Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 04/23/2007 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,APRIL 23, 2007 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz, Kevin Schultz 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 Vice Chair Stoltz called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Kirk and Stoelting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Koenig, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7- 0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 9, 2007 MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Powell, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 6-0. Stoltz abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE#2007-07 - 16500 Millford Drive Request: To permit an above ground pool with a front yard setback of 10 feet from Stanley Trail. City Code requires 30'. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 23, 2007 Page 2 Terry Rudin, owner of the property, presented the proposal. He stated they have been the original owners of the property since 1991. He pointed out their house is on a corner lot and the backyard is completely surrounded by a 6 foot privacy fence and will be replaced by a total privacy fence. Because of this fence, the pool would not be seen from the street. He said they are requesting this setback so they may install an above-ground pool which would be 24' round with 54" pool walls. There will be a removable stairway attached to the above-ground pool and there will be no slides or decking. The underground mechanical line would run from the northwest side of the home to the above-ground pool. Mr. Rudin said the hardship associated with this project would be they want to protect the mature River Birch tree that is located in the backyard. The tree has a very shallow root system that can be easily damaged by soil disturbance and they do not want this to happen. Stoltz asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated there are four options on page 2 of the staff report that the Commission Members need to consider. Stoltz opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Powell stated corner lots need to be addressed in relationship to variance requests. He does support this variance request. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Koenig, to recommend approval of the Variance to permit an above ground pool with a front yard setback of 10 feet from Stanley Trail based on plans stamped dated April 13, 2007, and the staff report dated April 20, 2007. Motion carried 5-0. Rocheford and Stoltz abstained because they live in the neighborhood. VII. PLANNERS' REPORT A. Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives EAW Determination of Accuracy and Completeness Franzen reviewed the process of the public comment period and said the final step will be addressing this topic at the City Council meeting on May 1, 2007. Franzen introduced Gene Dietz, Eden Prairie Public Works Director. Dietz started out by stating that Staff requests the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending to the City Council that"The Hennepin Village Roadways Alternatives —Discretionary EAW is complete and accurate". He pointed out the EAW was not a study to determine if the area surrounding Eden Prairie Road should be developed, or not. That decision was made with the 1990 MUSA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 23, 2007 Page 3 expansion and reaffirmed with Hennepin Village decisions in 2001 and with the finalization of the Guide Plan Update in 2002. He said this area was determined to bean urbanizing area for years. Dietz pointed out in the Developer's Agreement dated February 19, 2002, that it provides for an East/West connection road. The Agreement states the roadway will be built in two segments; segment 1 with Site A and segment 2 with Site B. Construction was contingent upon improvement of Eden Prairie Road and utilities being made available. When the Planning Commission reviewed the Hennepin Village project last summer, some questions were raised during the hearing process concerning environmental impacts of constructing Prospect Road. One of the most serious questions raised that could not be answered by Staff was the possible impact this road project could have on Miller Spring. The City Council needed additional information to make a decision to proceed; hence staff recommended using the Discretionary EAW as a tool to evaluate environmental conditions within this general area. Dietz pointed out this Discretionary EAW process was a vehicle to identify significant impacts to the road alignments and if there were major impacts that could not be mitigated. If the Prospect Road alignment was discarded, this would need to be done in connection with a decision on how else to provide an urban solution for this final growth area of the community. Dietz introduced Leslie Stovring, Environmental Coordinator, who would summarize the public comment period. Leslie Stovring showed two power point presentations this evening. The power point presentation was titled; "Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives Analysis" The first presentation discussed revisions that were made to the draft