Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-17-2000PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 2000 PRESENT: LENNY LEUER, JERRY BROST, ELIZABETH WEIR, JIM LANE, TOM SUPEL AND BRUCE WORKMAN. ALSO PRESENT: CLERK - ADMINISTRATOR PAUL ROBINSON, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR JIM DILLMAN, CITY ENGINEER TOM KELLOGG, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RICK BRASCH, PLANNING CONSULTANT BILL THIBAULT AND PLANNING AND ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE LARSON. ABSENT: SUSIE MACKAY Chairperson Lenny Leuer called the meeting to order at 7:41 p.m. 1. ADDITIONS TO AGENDA The planning commission will address holding a special planning commission meeting on Thursday, September 7, 2000. 2. RESTORATION DEVELOPMENT - NORTH OF HIGHWAY 55 `ELWELL PROPERTY - RE -ZONING FROM RR TO PUD1 AND PRELIMINARY PLAT - PUBLIC HEARING Lenny Leuer went over what the application was that was before the planning commission tonight and stated that it was a public hearing. He said the schedule would be: 1. City staff 2. Open the public hearing 3. Developer 4. Staff response 5. Planning Commission comments 6. Recommendations Bill Thibault stated that Loren Kohnen was on vacation and that he was asked to be present this evening and that also present was Paul Robinson, Tom Kellogg and Rick Brasch. He said they would be addresses the issues where there were differences with the City and the developer. The public hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m. Tom Olson, 275 Cherry Hill Trail, wanted clarified the public space/open space and if they were going to be available to others than the residents of the development. L. Leuer said that this will be addressed later in the presentation. 1 David Newman, Restoration Development, said that Restoration Development was made up of Bancor, Lundgrens and VKO Enterprises. Present this evening for the development was John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Marty Campion with Otto and Associates and Steve Apfelbaum of Applied Ecological Services. He said they would take about 15 minutes to present their application. He said Mr. Uban would talk about some of the changes since the concept plan. Mr. Newman said that he has never worked with a staff that is so communicative as Medina. He said we may not always see eye to eye, but we have always been kept informed. Steve Apfelbaum, Applied Ecological Services said he will give on overview of what the development will look like. He said you have all seen what the site looks like today and 3-5 years from now you will see the open agricultural fields restored to various types of prairies - native grasses - wild flowers of various species. He said there will be initial mowing to an 8-10" height so that the native species can overtake the quack grass, etc. He said they will reduce the canary grass in the wetland areas and he said that in the wooded areas, the grasses and wild flowers will be the ground understory - he said their goal was to reduce the dense understory and have a light understory of the native plants. He said they were looking for a diverse and lush forest cover. He said this will not happen overnight, it will happen slowly - the trees will grow up and eventually phase out what cannot grow in the shade. As far as water quality, we expect a lot less water coming off the property, but what does will be good clean water. He said we can talk about the phasing of the restoration during the question period. He said the restoration will be done aggressively, but strategically. John Uban, planner with DSU, said he will talk about what we have done to make the plan better. At the southern end we have increased the setback area on the golf course side - we have off set the entrance off of Evergreen so that it is not straight across from the Cherry Hill entrance - we have adjusted the road by the creek - the trail systems have been connected and when 101 is settled we will know how a trail will be connected under 101 to the east - on the northern section of the southern part of the development we have deleted one lot - there is a 10' wide compacted base with a 6' surface for a trail between the northern and southern phase - the rest of the trails will be soft, a mulch base - he said on the southern phase the streets a little more twisted - there will be in interpretative park at the north of the southern phase - in the northern phase the trail has been adjusted to save the larger oaks and where the lot was lost in the south, we have put in the northern phase - the main trails will be along Evergreen, 101 and Hackamore - they will be paved trails and not right on the roads - they will be set back with green space between the road and the trail - the entrance from Hackamore is bent and not straight in - he said the landscape plan shows mowed areas of the tot lot - he said the plan also shows the street trees, lights and homeowners private park - he stated that there will be trees on each of the lots. D. Newman said to respond to the resident's question from earlier - the public trails will be 101 and Hackamore - the rest are private and privately maintained. He said they expect this will be a model development for the Midwest on how land can be developed. He said no one will be checking ID's on the trails, but since they will be paid for by the 2 developer and maintained by the Homeowner's Association, if there is wide spread use by the public, then something may have to be done. Tom Supel asked about the Evergreen Trail. D. Newman said that the City had paved Evergreen wider with a pedestrian way. He said they will not put in another trail there. T. Supel said that does not go along with the concept plan. D. Newman said that there was confusion between the park commission and the city council - he said it does not seem efficient to have us do a trail next to a city trail. B. Thibault said that we are looking at a zoning change and the preliminary plat with bonus units or a total of 150 lots. The PUD ordinance has been adopted which requires 50% open space and this plan shows 58% open - we do not yet know who the open space will be dedicated to. Paul will address the sewer units to be granted. Staff feels that the plan is worthy of the bonus units. Staff has recommended that the zoning change be approved and also the preliminary plat. He said that he had an on site visit after the concept plan meeting and had agreements on changes - he said the main ones were listed on his report. He said that the developer has responded to all the differences - he said they agree to all of the changes that staff has recommended except 10 and some are still being discussed. 