Planning Commission - 04/22/1985 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, April 22, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis
Marhula, Ed Schuck, Christine Dodge, Julianne Bye
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. THE GARDEN, by Hakon and Karen Torjesen. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.16 acres and Preliminary
Plat of 10.16 acres into 25 single family lots. Location: North of
Rowland Road, West of Shady Oak Road. A continued public hearing.
• B. BFI AMENDED PUD, by Wood Lake Sanitary Service, Inc. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment for approximately 313
acres; rezoning of approximately 14.44 acres in the Rural District
to a district created specifically to allow the establishment of a
temporary landfill or rezoning to a district presently identified in
the Zoning Code by amending the permitted use section of such
district to allow the operation of a temporary landfill ; Development
Stage Planned Unit Development approval for approximately 313 acres;
and authorize an expansion of area to be used for sanitary landfill
purposes from approximately 107.1 acres to approximately 148.9
acres. Location: Southeast of Flying Cloud Drive-In Theater. A
public hearing.
C. RIDGEWOOD WEST PLAT V, by Centex Homes, Inc. Request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Amendment on 88 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Amendment on 6.03 acres, with variances; Zoning
District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 6.03 acres; and,
Preliminary Plat of 6.03 acres into 27 single family lots.
Location: Saratoga Lane and South of Wellington Drive. A public
hearing.
D. SAM'S WHOLESALE CLUB, by Wal-Mart Properties, Inc. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service for 16.17
acres, and Preliminary Plat of 16.17 acres into one lot for a
106,000 square foot building. Location: Plaza Drive and Prairie
Center Drive. A public hearing.
i
Agenda
iMonday, April 22, 1985
Page Two
E. THE OAKS BUSINESS CENTER, by Steiner Development, Inc. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 16.88 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review on 16.88 acres; Zoning District Change
from Rural to I-2 Park on 13.68 acres; and, Preliminary Plat for
three lots and one outlot. Location: North of Valley View Road and
Golden Triangle Drive. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
• MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, April 22, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye (7:50 p.m.), Virginia
Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula
MEMBERS ABSENT: Christine Dodge
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to adopt the agenda as
printed.
Motion carried--5-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to approve the minutes of
the April 8, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--3-0-2 (Marhula and Hallett abstained)
(Bye arrived at 7:50 p.m.)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. THE GARDEN, by Hakon and Karen Torjesen. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.16 acres and Preliminary
Plat of 10.16 acres into 23 single family lots. Location: North of
Rowland Road, West of Shady Oak Road. A continued public hearing.
Planner Enger explained that this item had been continued from the meeting
of April 8, 1985, at the proponent's request for modification of the plans.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 22, 1985
Mr. Hakon Torjesen, proponent, reviewed surrounding development which had
taken place recently in this area. He also reviewed the existing site
characteristics and features of the property proposed for development. Mr.
Torjesen noted that there were two existing residential structures on the
property. He stated that there were no variances being requested for this
plat.
Planner Enger reviewed the concerns of Staff as pointed out in their report
of April 19, 1985. He noted that Staff was concerned about tree loss on the
property, and that some mitigative measures have been taken by the proponent
to reduce possible tree loss on the site. Proponent had informed Staff that
tuck-under type units would be located on some of the more sensitive lots;
however, it would be up to the proponent to require such unit types as the
City was unable to place such requirements on a subdivision. Another
suggestion which had been made to the proponent was that two additional lots
be removed from the subdivision and lot lines readjusted in order to save
more trees.
Planner Enger stated that the access to Rowland Road posed sight vision
distance problems for the area. In addition, the Engineering Department had
pointed out that a study should be made of the storm sewer outlet for the
project toward the Bryant Lake Park area. This would be required prior to
City Council review of the project.
• Hallett asked if the pond on the property would be subject to the rules and
regulations of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Planner Enger
responded that the pond did not fall into any of the Department of Natural
Resources wetland categories. He added that fill would be allowed to the
point that the City and Watershed District would consider acceptable. In
most cases, the City followed the recommendations of the Watershed District
for situations such as this.
