Loading...
Planning Commission - 05/26/1992 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 269 1992 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMNIISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Ken Clinton, James Hawkins, Katherine Kardell, Karen Norman, Doug Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner. STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen,'Senior Planner; Edlund, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: Clinton absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Kardell,moved, seconded by Wissner to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0- • 0. H. MEMBERS REPORTS M. MINUTES MOTION: Norman moved, seconded by Wissner to approve the Minutes of the April 27, 1992 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 6-0-0. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. DORENKEMPER ESTATES by Alex Dorenkemper. Request for PUD Concept Review on 46 acres, PUD District Review within the Rural District on 46 acres with waivers for lot size and Preliminary Plat of 46 acres into 4 lots. Location: 18925 Pioneer Trail. Continued Public Hearing. Franzen reported that this item was continued from the May 11, 1992 Planning Commission to provide an access agreeable to all 3 property owners and determine the wetland status of a portion of the property. Franzen stated that a confirmation regarding the wetland status had not been obtained at this time. The Watershed District reviewed the item and the board believed that further information was needed before a decision could be made. Franzen noted that if the road was constructed based on the current proposal it would not make any difference if a portion of the property was classified as a wetland or not. Franzen reported that Vogel had agreed to grant a private easement to Peterson. Franzen stated that Staff recommended approval of the project as proposed. Darrel Peterson, 19700 Flying Cloud Drive, stated that he and Vogel had agreed that the road should be left in the proposed position. Dorenkemper stated that he concurred with the recommendations in the Staff Report. Richard Vogel, 105 Pioneer Trail, Chanhassen, concurred with the plan as proposed. MOTION 1: Kardell moved, seconded by Hawkins to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. Norman stated that she was more comfortable approving the proposal since all the involved parties worked together to come to an agreement on access. Hawkins concurred with Norman's comment. Hawkins noted that the issue of the wetland status was still open and would like to be updated when a determination was made. He added that the Planning Commission has always been concerned that wetlands be identified and preserved. • Peterson stated that because the land had been farmed for the majority of the time he did not believe that it would be designated as a wetland. Dorenkemper stated that he would go along with whatever the Watershed District decided. MOTION 2: Kardell moved, seconded by Hawkins.to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Alex Dorenkemper for Planned Unit Development concept Review on 46 acres, based on plans dated May 8, 1992, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 22, 1992. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 3: Kardell moved, seconded by Hawkins to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Alex Dorenkemper for Planned Unit Development District Review within the Rural District with waivers, on 46 acres, based on plans dated May 8, 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 22, 1992. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 4: Kardell moved, seconded by Hawkins to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Alex Dorenkemper for Preliminary Plat of 46 acres into 4 lots, based on plans dated May 8, r 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 22, 1992. Motion carried 6-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS A. ENGINEERS REPORT - SMETANA LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATION Bob Lambert, Director of the Park & Recreation Department, introduced Mr. Dixon from the Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District. Dixon reported that the Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District had been formed in 1959 and a formal plan prepared in 1960. The unique portion of the proposal was to store the floodwater. In 1961 the plan was approved by the State. In 1985 the City of Eden Prairie had petitioned the Watershed District to complete the project, but the project was put on hold until funds became available. Dixon stated that the City would receive approximately$500,000. The Lower Valley Project will be completed in 1993 and then funds would come available again. Dixon said that the project was a multi-use project; water quality would be improved and an improvement of the recreational quality was also a part of the project. Dixon noted that a public hearing would be held by the Watershed District in the near future for public input. Sandstad asked if the plan as proposed today was similar to the plan in 1960. Dixon replied yes. • Hawkins asked if the 1960 plan was part of public record. Dixon replied yes; that public hearings were held. Norman asked how the exact water level was set. Dixon replied that the Commissioner of Natural Resources can determine the water level and would need approval from the Department of Natural Resources. Norman then asked the purpose of raising the level of the lake. Dixon replied that the level of the lake and the best time to raise the level was determined based on water quality, aesthetics, and fisheries; however, there was no specific formula used. Dixon noted that it was easier to store floodwater if the level did not fluctuate very much. Hawkins asked how much the level of sedimentation had increased since 1960. Dixon replied that there was no official record of the sedimentation in 1960. Dixon added that the level of sedimentation currently was between 20 to 30 feet. Hawkins asked what the average depth of the lake was in 1960. Dixon replied that it was not established in 1960. He stated that the current level was between 3 feet and 10 feet. Norman asked why the lake could not be dredged. Dixon replied that within a metropolitan area there was no place to put the material taken out. He added that also the water would require a treatment, which would require a large settling basin to hold the water for 24 hours. Lambert reported that the Park&Recreation Commission was concerned about unknown costs, which would be the land acquisition costs. He noted that$300,000 was budgeted, but believed that the costs could go significantly higher. Lambert stated that the DNR had not commented on it's position and believed there could be mixed feelings on the project. Lambert believed that the fisheries would