Loading...
Planning Commission - 10/23/2000 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 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, Clinton, Foote, Koenig, Nelson, Stock and Stoelting. Staff: Franzen, Gray, Fox. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Clinton second by Stoelting to approve the agenda for the October 23, 2000 Community Planning Board meeting. Motion carried, 7-0 III. MINUTES A. Minutes of the September 25, 2000 Community Planning Board Foote noted the spelling of traffic on page 12 should be corrected in the second paragraph from the bottom. Koening noted on page 12, first paragraph from the bottom she seconded the motion. Motion by Stoelting, second by Koenig to approve the September 25, 2000 minutes as amended. Motion carried, 7-0. Community Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 2 B. Minutes of the October 9, 2000 Community Planning Board Workshop Koening said she was absent from the meeting and should be deleted under roll call. Clinton was absent. Motion by Stoelting, second by Stock to approve the minutes of the October 9, 2000 Community Planning Board Workshop as amended. Motion carried, 5-2-0, abstentions Clinton and Koenig. C. Minutes of the October 9, 2000 Community Planning Board Meeting Koenig said she was absent but listed as a second on the motion to approve the agenda. Motion by Stoelting, second by Foote to approve the minutes of the October 9, 2000 Community Planning Board Meeting as amended. Motion carried, 7-0. 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, and Preliminary Plat on 14.59 acres into 5 lots and 1 outlot. Location: 9950 Dell Road. Chair Corneille indicated the proponent is withdrawing the project. The public hearing was opened at 7:03 p.m. Motion by Foote second by Clinton to close the public hearing and return the land development application to the proponent without prejudice. Motion carried, 7-0. The public hearing closed at 7:05. B. ENTREVAUX by Pemtom Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 33.04 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 30.45 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1- 12.5 on 30.45 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 33.04 acres into 42 lots and 3 out lots and road right of way. Location: Pioneer Trail and Bennett Place. Dan Herbst from Pemtom said he has worked with property owners on developing the area; it is located off Pioneer Trail and Bennett Place. At one time there was a grist mill and footings which will remain as part of a conservation easement in the city. The Welters purchased the land in the 50's as a retreat. The DNR put in a Community Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 3 dam. There will be nearly 35% of the land deeded to the city. Environmental and traffic studies have been completed. The entrance will be landscaped and contain two entrance monuments. The developer is not in favor of removing the median or paying for installation of a fence around the dam. They would like to construct a sign for the Olympic Hills neighborhood on lot 25. A neighborhood association would maintain the monuments and median. Franzen said the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan and zoning in the area. Density is less than that of adjacent developments. The development will require the following waivers through the PUD: 1) Front yard setback of 25 feet for Lots 9, 11, and 15,block 2. Code requires 30 feet. The proposed dedication of the 7.19 acre Purgatory Creek corridor to the City is a mitigating reason to consider this waiver. 2) Corner lot frontage of 81 feet for Lot 14, Block 3. Code requires 100 feet. A corner lot typically has 2 frontages. This lot has three and meets the code for two frontages; the lot is 21,423 square feet and large enough to build a home meeting setback requirements. 3)Two area identification signs at a site entrance. Code permits one sign per site entrance. Nelson asked whether the signs met code requirements for size. Franzen said yes. Foote asked who would maintain the dam and why fencing was requested. Gray said it was in public waters and would not be owned by property owners; it would likely be the responsibility of DNR or Watershed District for maintenance. The facility is in a neighborhood setting and the dam could be dangerous for children. Fencing or railing is needed. A rail along the top would help mitigate the danger. Clinton asked whether other neighborhood communities had islands. Gray said there are a few where there are islands. The city was not in favor of putting those in the roadway. Stoelting asked whether the proponent was being requested to install fencing. Gray said yes. Stoelting said the staff report addresses sidewalks; he was under the impression a trail system may go near the site. Fox said there was consideration for a trail in the future on the easement. There is potential for a trail connection under Pioneer Trail toward the south. Community Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 4 Bonnie McFee 8582 Bennett Place said she was at a neighborhood meeting and there were two issues. The neighbors had requested monuments be kept to a minimum at the entrance to the development and for the