Gartner asked if removal of two more lots from the subdivision would make
filling of the pond unnecessary. Planner Enger responded that specifically,
two lots would need to be removed, and lot lines readjusted to make to two
larger lots in the vicinity of the pond in order to make fill unnecessary
for this project. He added that such a rearrangement of the lot lines may
only cut down the need for fill and that the area proposed for fill was
where proponent had indicated that soils were unsuitable for housing
construction.
Hallett asked about pedestrian trails in the area. Planner Enger stated
that there were no sidewalks planned along Rowland Road. Hallett stated
that he thought it was City policy to require residential subdivisions to
provide pedestrian trails especially for access to the major parks in the
area, in this case, Bryant Lake Regional Park. Planner Enger responded that
this was, indeed, common practice. However, the City, in this case, does
not have adequate area to include such improvements within Rowland Road.
• Mr. Ed Sieber, 11792 Dunhill Road, stated that the adjacent subdivision,
Carmel Addition, had been developed at a density of 1.3 units per acre. Mr.
Sieber stated that he felt that this was an appropriate density for the
area. In addition, the Carmel subdivision had been required to make
improvements to Rowland Road.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 22, 1985
Mr. Roger Farber, 6525 Rowland Road, expressed concern about potential tree
loss on the site. He stated that he felt the grading for the property
should be modified to require less cut in the hills on the site. Mr. Farber
stated that he felt Rowland Road was a dangerous road at this time and that
the addition of this subdivision would only increase traffic onto Rowland
Road. He suggested that, with respect to the lowland ponding area on this
site, it may be appropriate for the developer to work with his neighbors to
negotiate a swap of land in order to preserve the ponding area and not
require filling of this area for housing construction.
Mr. Cliff Bodin, 6400 Shady Oak Road, expressed concern for the impact of
development on this area. He explained the impact on his property caused by
the development on the property to the east of the Torjesen parcel. Mr.
Bodin stated that the storm water drainage for the area was a matter of
major concern to him, in particular, he noted that the smell of the water
coming from the north/northeast was putrid, in his opinion. Mr. Bodin
stated that he was also concerned about the "island" of earth which had
surfaced on his property. Planner Enger explained that in the process of
surcharging property under development in this vicinity, this "island" had
been sheared off from underground and had surfaced on Mr. Bodin's property.
The City was aware of the problem and would be taking measures to have it
corrected. Mr. Bodin added that nothing had been done yet this spring to
correct the matter.
Gartner stated that she felt the suggestion of the three property owners
working together was a good one. She also stated that she did not feel the
pond should be filled.
Torjesen stated that he was willing to work with his neighbors and return to
the Planning Commission at a later time.
Hallett stated that he felt it would be appropriate to consider dropping
some of the lots in the subdivision.
Gartner asked if the developer of the property known as Carmel had paid for
improvements to Rowland Road. Planner Enger responded that this developer
had paid for a two-inch wearing course on Rowland Road.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to continue the public
hearing on this item to the May 13, 1985, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
B. BFI AMENDED PUD, by Wood Lake Sanitary Service, Inc. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment for approximately 313
acres; rezoning of approximately 14.44 acres in the Rural District
to a district created specifically to allow the establishment of a
temporary landfill or rezoning to a district presently identified in
the Zoning Code by amending the permitted use section of such
district to allow the operation of a temporary landfill ; Development
Stage Planned Unit Development approval for approximately 313 acres;
and authorize an expansion of area to be used for sanitary landfill
purposes from approximately 107.1 acres to approximately 148.9
. Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 22, 1985
acres. Location: Southeast of Flying Cloud Drive-In Theater. A
public hearing.
Mr. Fred Hoisington, representing proponents, stated that almost exactly
three years ago, the review of the Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) project
had been at this exact same point in the City's review process. Proposed at
that time was a golf course as an end use for the site. He noted that just
prior to appearing before the Planning Commission, an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) had been required. That process for the EIS had taken the
past three years. The EIS had now been accepted, and the Metropolitan
Council was now in the process of reviewing the permit application for
continued operation of the landfill in Eden Prairie. It was expected that,
by the end of May, a response would be ready on the permit. Meanwhile, the
Pollution Control Agency permit request was also in process. Mr. Hoisington
pointed out that all of these things were being done simultaneously.
