. The slope analysis shows some of the slopes are the flattest on the site. Brooks asked what the greatest distance was from the slope. The developer said it was 90 feet. Koenig said in many cases the city has exchanged higher density to preserve sensitive areas. It appears the city accepted higher density near Dell Road in order to preserve more land in this location. Nelson asked how the private road would be set up. The developer said the homeowners association would be set up and it would be responsible for maintenance. Nelson asked whether there would be room for a bus. The developer said state building code would require the ability for a fire truck to enter. Stoelting asked staff about the original concept plan and with the changed MUSA boundary. Franzen said a public road would cause considerably more impact; there would be acquisition of right of way, and tree loss. The city has used private roads to preserve site features. The main intent was to minimize erosion. A PUD concept does not obligate the city to grant rezoning. Fewer homes will allow more room to put the driveway in the MUSA and not result in excessive retaining walls. Corneille said the city last year approved waivers for additional density. Foote said with that much tree loss there will be more erosion. He said he was in favor of the original PUD. COMMUNITY PLANNING MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2000 PAGE 5 Clinton asked Franzen about the staff report with the 1999 MUSA; this proposal shows driveways outside of the MUSA. Franzen said with fewer lots and a limitation on house size and location the driveway should work inside the MUSA line. The developer said he was working with staff and they have a plan for storm water collection down the private drive up the private street into the creek. The rear yard would provide some drainage. Clinton asked what if they disconnected the drainage. The developer said this would be enforced. Gray said a maintenance agreement was required for all infrastructure including driveways and storm sewer. If a homeowner did not repair it, if roof drainage was disconnected, this would create problems. It is not fail-safe but it is not different than similar private drainages. North Bluffs has public storm sewer. Koenig asked whether the association would be responsible for the water treatment system. Gray said the developer would be responsible for maintaining it; it was a storm sewer. Nelson said she was concerned about the drainage such as the rain in 1987; she asked whether the drainage would be sufficient to keep gulleys from forming beneath or around the homes. The developer said this was studied in the Settler's Ridge subdivision. They cut off some large drainage areas. In 1987 there was a 60-70 acre drainage area that blew down. The overflow will go back to the creek. They will design it for a ten- year event so it is not concentrated in one spot. Koenig asked Fox to clarify the land dedication and cash park fee. Fox said they are paid at the time of building permit for cash park fees; there is no dedication requirement. MOTION by Stoelting, second by Brooks to continue the hearing for revisions to the concept plan so there is a reduction in the number of units and restricting it to no development outside the MUSA. Franzen said it must be continued to a date certain. COMMUNITY PLANNING MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2000 PAGE 6 The motion was amended to reflect September 25h as a date certain. Koenig asked whether this meant removing one lot. Nelson said she was concerned about the locations of homes and grading; there may be some areas that are acceptable outside the MUSA line but less than what is proposed. She said she does not agree to having a 100% grading in the MUSA line. Motion carried, 7-0. B. LARIAT CENTER III by Lariat Companies, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District o 4 acres, Site Plan Review on 4 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 4 acres into 2 lots. Location: 8335 Crystal View Road. Mark Westra, attorney, said he was retained to deal with some issues that arose after the approval of the project. It was determined that this is not wetland; it is an incidental wetland and therefore exempt from wetland requirements. The revised engineering plan shows fill, trees, and landscaping in lieu of wetlands. He said Chad Lomen with Wells/Bishop could address the original plan. Mike Franzen said the plan was approved with the wetland. The Board voted 7-0 to approve the Lariat II plan for a 14,271 square foot retail building at the February 14, 2000 meeting. The Council gave first reading of the project at the March 21, 2000 meeting. The available information provided at the time of the review indicated the presence of a wetland on the property. The plan approved by the Community Planning Board and City Council indicated that the wetland would be preserved. After City Council approval, Lariat Companies presented new information suggesting that the wetland on the site is exempt from the City regulations. On June 19, 2000 a Technical Evaluation Panel met to evaluate the wetland and concluded it would be exempt from the Wetland Conservation Act due to the previous actions to fill it. The wetland thus falls under WCA Exemption#5. The Watershed District has signed the TEP findings of Fact and will be granting this Exemption, according to Mr. Rick Lestina with the Watershed District. Staff concurs with the recommendation from the Technical Evaluation Panel. The wetland can be filled according to City regulations. Any development of the area should meet a 35-foot setback to building and parking. Berming and landscaping is required along both frontages. COMMUNITY PLANNING MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2000 PAGE 7 Stoelting asked about planned use. The developer said currently there is not a planned use; it could become a parking lot. MOTION by Clinton, second by Stoelting to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Clinton, second by Koenig to recommend to the council approval of the Lariat Center III project according to the staff report. Motion carried 7-0. V. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Stoelting, second by Koenig to adjourn. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.