identification of Olympic Hills. Tree loss was also a concern. John Wood 9590 Amesbury Lane. His property backs up to the proposed development. He thinks the proposal should go forward but would like to see an appropriately sized monument. He thinks staff should not be concerned about maintenance of the monument and landscaping. He asked the board to request that the developer provide a buffer from the development in the form of existing trees or plantings. Mr. Owen of 9673 Bennett Place said the overall development would add value to the city. He would like to see more speed monitoring along Bennett Place Motion by Stoelting, second by Koenig to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 7-0. The public hearing closed at 7:33. Corneille summarized the issues as the size of the monuments, buffering along Amesbury and speed along Bennett Place. Stock asked about staff recommendation for removal of the median. Gray said they are a landscaping feature and it increases impervious surface, complicates snow removal, and introduces sight distance problems for vehicles entering and exiting. Stock asked staff where this would fit under the city's housing goals. Franzen said it would fit under housing variety. It is not affordable or senior housing. Nelson asked if there would be more waivers requested on lot 11 with the 25 foot setback since it is a shallow lot and may be difficult to build on. Herbst said lot 11 had 115 foot frontage and it was about 17,000 square feet so it should not be a problem. Nelson requested the developer address the monuments. They could be much more discreetly sized. Community Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 5 Herbst indicated there are two much larger monuments at Settler's Ridge; these will be made of stone and low profile. They are trying to create a softer entrance with maple trees and bushes. The monuments could be scaled down. Brooks asked Herbst about the cost of the fence. Herbst said he would not want it to look like a tourist park but they are concerned with safety. Stoelting asked whether there were code specifications for the monument signs and distance from the road. Gray said this is a concept plan and the location would require a planning and zoning permit; there are specifications in place. Clinton commented that on Victoria Drive and Mitchell there is a divided intersection. During the winter there is a buildup of snow and ice in this area. Gray said it is much more time consuming to plow around medians. If there is a monument or median there will be ice buildup in the center of the roadway. It would take much more work to crown both pieces of road and install a storm sewer. Foote asked whether Gray thought it would slow traffic. Gray said there is no real data on whether it would or not. Brooks asked about the actual size of the monuments. Herbst stated this was a preliminary concept plan and actual size would be addressed in the final plat. Stoelting asked about the fiber blanket on lots 12, 13 and 14. Maintenance of the fiber blanket and placement of the houses on the steep area are concerns. Herbst indicated there were originally retaining walls proposed but maintenance problems were anticipated. The fiber blanket is an interim erosion control measure until the grass seeds. He asked the project engineer to address this. Dwight Jelle, Westwood Professional Services, said no problems were anticipated. It is graded to a 3/1 slope. Houses are built on steeper grades than this. Corneille said they are left with the sign waiver and median as issues. Community Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 6 Franzen said in the residential district there was a maximum size of 32 square feet in area and 10 feet from the roadway, no more than six feet in height. Koenig asked whether there would be a monument to delineate the conservation area. Fox said it would be treated in the same way as a wetland or forest area because it would be in a conservation easement. Foote asked if the city has improved communications to residents regarding conservation easement areas. Fox said they try to communicate with people. Permanent monuments are required in conservation easements. Easements show up on plans as drainage and utility when there is a scenic and conservation easement. Title searches show conservation easement areas. Foote asked whether the city could require the developer to have residents sign something stating their awareness of the conservation easement. Fox said there could be several generations of homeowners on a property and title search was the only real way of ensuring people are informed. Corneille asked staff to address safety concerns versus appearance of center medians. Gray said staff would prefer to not have center medians. They are snow plowing and maintenance problems. Landscaping materials within the public right of way create maintenance problems. Their preference would be having no median and creating an entrance without a median using plantings on either side of the road. Koenig asked whether there would be one builder for the development. Herbst said they were currently working with three builders; steep roofs and stone fronts will be requirements. Koenig thanked the proponent for