1. Drainage 2. Parks 3. Trails 4. Streets 5. Eyebrow 6. Play yards 7. Creek 8. Water irrigation 9. 101 alignment - additional buffer 10. Wetland credits - this is a matter for the city council to deal with. Bill said that in conclusion we feel that this is a superior plan. The planning commission gave a good review of the concept plan and staff has been working with the developer on changes. He said that staff recommends approval of the plan. D. Newman said he wanted to go thru the 10 points where there was disagreement. T. Supel said that the developers letter and staff report were not numbered the same. D. Newman - radii of road - Mary Campion would explain. Marty Campion explained and had an overhead of the roads in the proposed development - it identifies the curves that do not meet the 275' radius - he then passed out plans showing the ones that do not meet the 275' and explained them. He said the 3 ones that do not meet this criteria are either approaching an intersection or going into a cul de sac. He said they could make some minor adjustments on some that are on more of a straightaway. He said there were 4 curves that did not meet the 275' on the north site and the one along 101 they are trying to avoid the low land and also keep the speed down, some are avoiding trees, etc. He said that the approach to Hackamore they could make it 275 instead of the 250, but that is not much of a difference. L. Leuer asked Tom Kellogg for his response. Tom Kellogg said that the 275' radius meets the 30 MPH design - he said that some of the points that Marty made are valid. He said their recommendation would be if the city council agrees with Marty, then speed advisory signs should be put at the curves. L. Leuer then asked Jim Dillman to respond. Jim Dillman said that Evergreen Road was a straight shot and they built in a couple of 20 MPH curves, but in his opinion, people speed other places but not in their neighborhood. L. Leuer asked if there would be any problems with maintenance and Jim said no. L. Leuer clarified with the planning commission if they wanted to go over the entire list before the public spoke or one at a time. Jim Lane said lets do it one by one, so that it will be fresh in our minds. - all agreed to do the list one at a time. D. Newman stated that public input would be needed before any action. L. Leuer asked for a straw vote on the curves - all agreed they were o.k. as presented. #2 and #3 - Public parks and open space: D. Newman said that their intent has always been that the regional trail would be the only one dedicated as public space. He said if the city wants a trail along Evergreen and they get credit for their park fee, then they will do it. He said everything else is internal and would be dedicated and titled to the Homeowners Association and a conservation easement to possibly the Minnesota Land Trust or a similar organization.. He said if they are public trails, then the city should build them and maintain them. An overhead of the trails was put up. He said they do not have a problem with a trail connecting under 101, but one on the west side, they are strongly opposed to. He said they have hesitated on the trail along the internal roads - it is rural and they do not want the sidewalk effect. He said he understands staff concern for an emergency turn around, but the goal can be reached with being able to go thru on the trail (emergency vehicles). 4 T. Supel said to clarify that the emergency vehicles could turn around on the grass. D. Newman said that in the winter or in very wet conditions, no, that is why we show gravel. Elizabeth Weir said she thought the planning commission had recommended a trail along Evergreen that would be separate from the roadway. L. Leuer said that information was lacking from the public works department. Paul Robinson said that the city council had some discussion concerning this and an off -set trail did not get discussed, so it was left on the side of the road. J. Dillman said that Evergreen and this project are two separate issues. Evergreen was planned wide - the Cherry Hill residents wanted it this way. B. Thibault said that staff has always dealt with trails - those that have public function - he said the real public trail issue is across 101 and then thru to the street. J. Uban showed on an overhead where there was a connection internally for the development - have 3 going N-S - he said there is one for nature and one for bikes - he said one is not needed on the west side. Jerry Brost said that bringing a public trail into the middle is a mistake - drives the public in where they do not belong. P. Robinson said that Bill is saying how a trail would work - It may or may not be needed. E. Weir said that the residents may have a problem with the general public in there and by their yards. B. Thibault said that the city can require sidewalks - trails on a public street. J. Brost said he does not think there should be a trail for people and do not call it a public trail. T. Supel mentioned the trail on the west edge and wondered if the park commission had addressed the fact that this would be a city maintained trail. J. Dillman said that the park commission felt there should be an easement so if it was needed the city could pursue it, but for now a private trail or a public easement Bruce Workman thought that was a good idea. L. Leuer said that he is hearing that the trail should not be done, but an easement there. 