EAW. The sections which were revised are as follows: • Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources • Water Quality: Surface Runoff • Parks, Recreation Area, Trails • Traffic • Cumulative Impacts • Summary of Issues A second power point presentation discussed the general comment summary. These were general comments that were not incorporated into the EAW. There were over 140 comment summaries. The summaries addressed the following topics: • Project Magnitude • Cover Types • Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources • Physical Impacts on Water Resources • Erosion and Sedimentation • Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff • Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions • Traffic PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 23, 2007 Page 4 • Odors, Noise and Dust • Nearby Resources • Cumulative Impacts • Other Potential Environmental Impacts not Mentioned in EAW She stated in summary that the comments illustrated pros and cons for each alternative. Stoltz asked Franzen if he had any comments. Franzen said he did not have any comments. Stoltz opened discussion up to the Commission Members. Pitzrick stated that in a memo from the Eden Prairie Fire Marshal to the Eden Prairie Fire Chief, he expressed concerns over not having secondary access to the already developed Site A. For safety reasons, fire and police want at least two access points to neighborhoods of such size. Pitzrick stated the five other alternatives do not come close to addressing those concerns. Dietz said an EAW does not address this type of issue but rather the issue of environmental impacts for the suggested alternatives. The alternatives look at how to provide a road system for this area. Pitzrick wanted to know how the City can consider the Alternatives 1 through 5 when they do not address the Fire Marshal's concern. Pitzrick suggested that an additional alternative would be to keep Eden Prairie Road connected to 212 and provide a secondary access to Site A to the north through a gravel service road which goes across MAC property. Fire Chief George Esbensen said for public safety reasons, two access points are preferred, and a gravel road could not provide adequate access due to the size and weight of equipment they use. Pitzrick commented in dealing with the fire issues, homes in the area could be equipped with sprinkler systems. Powell said each of these options has a negative environmental impact but the top priority should be protecting waterways. Koenig stated overall she is disappointed with the outcome and pointed out that the environmental cost with any of these alternatives is very large. Stoltz asked the Commission Members if they felt the EAW was accurate and complete. Koenig stated she would still like more information on this project and did not feel the comments were complete. Dietz stated a lot of the comments were editorial in nature and that is why the responses appear incomplete. Stovring said a lot of submittals were general comments that were informational only that could not be answered or were not within the scope of the EAW and as such a standard response that would allow that they be forwarded on to the City Council for review was developed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 23, 2007 Page 5 MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Schultz, to advise the City Council that the EAW document is accurate and complete, and that no further investigation of environmental impacts is needed. Pitzrick stated he views the EAW as irrelevant. Powell said this study will never be complete and there will always be issues in regards to the EAW and the six alternatives. Koenig stated she has lived on and off in Eden Prairie for 35 years and has felt the southwest area of Eden Prairie was suppose to be protected and now feels that is not happening. Seymour said the City is doing a very good of protecting that area and the EAW did a very good job of addressing the issues. Stoltz asked Rocheford to repeat his motion. Motion passed 5-2. B. Presentation of Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives Franzen introduced Scott Neal, City Manager for Eden Prairie, who stated Staff are present this evening as advocates for Alternative 6 from a public safety and urban standpoint. He introduced Gene Dietz, Eden Prairie Public Works Director. Dietz presented a review of the project. Gene Dietz stated out of the six alternatives presented this evening, City staff would recommend approval of Alternative 6. He pointed out the deficiencies of the southerly end of Eden Prairie Road. They are as follows: 1. Width—the current roadway is less than 25 feet in some places; the minimum urban standard is 28 feet. 2. Steep grades —grades on the southerly end exceed 14%, more than the City standards of 8 to 10 percent. 3. Horizontal curves —in one location the roadway makes nearly a 90 degree turn. Standards strive for a minimum curve that has a radius sufficient to accommodate a 30 mile per our speed limit while providing safe sight distances for traffic and pedestrians. 4. Site distances —both stopping site distance and entering site distance are deficient. 