the dedication of land and cash park fees. Foote said he did not have a problem with the median or the monuments if they were according to code. Stock concurred. Clinton said he did not have a problem with the monument but medians could create problems during the winter. Community Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 7 Nelson said the medians look very nice but there could be problems with maintenance. She disagreed with having the monuments at the entrances. It would provide the perception of segregation of the neighborhoods. Stoelting said he had no problem with the monuments but disagreed with having a center median because of the potential for ice build-up. Foote said they are giving nine acres of land to the city and cash park fees and a median was a small price for that. Stock asked whether there was a compelling reason to grant the sign waiver and whether it would set precedent. Franzen said it could set precedent. Usually there are not two signs of the same size in the same spot. Achieving character at the entrance can be done with planting of trees on both sides of the street and would create a stronger sense of entry. Dwight said the island has been extremely important to the developer. There is a fifty foot right of way with no plantings; the center island would allow a canopy. The developer would add catch basins in the median to mitigate drainage. Motion by Stoelting second by Brooks to approve Entrevaux by Pemtom, request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 33.09 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 30.5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 30.5 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 33.09 acres into 41 lots and 3 outlots and road right of way,based on plans dated October 18, 2000 and Staff Report dated October 20, 2000. Nelson said she will vote no because she felt strongly about the monuments. Foote said he felt the median should be left in and would vote no. Koenig concurred with Foote and asked why the proponent would be requested to build the fence. Gray said the concern was that the railing needed to be a condition of project approval to create a safe environment. Stock agreed with Foote that the median should be allowed and concurred with Nelson regarding the monuments. Motion by Clinton, second by Foote to amend the motion to include allowing the median. Amended motion carried 7-0. Community Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 8 Motion by Nelson, second by Clinton to amend the motion to exclude the waiver permitting two signs. Chair Corneille requested a roll call vote: Nelson aye; Brooks aye; Stoelting aye; Stock nay; Koenig, nay; Clinton nay; Corneille nay. Amended motion failed, 3- 4. Motion by Stoelting second by Brooks to approve Entrevaux by Pemtom, request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 33.09 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 30.5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 30.5 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 33.09 acres into 41 lots and 3 outlots and road right of way,based on plans dated October 18, 2000 and Staff Report dated October 20, 2000, with a center median and two entrance monuments. Amended motion carried 7-0. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed Skateboard Park at Round Lake Park Staff presented a proposed site location for approval of a skateboard park at Round Lake Park. Staff recommends use of cash park fees to fund a skateboard park in Round Lake Park. The park will be tier-1;jumps are not to exceed three feet in height. There are concerns with liability and insurance. Tier-1 parks are relatively safe. There is adequate parking and no grades will be changed. Jay Simmons 10700 Lakefall Drive asked whether this was for the location or the park itself. Fox said this was for location; the park still must go to Council for approval. Simmons said he was in support of the skateboard park. Corneille said he supported the idea and the city should have had it ten years ago. Foote asked if there was any increased liability. Community Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 9 Fox said he spoke with the League of Minnesota Cities; they said there was not because it was a tier 1 park. With a tier 2 park and jumps 6 feet or higher liability would be increased and supervision would be required. Foote concurred with Corneille. Koenig asked Fox whether there would be room for expansion. Fox said it was large enough for a phase II expansion. Budget would be an issue; $25,000 was just for the materials for ramps and jumps. Koenig asked if it passes at council will they ask for input from skateboarders. Fox said there would be a public forum on the issue and the goal would be to create a park that would provide recreational use for a broad range of abilities. Corneille asked about the possibility of a sponsor. Fox said that would not be considered. Motion by Clinton, second by Stoelting to approve the proposed skateboard park at Round Lake Park. Motion carried, 7-0. VIII. PLANNER'S REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Nelson, second by Stoelting to adjourn. Motion carried, 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.