Mr. Dick Nowlin, attorney for proponents, stated that landfill law in
relation to municipal authority was confusing. He stated that he was
unaware of any municipal landfill cases in the courts; however, there were
many State Statutes controlling landfills. He stated that it was the
position of BFI to take a defensive legal posture on these issues. Mr.
Nowlin stated that, often, litigation is necessary in these situations. He
added that, so far, BFI had not found it necessary to proceed with
. litigation.
Mr. Nowlin stated that their view of the legal status of the BFI landfill
was different from that of the City Attorney's. He stated that it was their
desire to compromise and cooperate all the way through the process.
Mr. Nowlin stated that in 1982, BFI had proposed an amendment to Planned
Unit Development #70-1. That amendment requested the expansion by 70 acres
of the current landfill in Eden Prairie. Since that time, Mr. Nowlin said
that City Staff had stated that rezoning of the property was necessary. A
revised application was then prepared by proponents. Mr. Nowlin stated that
this revised application asked for amendment of the Planned Unit Development
Concept and a zoning amendment for 14 acres. He added that, also requested
was development stage authorization for the entire Planned Unit Development.
Mr. Nowlin said that proponents wanted to preserve options for the future,
maintaining there defensive posture.
Mr. Nowlin stated the City Attorney had suggested rezoning of the area
existing and the area proposed for expansion of the landfill . He stated
that the City Attorney had suggested that a Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment was also necessary. Mr. Nowlin stated that it was their position
that the City should initiate these actions for the development.
Mr. Nowlin stated that the area west of the section line, which is proposed
to be used for landfill , had been used as part of the landfill uses of this
site. In other words, he said, that area west of the section line had been
used for storage of vehicles, and other such landfill uses. Up to this
point in time, Mr. Nowlin stated that filling of the land had been
restricted to the "kettle area" but, their opinion was that the entire area
had received approval as a landfill . The current application, in their
opinion, was for expansion of the landfilling. Mr. Nowlin stated that he
Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 22, 1985
did not feel this was technically a rezoning. He stated that, like gravel
mining, expansion is necessary for a continuation of such a use.
Mr. Nowlin stated that BFI would be happy to comply with the zoning required
for the 14 acres and the rest of the area, adding that they did not agree
with the requirement but that they would comply with it. Mr. Nowlin stated
that, with respect to the status of the landfill expansion proposal, the EIS
had been accepted in December, 1984. He added that it was his understanding
that all necessary reviews of the proposal were required to be concurrent
and that the City was to process its review at the same time the Pollution
Control Agency was reviewing the permit request. He stated that the public
hearing process for the Pollution Control Agency review of the permit had
begun April 17, 1985. Mr. Nowlin stated that within the request for the
permit through the Pollution Control Agency, all operational and design
requirements had been verbalized. He stated that it noted the mitigative
measures within the EIS and included essentially all of those measures as
part of the restrictions on that permit which were found to provide an
optimum condition for expansion of the landfill . Mr. Nowlin said that the
Metropolitan Council would also be required to review and comment on the
permit that was before the Pollution Control Agency prior to the final
action by the Pollution Control Agency on the permit.
Mr. Nowlin stated that there was pending legislation before the Minnesota
• State Legislature, which would make BFI subject to a review for a
certificate of need. In addition, he stated that they were reviewing
legislation for compensatory payment to property owners for potential
devaluation of their property.
Mr. Nowlin continued his presentation with a review of the executive summary
of the Environmental Impact Statement. He stated that this expansion, if
approved for the requested amount, would be the last expansion for this
site. There would be no further application for expansion. Mr. Nowlin
stated that there has been a question as to whether the total 5,600 acre
feet of expansion would be necessary, considering advances being made in
solid waste recovery at this time.
