Loading...
Planning Commission - 07/24/2006 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,JULY 24, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Jon Duckstad, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Al Gray, City Engineer Mike Franzen, City Planner Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Kirk, and Rocheford. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 10, 2006 MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 5-0. Duckstad and Pitzrick abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETING A. THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT OFF LEASH DOG PARK AT BRYANT LAKE REGIONAL PARK by Alex Meyer, Three Rivers Park District. Three Rivers Park District wants to construct a fenced off leash dog park area and a parking lot at Bryant Lake Regional Park. This is a public meeting for presentation by Three Rivers and for public comment. Alex Meyer, of the Three Rivers District,presented the proposal. He stated that they are proposing to construct an off leash dog park and a 24 car parking lot. He Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2006 Page 2 utilized the overhead projector to illustrate the proposal. He pointed out that this area was once the old Hennepin Technical College Equestrian Area. Mr. Meyer stated that this area is approximately 9.73 acres and that they are planning on constructing a 5'1" fence surrounding the area. Within this area,permit holders would have the ability to take their dogs off their leashes. The cost of the permit would be $30 annually. He also pointed out that the entry way would be double gated. Some of the other amenities in the area would include picnic tables, a feces disposal station, trash receptacles, and a unisex vault latrine. Mr. Meyer stated that Three Rivers Park District also operates existing dog off-leash exercise areas at Crow Hassan Park Reserve, Elm Creek Park Reserve, Cleary Lake Regional Park and Lake Sara Regional Park. New construction areas will also occur at Clifton E. French Park and Carver Park Reserve in 2006. Powell asked Mr. Meyer where the children's playground area would be located. Mr. Meyer stated that it would be located right across the picnic pavilion area. He illustrated this using the overhead projector. Pitzrick asked what height the fence would be along the roadway. Mr. Meyer stated that the roadway is sitting away from the park and would be about 20' higher than the area. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that the Staff recommends approval of the project based on recommendations listed on page one of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Scott Connell, of 11732 Boulder Bay Road, stated that he has lived in this area for a very long time and he is opposed to this park. He believes that it is not a prudent expenditure of tax money and believes the run-off that goes into Nine Mile Creek is pollution causing. He also stated that there is the concern of visual pollution; that there would be no way to visually screen this area from the road. Mr. Connell is also concerned with who will be policing the area for people who are utilizing the park without permits. Libby Heargrove, of 12640 Sunnybrook Road, pointed out that she has lived here since 1962. She stated that she is a representative of a group of residents founded by the City in 2002 to find an area to form an off-leash dog park. She pointed out that in 2004 they found a 1 acre park, which is Flying Cloud She stated that even though this is a nice area for an off-leash dog park it is quite small and in the winter time this area is also shared by cross country skiers. She feels that if the new park was granted for the City it would be a wonderful gift for dog owners. Cheryl Loose, of 12623 Sunnybrook Road, stated that she has been a resident of Eden Prairie for 27 years. She also stated that she is a permit user of the off-leash park at Flying Cloud. Ms. Loose pointed out that across the street from the Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2006 Page 3 proposed park are large homes that are being built and given the fact that a dog park could be across the street from these grand homes it is not affecting the establishment process. She also stated that she has received over 1600 signatures of residents that were in favor of the dog park. Powell asked her what her experience is with people that are not picking up after their dogs. She stated that there are a few people that do not pick up after their dogs but that can be typical if it is in a off-leash park or just taking the dog for a walk. Robert Withers, of 6295 Chasewood Drive, stated that he lives in a surrounding neighborhood of the proposed park. He stated that he is concerned with the storm water run-off of fecal matter. He feels that the City and Three Rivers Park District should re-evaluate this project and the use of the tax-payers money. He also stated that it is not possible to burm this area off and that is could have a visual impact on the neighborhood. His others concerns were the dogs barking and questioned the hours of the park, people not paying for permits and utilizing the park, and parking in surrounding neighborhoods versus the parking lot. Trent Mahr, of 6385 Beach Road, stated that he is a representative of the International School of Minnesota. He stated that their position of this project is neutral but he does have a question. He would like to know if the path connecting Rowland Road and the school will be eliminated and asked that if the path was not blocked off in that area, would there be a roll-off area onto the school property. Stewart Stender, of 12221 Chadwick Lane, stated that he wanted Mr. Meyer to address the issues of his letter that was included with the packet. These issues include trees and landscaping, hours of operation of the park, run-off issues, parking, and user permits. Catherine Levine, of 12213 Orchard, stated that she is the closest house to the proposed park. She is concerned with security and kids in the area. Greg Bently, of 11636 Roseberry Road, does not understand why the City is considering building this park so close to the other park at Flying Cloud Dog Park. He pointed out that they are only one mile away from each other. Resident at 7978 Island Road, stated that he is not close to the proposed area but is still in favor of the park and believes that this would be a tremendous asset for the City. Stoelting summarized the issues as follows: 1. Financial issues —is there a demand for another park since there is one a mile away from the proposed park. Is it a good investment for the Park District. 