5. Landing at TH 212 — safety standards require there be a minimum of 50 to 100 feet of roadway with a grade of less then 2% to allow for safe stopping at the entrance to a high speed roadway. Dietz pointed out all of these deficiencies represent serious safety issues and only the issue of width could perhaps be addressed without major site impacts. Dietz then used the overhead projector to show where the six alternatives would be located. He stated all of the alternatives have some deficiencies in one way or another. Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 6 all have grades that slightly exceed the desirable standard of 8%; they require a 10 % grade. Dietz pointed out all of the alignments have some environmental impact ranging from major tree loss to a controversial creek crossing. The only solution that can address all of the needs for urbanization of this area and that has a feasible funding source and does not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 23, 2007 Page 6 require the possible or real displacement of residents is Alternative 6. Dietz also said Staff recommends a culvert solution be utilized to cross the creek. He stated there are desirable attributes for utilizing a bridge, but it would result in more disturbance in the creek valley. By utilizing a culvert, storm water from Site B and the roadway could be piped to the existing ponding areas on the east side of the creek, which could be enlarged to accommodate these draining needs. If a bridge were to be constructed, it would require that ponding be created on the east side of the creek in the valley which would create more of a negative impact than the culvert option. Dietz said Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the Prospect Road Alternative with a culvert crossing of Riley Creek. Fire Chief George Esbensen expressed that access to roads is the top priority and concern for fire and police vehicles. He said gravel roads would not accommodate their vehicles. Stoltz opened the meeting up for public input. Brad Pester, of 15889 Porchlight Lane, said he is appalled with this project because it considers environmental impacts as more important than safety issues for children at Prospect Road and Spring Road. He believes Dietz is setting everyone up for only one alternative and that alternative would be where the kids cross the road to go to the swimming pool. He also feels there will be a lot of accidents for people coming from the north into this area. Jack Rhode, of 15889 Porchlight Road, seconded what Brad Pester said. He reiterated that kids are always playing at the intersection of Prospect Road and Spring Road and believes it is a very dangerous intersection in regards to speeding. He believes more traffic would result in more accidents. Linda Johnson, of 10020 Dell Road, believes the residents need Prospect Road to go all the way through for fire and police access. Dennis Doyle, of 9980 Dell Road, stated he has two houses in this area. He said in looking at all of the alternatives,he believes Prospect Road answers issues in regards to getting in and out of this area. He said with the other alternatives have too many environmental impacts. He commended Staff for their work on this project. Dean Edstrom, of 10133 Eden Prairie Road, echoed what Dennis Doyle said but is also concerned about safety at Prospect Road and would like a stop light considered for this intersection. Travis Wuttke, of 16860 Flying Cloud Drive, said the safety mitigation of Prospect Road and Spring Road could best be served by a secondary road. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 23, 2007 Page 7 Michael Boland, of 13579 Berkshire Road, believes Eden Prairie Road has become an access for others, besides residents; and it has become a pass-thru road. He would like to see the speed limit lowered to 15 mph to deter this traffic. He also feels another alternative would be to have a gravel road through MAC property connecting both sites. The gravel road would provide access but deter traffic. The gravel road could potentially be rebuilt to allow safe access for heavier vehicles such as fire trucks. He would like the Commission to find a compromise this evening instead of going with Alternative 6. Sharon Mullen, of 16356 Karlstad, Kilkenny, MN, stated that she comes into Eden Prairie to get her drinking water from Miller Springs and has done so for the past 17 years. She stated she is concerned about the impact this project could have on the drinking water. Chris Kline, of 9700 Eden Prairie Road, commented that he thinks this whole area needs to be restudied and feels it is moving too fast. He stated he lives on the west side of Eden Prairie Road and asked, in regards to Prospect Road, if they were talking about a connection from Spring Road to Eden Prairie Road and then going across Eden Prairie Road 300 feet to his property. Gray answered his question by stating the developer owns a small piece of land across from Mr. Kline's property and there will be a road put in which would be 28 feet wide, which is the standard size for a road in Eden Prairie. Kline asked if the road could be a common drive versus a public road. Gray said it needs to be a public road for expansion purposes. Kline