Mr. Nowlin said that the Metropolitan Council had surmised that 8,500 acre
feet would be all that was necessary until the year 2000 for the
Metropolitan Area. He stated that even with resource recovery, there will
be need for landfilling in the future. For example, he noted that
pelletizing resulted in 30% residuals compared to landfilling the raw
materials. As another example he stated that mass burning facilities would
also result in residuals requiring landfilling, as well .
Mr. Nowlin stated that the landfill is projected to exist for another seven
years beyond today. He noted that this projection was based on current
volume as of 1984, increased at the rate of eight to ten per cent per year,
which represents the period of time during which Hennepin County predicts
that it will have fully developed resource recovery plans in operation. Mr.
• Nowlin stated that from 1985 to 1990 the landfill will be in operation
likely at its current levels, if not increased. He stated that proponents
did not have an idea of what impact resource recovery would have on the date
of closure for this, or any of the other eight landfills in the Metropolitan
Area. Mr. Nowlin noted that the Anoka landfill would be closing in less
Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 22, 1985
than one year, with the possible closure of one other landfill in Dakota
County also within a year. He stated that it is difficult to precisely
predict the date of closure for any landfill because of such factors.
Mr. Fred Hoisington, planner for proponents, reviewed the plan documents
submitted to the City. The first exhibit represented the "kettle area,"
which was in the process of being filled at this time. Mr. Hoisington
pointed out the area east of the section line which was proposed for
expansion. He also explained ownership for the surrounding properties. To
the north was property owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission within
their Zone A; to the northeast there were scattered single family homes
along Pioneer Trail and within the Hillsborough Addition; to the east was a
16-acre parcel which had been dedicated to the City by BFI for Homeward
Hills Park; to the east/southeast approximately 100 homes within the Bluffs
West 2nd Addition were shown adjacent to the site, along with a tier of lots
which had been purchased by BFI as a buffer area between the existing homes
and the landfill itself; and to the south, with severe drop shown, was the
Minnesota River Bluffs area.
Mr. Hoisington pointed out that utilities existed up to the southeast
boundary of the BFI property within the Bluffs West 2nd Addition. He then
presented the second exhibit, indicating that eventually, old Riverview Road
would be developed as a trail for part of the parks system of the City. Mr.
• Hoisington stated that, with respect to traffic, County Road #1 had recently
been realigned and was now a safer road. He added that improvements to
Highway #169 both east and west of its intersection with County Road #1 had
been made as well. Mr. Hoisington stated that Highway #169 currently
carries between 16,000 and 17,000 vehicles per day, with a capacity of
24,000 vehicles per day. He added that, when improved up to the Eden Prairie
Center area in 1990, Highway #169 would have a capacity of up to 40,000
vehicles per day with projected volumes by 1990 at 20,000 vehicles per day.
Mr. Hoisington stated that the landfill vehicles represented approximately
five per cent of the current trips along Highway #169. He stated that,
given the expansion proposed, the vehicles per day represented by the
landfill would not exceed fourteen per cent of the total traffic volumes for
Highway #169. With respect to County Road #1 traffic volumes, Mr.
Hoisington stated that currently, County Road #1 carries approximately 3,800
vehicles east of Highway #169 and approximately 4,950 vehicles west of
Highway #169, with a capacity of 5,600 vehicles per day. He added that
County Road #1 provided for approximately two per cent of the access to the
landfill .
Mr. Hoisington presented Exhibit A, representing the zoning district
boundaries of the I-2 Park operations for BFI and the area within Planned
Unit Development #70-1, approved in 1970. He said that uses approved within
the Planned Unit Development included the I-2 Park and Park Open Space
areas. Mr. Hoisington pointed out that the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the
City showed substantial area along Highway #169 designated for industrial
use and that the remainder of the area was classified as Undesignated by the
Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated that proponents were proposing to
reduce the size of the area guided as Industrial with their revised plans.
Mr. Hoisington presented Exhibit E, showing the area approved in 1970 to be
Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 22, 1985
filled to an elevation of 915 over a total of 107 acres. He then presented
Exhibit G representing drainage for the entire property. Mr. Hoisington
pointed out that this was not drainage from the landfill itself, rather it
was showing surface drainage for areas on the periphery of the area used for
fill on the site. He pointed out that the drainage system picked up water
from the surface of the landfill 's property and brought it to the point of
the pond at which point it would filter through the soils and eventually end
up in the Minnesota River. Mr. Hoisington reiterated that this was for
surface drainage only.