2. Is there a pollution issue, whether it be visual, or the issue of fecal matter. 3. The issue of water run-off. 4. What types of visual screening would be used. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2006 Page 4 5. Hours of operation for the park. 6. Is the parking lot area large enough to accommodate the users of the park. 7. Will this project cut off the path to the school or have impact on the school. 8. Address the letter submitted by Mr. Stender. Stoelting asked Mr. Meyer to address some of these issues. Mr. Meyer stated that this land was previously used as a horse farm. It was taken out because in the winter the trucks that would haul the manure could not make it back into this area, therefore the manure would have to be stored all winter long, which caused some pollution and run-off issues. He pointed out that this problem would not exist with the dog park because the issue of manure would not exist because there would not be the quantity that existed with the horse farm. They would be able to maintain it in the winter months. He also stated that if the feces were not being picked up,post cards could be mailed out to all permit holders to address this issue. Mr. Meyer also said that the user permit is enforced by the Park Police and that they will be patrolling the area. He also addressed the issue of road access to the International School of Minnesota and stated that the paved portion would be left open but a gate could be set up to hinder people from going onto this private property. Tom McDowell, Director for Programs and Facilities for Three Rivers Parks, addressed some of the issues of the new proposed dog park. He stated that this project has been in the works for a very long time and pointed out that dog ownership in Hennepin County is 37 percent and homeowners are requesting more of these areas for their pets. In regards to the issue of storm water run-off, he said that each person using the park must pick up after their dogs. They have found that dog owners are in much more of compliance to this rule than trail users. He also said that they will be monitoring the water run-off in this area. In regards to fencing,he pointed out that they will be using a woven wire fence which would make it less visible. He said that the vegetation is the same,both inside and outside of the fence. He pointed out that the only visible aspect would be the wooden posts on the fence and the parking lot. Mr. McDowell stated that the hours of operation for the park would be 6 a.m. to sunset. Stoelting asked Mr. McDowell to address the issue of trees. Mr. McDowell stated that the Three Rivers Park District Forester will supply plants and shrubs for screening. He also said that they will modify the landscape plans to comply with the City, if need be. Stoltz made the comment that he works close to Flying Cloud dog park and has not seen a lot of people in the area and therefore does not see this as a concern. He did question why the proposed park is so close to this park. He also asked what would happen to someone utilizing the park without a permit. Mr. McDowell stated that they would initially warn the individual and if it happened again, they would ticket them. Fox stated that the reason that these two areas are so close together is that there was no other area that offered the acreage that this area does. He stated that off-leash parks are becoming more popular for the Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2006 Page 5 residents of Eden Prairie, hence an area with more acreage. Fox pointed out that it was just a matter of chance that they happened to be so close to each other. Stoelting asked Mr. McDowell to show where the leashed trail would hook up to the off-leashed area. Mr. McDowell used the overhead projector to show where they would connect. He also showed additional areas of parking in the park if the 24 unit area were to become full. Mr. McDowell pointed out that this project is not funded by the City but rather by Three Rivers Park District. Powell asked if there would be any lights in this area. Mr. McDowell stated that there would not be any at this time. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Koenig, to close the Public Meeting. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION Koenig, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the plans by Three Rivers Park district for an off leash dog park based on plans stamped dated July 12, 2006, and the staff report dated July 21, 2006. Motion carried 6-0. Seymour abstained. Stoelting asked Franzen what the next step for this proposal would be. Franzen said that on August 7h, 2006, it would go before the Parks commission Meeting and then from there it would go to the Council Meeting. V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE#2006-08 by Michael and Kelly Beck. Request: To permit a deck addition 17' from the front lot line. City code requires a minimum 30' front yard setback. Location is at 8969 Knollwood Drive. Kelly Beck, the resident at 8969 Knollwood Drive,presented the proposal. She stated that she and her husband had purchased their current home in 2003. She stated that since then, they have made many improvements to their home and also wanted to add a deck onto their home. Mrs. Beck pointed out that they do have a fence in their back yard along with four trees separating their home from their neighbors and Cumberland Road. She pointed out that the back of their house is actually their front yard and that is the reason for the request tonight. She stated that they built the deck behind the pine trees in the backyard and did not know at the time that it was actually the front yard. She stated that if the deck had been built on the side of the home it would have overlooked the neighbors yard. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that at the time this home was built, Centex had built a cluster of these homes, including this one, on smaller lots, which doesn't leave much room for a larger deck on the lot. This Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2006 Page 6 particular lot is a 7000 sq. ft. lot with a double frontage. If the Commission is to approve this variance, the City would like to make sure that the deck complies with the Building Code requirements. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Beti Jo Aichner, of 8965 Knollwood Drive, said that she lives in the home that is adjacent to this proposal. She also stated that she and her husband approve of the plans for the deck. She said that the deck is not visible to them unless they look out of their two-story windows. Seymour asked the Staff to clarify if there was a small deck built on this home in 1998. Franzen stated that there was a small deck built onto the home but it was torn down and was unsure when that took place. Seymour asked if they applied for a permit in 2004 and if so, was it denied. Franzen confirmed that they did apply for a permit and it was denied because the deck did not conform to the 30' yard setback. Powell asked if the 4ft. deck is still on the house coming down to the new deck. Mrs. Beck confirmed that it was. Stoltz stated that he is concerned that the residents went ahead with the project after their permit was denied. He asked the project proponent if she asked her homeowner's association for their approval for this project. Mrs. Beck stated that they did have their association's approval. Stoltz pointed out that the By-Laws would state that they would need approval from the City. Mrs. Beck said that they were under the understanding that if it was a free-standing deck then they would not need a permit. She stated that is was all a misunderstanding on their part. Powell asked Franzen if the stairway between two decks is a connection. Franzen pointed out that if a deck is built to a house it requires footings. Powell stated that the only thing that attached this deck to the house is the stairway. Koenig asked if the City had given variance requests to other homes in the neighborhood. Franzen stated that he was not aware of variances on other lots. Powell stated that in the future the City should consider a change to this type of variance request and approval should be made to apply a reasonable size deck to a residence. Franzen stated that all of the lots in the neighborhood should be looked at and determine what policy should be for people applying for variances. Koenig stated that she would be more comfortable looking at variances on an individual basis. Powell asked if the Commission approves this variance, is the City setting precedence for other homeowners to build decks without permits. Seymour asked Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2006 Page 7 Franzen how many decks were built in the City without permits. Franzen stated that back in the 1970's, numerous decks were built without permits. Stoltz stated that his major concern is that the deck was built after the permit was denied. Seymour stated that it probably is not a reason for denial because if it did come before the Commission prior, it would have been approved. Powell asked if there was a fine for building the deck without a permit. Franzen stated that he is unaware of any fines and that it is up to the Building Department to issue those. MOTION by Duckstad, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Koenig, to approve the deck addition based on plans stamped dated June 27, 2006, and the staff report dated July 7, 2006. With an additional comment going on record stating that the Commission does not want to set a precedent with the approval of this variance. Motion carried 7-0. B. VARIANCE#2006-09 by Moiz Akhtar. Request: To permit a shoreland setback variance from 150 feet to 100 feet at the northeast corner of the proposed structure. Location is at 7887 Shamrock Trail. Paul Vogstrom presented the proposal. He stated that in 1993, the City approved a subdivision of 3.6 acres into 3 lots for the previous owner. No home was ever built on lot 3; which made the approval of the variance null and void. The current owners are applying for the same 100 foot setback in order to build a house. The plan is different from the 1993 plan in that the house and garage are larger with a 10 foot setback from the west property line. Stoelting stated that the original plan that was approved in 1993 was for a 30' setback from the west property line. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that the request is for setback of 100 feet. He pointed out that the only reason the setback was 30' previously was because that is what the applicant originally proposed. He stated that recommended Commission action is listed on page 3 of the staff report. Pitzrick asked if the neighbors in the backyard have been contacted about the proposed change. Franzen stated that neighbors that are 500 feet from the project have been notified and that there has been no response. Koenig asked the project proponent if he had discussions with the neighbor. Mr. Vogstrom stated he did not. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2006 Page 8 Powell asked Franzen if he knew who owned the lot to the north of the property. Franzen stated that the lot goes up to Highway 5. Fox stated that the City owns the outlot to this area surrounding Highway 5. Powell stated that he is concerned by the extending garage and that it could be infringing on the neighbors. Stoelting stated that was not the issue,rather the shoreland setback was the issue. Franzen stated that the Planning Commission can modify the original approval of the variance. Stoelting asked if the 30' side yard setback could be brought up again since the request is being modified. He pointed out that since the variance was made in 1993 and not acted upon, it can be considered a new request. Koenig stated that she was not comfortable with the 10' side yard setback. Mr. Vogstrom stated that it would be aesthetically unappealing to change the outlot of the house. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. The neighbor at 7975 Highland, which is located on the east side of this development, stated that he used to be on the homeowners association and pointed out that when the project proponent stated that the neighbors were not concerned with the proposal, it was an untrue statement. He said that because the building would be 10' away from the path it would be unappealing. Koenig asked Mr. Vogstrom if he considered the alternatives that Staff brought forward in their report. Mr. Vogstrom stated that he did not consider the alternatives at this time. He did not feel that it was a problem since the proposal was approved in 1993. Koenig asked if there is a need for more of a setback than what is proposed. Powell said that if the Commission is asking for two 100' setback than we should be able to ask for a 30' setback. Powell asked Mr. Vogstrom if he would be willing to continue the proposal. Mr. Vogstrom said if he had to he would continue the proposal. Koenig asked if he would look into the alternatives that were addressed by Staff. Fox stated, for the record, that the area north of this area is a storm water pond. He illustrated the pond using the overhead projector. Stoelting asked Mr. Vogstrom if he would continue his proposal to the August 28th, 2006, meeting. Mr. Vogstrom stated he would like to request a continuance to the August 28th Planning Commission Meeting and the October lst City Council Meeting. MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Stoltz, to recommend a continuance to the August 28, 2006 meeting and to revise the development plans according to the Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2006 Page 9 staff report and other requirements as identified by the Commission.. Motion carried 7-0. C. SUPERIOR OFFICE CENTER by United Properties. Request for: Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Office on 10.36 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.36 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.36 acres; Zoning District Change from I-2 to Office on 10.36 acres; Preliminary Plat of 10.36 acres into one lot; Site Plan Review on 10.36 acres. The project proponent from United Properties presented the proposal. He gave a brief history of the project. He stated that in October of 2005, the City approved a concept plan for a 91,000 square foot office building on this site. He stated that the Comprehensive Guide Plan shows this 10.36 acre site for industrial use and the area surrounding the site is a mix of office and industrial uses. He pointed out that an office use of the site would be compatible with the uses in the area. He also said that this site is part of the Golden Triangle Study. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that Staff recommends approval based on page 3 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Powell stated that he is concerned with the industrial aspect of this site. Franzen stated that it is a good idea to mix up office and industrial and that there is real no way to hide the industrial buildings in the City. Powell asked if the industries would be phased out in 20 years. Franzen stated that the City does not have that many industries currently and that the majority of them are high-tech industries. Stoltz said that he would like to see an architectural plan of the building and that he is not happy with the current architectural structure. Steve Irwin, of Architectural Associates, said that the materials for this project do exceed the 75% requirements set by the City. He used the overhead projector to illustrate the architectural structure. The project proponent for United Properties stated that they have done this same design before and that what they are trying to do is create more open space, hence the reason for this plan. Franzen stated that the Commission can ask for the architectural changes as a condition of guide plan approval. Pitzrick stated that in dealing with a one story building, it would be very difficult to be creative. Koenig asked the project proponent if they considered water ponds instead of NURP ponds. The project proponent stated that he did not. Steve Hurber said that the northwest pond is an infiltration pond and a NURP pond. Powell said that rain gardens could be utilized by slopping the parking lots. Koenig stated that Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2006 Page 10 rain gardens have many other different functions. An example of this would be a picnic area. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Office on 10.36 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.36 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.36 acres; Zoning District Change from I-2 to Office on 10.36 acres; Preliminary Plat of 10.36 acres into one lot and site Plan Review on 10.36 acres based on plans stamped dated July 21, 2006, and the staff report dated July 21, 2006, with the stipulation that the project proponent and the City look into the issue of water run- off and consider the possibility of rain garden use. Motion carried 5-2. D. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 2 AND 3 OF THE GUIDE PLAN DESIGNATING A TOWN CENTER. Franzen stated that there have been changes to the Guide Plan and that Staff recommends approval to Chapter 2 and 3 of the Guide Plan Change regarding a Town Center. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Koenig, to approve the Town Center Amendment to the Comprehensive plans based on the staff report dated July 21, 2006. Motion carried 7-0. VII. PLANNERS' REPORTS A. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN—SUPERIOR TECH CENTER The TIF proposal is for the office project reviewed earlier in the agenda. Franzen stated that the Planning Commission has to pass a motion that is consistent with the Guide Plan. MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to move to find the use of pay-as- you-go Tax Increment Financing for the proposed Superior Tech Center redevelopment project consistent with the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried 7-0. VIII. 2008 COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN UPDATE DISCUSSION Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2006 Page 11 A. Housing and Land Use Monique MacKenzie presented the Guide Plan Update. She discussed the Plan Update and stated that there were two items on the agenda. 1. Visioning and Objective This references the existing vision statement and references the goals and policies. Examples are the strategic plan for housing and additional task force reports. She pointed out that the Vision Statement influences the Comprehensive Plan in that it guides the City's short and long range planning efforts. She also stated that the Goals and Policies are a detailed expression of a communities aspirations for the future and it can be the heart of the Guide Plan. This plan is striving to preserve Eden Prairie's high quality of life, to deliver high quality public services and to create a positive community. This will be a team approach and everyone will be working together for the betterment of Eden Prairie for future endeavors. Jeff Miller addressed the second item on the agenda, which is Housing. 2. Housinz He pointed out some of the steps to this process and the dates they are expected to be completed. 1. Compile housing data and review information (July/Aug) 2. Conduct housing needs assessment(Aug/Sept) 3. Gather community input(Sept/Nov) 4. Draft housing goals (Nov) Mr. Miller stated that the housing project will be concluded in 2008. He also showed numbers for population, and household and employment growth forecasts. He stated that the minimum net density is three units per acre for new development and five units per acre along transit corridors for"developing communities". Mr. Miller also reiterated what affordable housing requirements are. He stated that Eden Prairie's goal for new affordable housing units for 2011- 2020 is 685 units. He said that the affordable housing definition has been changed from households earning 80% of metro median income to 60%; which would be around $150,000 for Eden Prairie. He said the issues that Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2006 Page 12 need to be looked at are; age of houses, housing value, physical condition of housing, and ownership vs. rental. The questions that need to be address for the future are: 1. What are housing needs going to be in the future. 2. How to address senior housing needs. 3. How to best connect housing with convenient access to amenities. Koenig stated that she is concerned with too much congestion in one area and affecting character of open areas. She stated she is also concerned with the notion of high rise buildings next to open areas. Pitzrick asked what it means by "vibrant community". Koenig stated a community is vibrant if it has innovation. Koenig also asked how all of these projects will be funded without raising taxes. Ms. MacKenzie said that a trust fund could be set up and have it developed over the next 25 years. She stated the next steps are: 1. PC Work Sessions on July 24, August 28, or September 25. 2. Draft 2030 Housing Plan & Policies —November 3. Community Open House— September or October 4. Housing Focus Group Meetings —September-November IX. MEMBERS REPORTS Koenig asked if someone from the City could talk to developers on Mitchell Road about concrete in the road. She also asked if Staff could form a task force to improve boundaries for wet lands and to educate the public on this issue. Koenig also pointed out that the Natural Resource Workshop was very informative, especially the issue dealing with rain water gardens. She also pointed out that an individual at the workshop stated that NURF ponds are not effective. Stoltz asked if a representative could come and talk to the Commission regarding rain water gardens. X. CONTINUING BUSINESS Pitzrick stated that he would like to have a better understanding for long term plans in Eden Prairie. He stated that he would like more information on the plans for Eden Prairie Road and Dell Road. He also questioned why Prospect Road needs to be put in. Powell said he would also like to know the dollar amount to put in Prospect Road and the dollar figure for lot values. Koenig stated that she would like more information on the new proposed art center. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2006 Page 13 Stoelting stated that on July 29th there will be another tour of the Hennepin village. XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Seymour, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.