asked how wide Eden Prairie Road is. Gray said it really varies depending on what area is looked at. John Lankas, of 9752 Cupola Lane, would like the Planning Commission to reject all six alternatives. Jeff Strate, of 15021 Summerhill Drive, asked if an alternative is selected tonight, would there be a more detailed environmental study done on all of these alternatives and is it then possible it could be rejected because of the environmental impact. He said he is uncomfortable with Prospect Road being an option. Deb Peterson, of 10011 Dell Road, said under alternatives one and two, the home is on the north side; on the memo it says the multi-million dollar home is on the south side. She asked how the City came up with number of 400 homes to build in this area. Barron Johnson, of 10065 Eden Prairie Road, pointed out all of the information needed to make a decision is on the table already and believes it should be made tonight. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 23, 2007 Page 8 Robin Smith, of 9765 Sky Lane, said City Staff has done a very thorough job of analyzing all of the alternatives. There were two comments he wanted to make; the first one being that if there was a park going in on the Atkins property,he feels access to this park is critical. The second comment is that there is MAC property located north of Hennepin Village that could supply an access road. Discussion—Do we need some kind of break here from comments to discussion? Powell said he is confused about spring water quality on the Prospect Road project. Dietz said the likely watershed impact would occur with Alternative 3, 4, and 5. Koenig asked Dietz what his thoughts were on asking MAC to acquire an access road through this area. Dietz stated it would be very unlikely as it would create an issue with MAC and the FAA. Gray said that use of a safety access road on MAC property would not happen because it would create a safety issue for approach lighting in regards to aviation. Stoltz asked Dietz to explain the difference of a bridge or the use of a culvert to cross Riley Creek. Dietz stated a bridge is not recommended because there would be more environmental impacts. He stated by utilizing a culvert, storm water from Site B and the roadway can be piped to the existing ponding areas on the east side of the creek, which could be enlarged to accommodate the drainage needs of the area. If a bridge were constructed, it would require that ponding be created on the east side of the creek in the valley and that would create more of an environmental impact. Stoltz asked the Commission Members for their decision on which alternative they would like to send to the City Council. Seymour commented he felt the City has been trying to do right to preserve the property since the project originated in 2001. Seymour stated he would pick Alternative 6 to send to the City Council. Powell said he cannot support Alternative 6 because of safety and traffic issues. He believes there are other alternatives that could be addressed. Such as having sprinklers put in all the homes or work with MAC to construct an access road. He stated as a last resort he would go with Alternative 5,but he will not support Alternative 6. Koenig concurred with what Powell stated. She believes there is too much environmentally at stake with Alternative 6 and she does not support any of the options. Schultz pointed out that Alternative 6 was originally the first alternative when this project started in 2001, and the City did come up with five additional alternatives PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 23, 2007 Page 9 His recommendation is for Alternative 6. He believes it is the best route for emergency use and best alternative for environmental impact. Pitzrick stated his biggest concern was the process this project has gone through. He pointed out the City came up with five additional alternatives that did not resolve the problems associated with this project. He believes this entire process was distorted. Because he would like to preserve the uniqueness of Eden Prairie, he does not support any of the six alternatives. Rocheford stated he supports Alternative 6. Stoltz stated Alternative 6 is the best option. He commented the City did a good job moving forward on this project. The overall results from the Planning Commission are as follows: 4 members in favor of Alternative 6—Prospect Road 3 members opposed to Alternative 6 C. Boards and Commission Banquet May 9th Franzen asked that the RSVP's be returned by May 2na D. Presentation to City Council May 15th Franzen stated some of the items to talk about would be the Charter Statement, City Code, Town Center and Active Community Planning. E. May 22, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting Franzen discussed some of the items that could be on the agenda for this meeting. Since there are ten projects in at this time, this meeting may be used just for public hearing. VIII. MEMBERS' REPORT Koenig stated she stopped by the PROP Shop and said it is a wonderful shop and encourages Members to stop by. IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS X. NEW BUSINESS XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m.