Exhibit F, the proposed end land use plan, consisted of four components
which Mr. Hoisington explained to be 1) Industrial use on the west; 2) Park
Open Space athletic fields in the center; 3) residential components to the
east/southeast; and 4) the Bluff area. These were proposed as the end uses
of the property. Mr. Hoisington stated that in 1982, 25 to 26 acres of the
BFI property was shown for industrial uses. He stated that this area was
currently occupied and that 33 additional acres of industrial development on
the BFI parcel, plus an additional 19 acres on the Flying Cloud Drive-In
site were proposed. This would be a total of 52 acres of additional use for
industrial along the west side of the BFI property, which was less than the
amount which was approved by a Planned Unit Development 70-1 in 1970. Mr.
Hoisington stated that, to the east, Low Density Residential, or cluster
type housing, would be the end use. He stated that the proponents would
• continue to work with Staff on this. He added that the Bluff area would be
preserved.
Regarding the athletic complex, Mr. Hoisington stated that proponents would
continue to work with Staff to determine the needs of the City for athletics
in this area after 1990. He stated that this could potentially be the third
and last major athletic complex in Eden Prairie. Mr. Hoisington said that
the northeast area of the proposed open space/athletic field area was still
under consideration and the proponents would continue to work with the City
for this final use. Regarding the center of the athletic complex, Mr.
Hoisington stated that eight softball fields were proposed, with supporting
parking area to hold from 350 to 500 cars. In addition, three to four
soccer/football fields and a hardball/baseball field were proposed. He
stated that it would be necessary to have grades of one and one-half per
cent on the fields and steeper slopes in between the feelds to bring the
site to a minimum six per cent aggregate grade. Mr. Hoisington said that
the ballfields would have a top layer of granular material, which would be
located on top of the cap of the landfill . This type of soil on top of the
landfill would allow for irrigation. Mr. Hoisington stated that an overlook
park would be located in the southeast portion of the athletic complex.
Mr. Hoisington stated that Exhibit H represented the phasing plan of the
landfill, which was slightly complicated as three events would be taking
place at one time. These events included excavation to make way for area to
be filled, actual waste filling, and manipulation of the cover material .
Mr. Hoisington stated that Phase I would include the construction of a berm
15 feet in height within four months of the extension of the permit for the
landfill . This berm would be landscaped. Also included would be extension
of Silverwood Drive. Mr. Hoisington stated that completion of Phase I of
the landfill would take place at the earliest possible date. He noted that
. Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 22, 1985
this area was within 20 feet of the proposed completed grade at this time.
He stated that closure would take place from the southeast towards the
northwest. Mr. Hoisington stated that Phase II would include construction
of the athletic complex in approximately 1992, and that Phase III would be
completion of the remainder of the proposed end uses in 1995, or thereafter.
Mr. Hoisington then presented Exhibit J. It showed areas most susceptible
to views of the landfill, which included areas in the Hillsborough
neighborhood and the Bluffs West 2nd Addition neighborhood. He pointed out
that it was not necessarily a large difference in elevations between the
neighborhoods and the landfill, but the long views from the subdivisions to
the landfill. He stated that the northeast and southeast portions of the
berm would be landscaped in critical areas to screen the view of the
subdivisions from the landfill area itself.
Mr. Hoisington returned to Exhibit F, dealing with the roadway through the
property. He pointed out that the proposed current means of access at
Silverwood Drive around the landfill would be located on the perimeter of
the athletic field complex. An alternative alignment was also shown.
Mr. Hoisington said that, as a result of the suggestion of the EIS, the 15-
foot high berm and planting materials would be constructed prior to the
final closing of the landfill operations at the facility. Proponents were
proposing a litter control fence of 15 feet in height and, if necessary, two
fences, depending on whichever would be more effective. They had purchased
40 lots in the Bluffs West 2nd Addition in an effort to create a 1,000-foot
deep separation between the expansion area and the nearest home. Mr.