5 J. Brost - on the N-S boundary? D. Newman said they would like the flexibility to know how to deal with it if it is an easement. He recommended the easement be delegated for use on the west. P. Robinson said the purpose for an easement would be for a future trail. B. Workman said it should be a pre -planned easement. S. Apfelbaum said easement on both sides? J. Uban said that we've created 3 N-S - why not the property owner to the west have the easement. B. Workman said he would prefer to see it on the west property line. There was continued discussion of trails and trail easement - Hackamore - Evergreen. D. Newman said the direction was for safety reasons - he said the regional trail should be 101 and Hackamore - we would continue our northern trail - he said the issues looked at included safety, ecology, and homeowner privacy. P. Robinson said that the park dedication fee was not a matter for this evening, but we are working on it - we are not in 100% agreement that trails will count toward the park fee - he said we started in the concept plan with a trail on the west, but made it's way thru on the east side of the property along 101. He said that the park commission came up with the west idea later in the process. B. Workman said that we only have one opportunity - we may never build it, but the easement should be there. J. Brost said he does not think we should mandate trails on private property. Tom Olson, 275 Cherry Hill Trail, said he views this as a one time opportunity to gain the easement - he said he appreciates the trail on Evergreen, 101 and Hackamore and he does appreciate wanting the homeowners association, but he had the impression the open space, etc. was for our enjoyment and now it seems like it is just for those in the development - he wanted to know how you explain to a 4 year old that they cannot go there. Simon Innvaer, 340 Cherry Hill Court, said he appreciates the idea of another trail along Evergreen - he said a walking trail on the north side would be nice. T. Olson said it is confusing to have a public trail to end in the middle of a development. 6 L. Leuer called for a straw vote on eliminating the trail on the road: Weir: not appropriate to keep plowed, but groomed Workman: should be up to the homeowner's association Brost and Lane: unnecessary The consensus was that it was unnecessary L. Leuer asked about the N-S trail on the west line B. Workman said he felt it was imperative to get the easement now - Evergreen north to Hackamore on the west property line. J. Lane said he is not in favor of an easement there. The trail on 101 is adequate for the public trail. T. Supel said it seems this should have been raised during the concept plan. He said in my mind, the concept plan agreed to paved trail on Evergreen, 101 and Hackamore. S. Apfelbaum said there are many areas in the N-S line that are not suitable for a trail. Marc Anderson, Lundgren Brothers, said that in Foxberry they have a public trail on city land along 116 - he said his question is maintenance. He has heard for years the city wants to maintain a small staff and frankly the trail is not being maintained by the city. He said he does not know if the city has the resources to want to maintain trails - he said think about it - if you want it public, you have to maintain it. Straw vote on N-S public trail: Supel - No Weir - No Lane - No Brost - No Workman - Yes Leuer - No It was stated that there had been a recommendation for a separate trail along Evergreen. J. Brost asked who would pay for it T. Supel asked if it was any different than 101 and Hackamore. E. Weir asked Jim Dillman if there could be a divider between the trail and the road. J. Dillman said there are 3' tall markers, 100-150' apart for a visual divider. E. Weir asked if they were removed in the winter and Jim said yes. There was continued discussion of a separate trail along Evergreen. 7 J. Dillman said that when Cherry Hill was built, the homeowners paid an assessment for the rebuilding of Evergreen, Rolling Green Country Club signed a petition and waiver agreement regarding Evergreen - this work has been scheduled before and had been ongoing for a long time. There is 8' paved on each side of the road. L. Leuer said there are three options for the planning commission: Recommend trail be on the developers property Recommend the trail remain on Evergreen Recommend that the city council decide J. Brost recommended it be a separate trail on the north side of Evergreen. L. Leuer said in the initial recommendation it was a separate trail. Straw vote on if there should be a separate trail on the developer's property: Brost - yes Weir - no Supel - yes Workman - yes Leuer - yes The planning commission recollects this was dealt with initially and the recommendation was for a separate trail. E. Weir said if there is 8' paved on each side, could it not be made on big trail and separate it. J. Dillman said we looked at doing that, but it was done the way it was to accommodate the Cherry Hill residents - the road was built on existing ROW - we backed away from having the trail on one side and having 2-way traffic on one side (trail traffic) D. Newman talked of the SW corner - 101 - he said south of the creek it remains virtually unchanged - there is a 60' buffer on the north - ponds, utilities, everything would have to be changed - he said the view from 101 was a concern of the city's - he said they will use the re -alignment and increase the buffer for less impact from the road. E. Weir asked if it was possible to reforest the area that is presently the road bed and S. Apfelbaum said yes B. Thibault said we used the word `consider' moving - we realize doing this on the south end is very difficult. The consensus was to leave as is. 8 D. Newman discussed the shoulder - streets. Tom Kellogg said there the developer shows 1' of gravel - 12' driving lane - he said our recommendation is 3' gravel base, sodded over. The purpose is if a car has to pull off the road - 3' is room to do so - it is strictly for stability L. Leuer asked if there would be parking on internal streets and D. Newman said yes. Lenny said there is low speed limit and wide blacktop - he does not see what 3' will accomplish. T. Kellogg said 1' is a bare minimum. He said the 3' is for reasons given. Visually there will be no difference. J. Dillman said that Tom is correct. 