approve the project and the wildlife authorities would probably deny the project. Lambert said that one possibility would be to designate the Smetana property as park land and wait for the land to develop and take a portion through the park fee process. Lambert noted that the acquisition of the park would be delayed until further information was provided. Sandstad asked when the park and boat landing had become part of the proposal. . Lambert replied that it had been incorporated in 1979. Norman asked if all of the estimates being requested cost the City money. Lambert replied that the longer the project goes on the more it will cost the City. Lambert added that if the City decided not to go forward with the project it would have to absorb 100% of the costs. Norman asked if the size of the park could be reduced. Lambert replied that the plan was based on the Red Rock Lake project and 4 acres made sense; however, if only a public access was provided 1 to 1 1/2 acres would be adequate. Wissner asked if a public access was necessary. Lambert replied that this was a public water and was a valuable resource to the City. Norman asked if there was a public access to Anderson Lake. Lambert replied no and added that the City had passed a law which prohibited a public access on Anderson Lake. Anderson Lake was preserved as a wildlife refuge. Lambert stated that Anderson Lake was probably only • 2 1/2 feet and canoeing would disturb the nesting of the wildlife. Kardell questioned the funding and what share of the cost the $314,000 was. Lambert replied that if all the estimates were accurate the City's share of the cost would be$314,000. He added that the laws were very specific on what the Watershed District would pay. Lambert believed that the acquisition costs could be way off. Norman asked what the law said about land acquisition. Lambert replied that the City could do a condemnation of the property if the project was approved. Lambert said that the City would not want to go to court for a condemnation unless as a last resort. Kardell asked if by raising the level of the lake if the City would be destroying a wetland area when the City strongly encourages preservation of wetland. Lambert replied that the ultimate wetland area would be increased. He added that more habitat would be created for the wildlife and a deeper lake was always a healthier lake. Lambert said that the DNR would tell the City if the project should be done and the appropriate level for the lake. Lambert added that it had not been determined if the gains would outweigh the losses at this time. Sandstad stated that the Egret population would be reduced because they survived in a lower water level and trees along the shoreline would be lost; however, the water quality would definitely improve. Bauer stated that he felt that he had a much better understanding of the issues and could go forward with a recommendation for approval of the project. Bauer believed that the homeowners involved deserved an answer one way or another. Bauer did not believe that the City should be scared off by a condemnation process. He believed that it was time for the project to move forward. Bauer said that the longer the City waits the higher the costs will be. Sandstad asked if there would be a speed limit set for the boats. Lambert replied that the City would recommend a 10 HP motor limit or electric motors. Kardell thanked Dixon and Lambert for coming to the meeting and providing the Planning Commission with this information. Lambert requested a recommendation for approval for the City Council. Bauer asked if Lambert was comfortable with the Park & Recreation Commission's recommendation. Lambert replied yes. MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend that the Smetana Lake outlet modification project proceed subject to negotiations with properly owners for parkland and when costs for easements and permits have been received. The Planning Commission further recommends the commissions and City Council approve the Smetana Lake outlet modification as proposed subject to obtaining the necessary permits and negotiating an agreeable funding schedule. The project • meets the flood control objectives of the District and improves the water quality of the resource, as well as providing scenic recreational and wildlife improvements to the area. Motion carried 6-0-0. B. WETLAND REPLACEMENT AND MORELAND REGULATIONS Franzen reported that the 2 memos were given out as a quick overview of the new regulations. For every acre filled an acre would need to be replaced. Franzen noted that the Planning Commission would not have to determine if there were wetlands on the property. He added that it would become increasingly difficult next year to develop in these areas. Franzen stated that several different agencies would be involved in the value issues. Sandstad asked if Riley Lake was in an area which was unsewered. Franzen replied that it used to be unsewered; however, sewer could be installed now. Hawkins wished to clarify the statement which inferred that there would not be any gain by the new regulations; however, in 1993 there would be a gain. Franzen reported that the City would be determining if the current lake designations were appropriate. C. MARSH CREEK GOLF COURSE • Franzen reported that this was simply a status memo. This item will be reviewed in a 2 meeting process. Norman stated that she was pleased that the City was open to this proposal. Franzen stated that the developer had been working with the City Staff for over a year on this project and it had been reviewed very thoroughly. Kardell requested information be provided regarding the timing of the road projects in this area. VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS VU. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 PM. Motion carried 7-0-0. • AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMNIISSION Tuesday, May 26, 1992 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Karen Norman, Jim Hawkins, Katherine Kardell, Doug Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Donald Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA U. MEMBERS REPORTS M. MINUTES IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. DORENKEMPER ESTATES by Alex Dorenkemper. Request for PUD Concept Review on 46 acres, PUD District Review within the Rural District on 46 acres with waivers for lot size and Preliminary Plat of 46 acres into 4 lots. Location: 18925 Pioneer Trail. Continued Public Hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS A. SMETANA LAKE OUTLET MODIFICATION Presentation by Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources and John Dixon, Riley Purgatory Watershed District. B. WETLAND REPLACEMENT AND SHORELAND REGULATIONS C. MARSH CREEK GOLF COURSE VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS VII. ADJOURNMENT