Hoisington said that proponents had addressed, and were in the process of
considering, free, or protected, left-turn lanes into the landfill site,
which would reduce accidents. He added that noise mitigation measures would
be taken, which included the construction of the berm and that Pollution
Control Agency standards would be met for noise.
Planner Enger stated that, in contrast to the land use designation
represented by the proponent's plans, the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan
depicted the area in the east section of the landfill expansion area as
Public, Open Space, Flood Plain, or Park. In addition, the Comprehensive
Guide Plan of the City depicted the specific uses in the category proponents
described as "Undesignated" to include Low Density Residential. Planner
Enger stated that no abbreviations were shown on the Comprehensive Guide
Plan map for Low Density Residential because this single land use
represented the largest land use category within the City of Eden Prairie.
He stated that it should be clear that the Comprehensive Guide Plan does not
indicate that there is no plan for those areas covered by the category
entitled "Undesignated, Low Density Residential ." The Comprehensive Guide
Plan delineated these areas as future development for Low Density
Residential . Planner Enger stated that the "Undesignated" category was
intended for areas shown between different, but adjacent land uses, such as
roadways, or topographic breaks, and in no way was intended to to mean that
• the City had no plans for the final land uses of these areas of the
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Marhula asked if Staff would be preparing a report evaluating this proposal .
Planner Enger stated that none had been prepared at this time. However, the
Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 22, 1985
Planning Commission could expect one in the future.
Marhula stated that, when this project was presented to the City
approximately three years ago, the City had employed the assistance of a
consultant, who was expert in landfill operations. He asked if the City
still used this consultant. Planner Enger responded that Donohue and
Associates was still available to the City, if so desired. Marhula asked if
they had had any input into the EIS. Planner Enger responded that had.
Marhula noted that the Executive Summary from the EIS indicated that there
were five existing landfills in, or near, the Flying Cloud service area. He
asked what area the Flying Cloud service area encompassed. Mr. Nowlin
responded that the other landfills included two landfills in Dakota County,
one in Inver Grove Heights, one in Medina, and one in the Anoka-Ramsey area.
There was one located also in the Louisville area in the southwest portion
of the Metropolitan Area.
Marhula stated that in reading the Executive Summary of the EIS, several
questions were raised. He stated that decisions on the end land use were
based on the expanded landfill . He stated that he felt that the expansion
had potential for impact on the future land uses and that this was one of
the reasons he understood the EIS had been required. Marhula stated that he
felt some of these potential problems as raised in the EIS may still require
explanation. He listed areas of concern to include leachate, escape of
methane gas from the landfill, potential impact upon Grass Lake, and
mitigative measures for all of these items. Marhula questioned whether the
mitigative measures proposed would, or would not, be adequate for protection
of the City in the future. Marhula stated that he felt these would be some
of the questions he would like to have answers to prior to acting on
proponent's request.
Marhula stated that he was surprised that there was a difference of opinion
as to what was allowed within the 1970 Planned Unit Development. He stated
that he was curious about the difference between landfilling versus landfill
operations. Marhula continued stating that the 1970 plan had a grading plan
which would have identified areas to be disturbed, filled, etc., therefore,
there should be no discrepency on this matter of how much land was approved
for what uses.
Regarding end land use, Marhula stated that he questioned whether the City
would want to provide for access to a major athletic facility through a
residential neighborhood, which would be the case based on the plans shown
by the proponents.
Hallett asked why the proponents were suggesting a change from the
originally proposed golf course to an athletic field. Mr. Hoisington
responded that he felt the City had expressed a lack of interest in a golf
course in this area. Direction from the Community Services Department and
Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission was for a greater need
• for athletic fields than a golf course in this area.
Hallett stated that he had noted the parking for the proposed athletic
fields indicated for 500 cars was shown at the end of a cul-de-sac to one
side of the athletic field complex. He stated that this would result in 500
Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 22, 1985
cars going in one way and 500 cars going out the same way all at one time.