1' is adequate, but 3' is better for parking or to pull off the road. Tuckborough has 1' and there have been no problems. Straw vote for 1': Weir - yes Supel - yes Workman - yes Brost - yes Lane - yes D. Newman talked of the `eyebrow' area - he said it makes sense from an aesthetic standpoint. J. Dillman said the problem may be in snow plowing. L. Leuer asked Jim if he could live with it and Jim said it would have to be kept open for plowing. J. Lane said the underlying assumption of the PUD and bonus units is to award for creativity and the `eyebrow' area is one of the best examples. The consensus was that it stays. D. Newman said that they needed some flexibility concerning the play yards. L. Leuer said it would be subject to staff review. D. Newman said that reforestation is an art. Loren and Steve will meet on site and Steve will show him what we have in mind. B. Thibault said that the invader species are substantial. 9 S. Apfelbaum pointed out on an overhead the areas of undesirable understory and explained their plan. He said there would be 30-50% reduction on what you see in the understory. He said that the box elder would be removed. B. Thibault said it seems like we are all in agreement. D. Newman said we will work with staff. He then discussed water irrigation - he said that this need some education for the buyers - there will be water sensors in the yards. J. Dillman said that if it was up to him there would not be sprinkler systems in the yards - this is a natural conservation development and they want to water lawns? He said it is not a cheap venture to supply water and water conservation should be a major concern. He said we could compromise with sprinklers in the front yards but not in the back. B. Workman said that is an interesting point - sprinklers don't make much sense in this development. M. Anderson said from his Foxberry experience - a lot of the residents there did not build in rain sensors and it makes sense for the rain sensor. T. Supel asked if this was metered water and they paid for what they use. J. Dillman said yes and we just raised the rates recently. He said we can see the difference in the water usage between Cherry Hill and Foxberry. He suggested we do it like we do in commercial areas - have 2 meters and charge for it. J. Brost said it is interesting not allowing the sprinklers in the back yards - this is being sold as an environmentally aware area. E. Weir said how about allowing the sprinklers all over but with rain sensors. J. Dillman said they were not that dependable. Carolyn Smith said that water can be conserved with a gray water system - that might be an option - capture rain water for water irrigation. J. Dillman said he would go along with sprinkler systems in the front yards with rain sensors. D. Newman said they would like sprinkler systems throughout with rain sensors. B. Workman said how about allowing them, but not having them automatic, front and rear. T. Supel said that an irrigation system is counter to what we have talked about. 10 Supel - front yard Workman - manual system Weir - manual - front yard Lane - manual system Brost - manual - front Leuer - manual system The majority of the planning commission would recommend a manual system. D. Newman discussed the final lift of pavement. He said he would like to see a % used for the number of homes that are done, not every home - he said they would work with staff on this. He said there would be a conservation easement over the open spaces. If Minnesota Land Trust does not work, they will work with another organization. Wetland Credits: D. Newman said they plan on creating a substantial amount of new wetlands - credits can be transferred in the same watershed district - he said these credits are very valuable. J. Dillman said we are looking at putting in a small park at Cherry Hill and it is a wetland area. J. Uban said they would like to see wetlands credits go against the park fee. L. Leuer said that the park fee is not part of what the planning commission deals with. Lenny asked the engineers if their concerns had been met. D. Newman said that they did not address the engineering concerns. Marty had talked to the city engineers. M. Campion said that they are all very addressable issues. B. Thibault said there are two sections of this ordinance; one is the zoning and one is action on this preliminary plat. The public hearing was closed at 10:35 p.m. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO RECOMMEND THE ZONING OF THE PROPOSED PROPERTY TO PUD1 MOTION PASSED. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RESTORATION DEVELOPMENT. MOTION PASSED. 11 3. DISCUSSION FOR SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Paul Robinson explained the need for a special meeting of the planning commission to hold a public hearing on proposed comprehensive plan changes. The need for a special meeting is based on getting these changed to the Metropolitan Council in time for their meeting on September 13tn MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY BRUCE WORKMAN TO SET A SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2000 AT 7:30 P.M. MOTION PASSED. MOVED BY ELIZABETH WEIR AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO ADJOURN. MOTION PASSED. The meeting was adjourned at 11 p.m. Planning and Zoning Assistant Date 12