Mr. Hoisington responded that not all the vehicles would be moving at one
time. Hallett suggested that alternatives should be developed to eliminate
this possible traffic problem.
Hallett asked when this project was to have been completed. Mr. Nowlin
responded that the application submitted in 1970 authorized fill in this
"kettle area" and that it was anticipated at that time that the landfilling
would be done within approximately ten to twelve years. He stated that
there was a period of time consisting of approximately three years during
which the landfill was not used at all for lack of business. In addition,
Mr. Nowlin stated that burning of garbage was still allowed for a period of
that time that the landfill was open; therefore, the landfill was not used
as much as it is now. Mr. Nowlin continued, stating that in 1978 a
statement was made again that the landfill would be closed in two to five
years, based upon estimates made at that time. He stated that the capacity
authorized for landfilling previously is now at its peak and that the
proponents were now requesting expansion.
Hallett asked how much longer it would be before ball diamonds would show up
on the property. He noted that it would be difficult, based on the
uncertain estimates of proponents to determine when this would take place.
Mr. Hoisington responded that the closure of the landfill could take place
. as early as 1992, within five to seven years. Mr. Hoisington added that
closure of the southwest portion of the landfill was soon to be at final
grade. There would be surcharging and final grading taking place in this
area soon. Mr. Nowlin stated that the proponents would be willing to commit
to those dates of completion for the first phase. However, he stated that
the proponents would not be able to commit to an end date for the entire
site's closure.
Hallett stated that page seven of the Executive Summary pointed out that
mitigative measures would be taken to alleviate many of the matters of
concern over the landfill. He stated that he would be interested in the
Staff's opinion of these proposed measures.
Chairman Schuck stated that he, too, felt Staff should have an opportunity
to provide the Planning Commisiion with recommendations regarding the
proposed mitigative measures. He added that he felt it was proponent's
responsibility to cut down some of the options for these mitigative
measures. Chairman Schuck added that he felt it was not mainly incumbent
upon Staff to sort out the alternatives and make these decisions, but that
the proponents needed to provide more definitive information regarding the
mitigative measures.
Gartner stated that she was interested in the liability question for the
landfill. She asked if a bond currently posted for the closure of the
landfill was adequate. She asked proponents directly what would happen when
they moved out of the landfill and whether they would be required to
continue to carry insurance for any potential problems. Mr. Nowlin
responded that they would be required to continue insurance. He stated that
BFI would continue to own the land and be exposed to liability and that they
would continue to insure the property. Mr. Nowlin stated that the City
would also be covered under the Minnesota State Super Fund laws, adding that
Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 22, 1985
the Minnesota Legislature was currently dealing with such landfill laws. He
stated that the Legislature was doing everything it could to make sure there
was a "deep pocket" for liability protection.
Marhula stated that he felt the question of a time frame based upon the time
when the permit was first issued was of great importance. He asked if a
certain volume of acre-feet of disposal on this site had been approved
initially. Mr. Nowlin responded that this was not the case and, in fact,
this was the area of discrepancy--quantity of landfill . Mr. Nowlin stated
that, when the Pollution Control Agency initially issued permits, nothing
had ever been stated about capacity in acre-feet. He stated that it was
typical to have landfilling authorized according to a certain location only.
Mr. Nowlin continued stating that Hanson and Greely, the engineers employed
by BFI in 1970, had made a calculation as to what it would take to fill the
"kettle area." He stated that no square footage, or number of acre feet had
been established. Mr. Nowlin stated that this was the best concept of "good
engineering" at that time to submit plans and cross-sections, only.
Marhula asked what specifically had precipitated application to the
Pollution Control Agency three years ago for expansion and continuation of
the operation of the landfill. Mr. Nowlin responded that it was
specifically the question of what was the "permitted capacity" at that time.
He stated that in discussions with the Pollution Control Agency, it had been
determined that there was uncertainty as to the capacity and the potential
• impact on the future operation of the landfill . The Pollution Control
Agency determined that the landfill had a capacity of 5,200-acre feet based
upon the 1970 Hanson-Greely report, in addition to use of the rim area for
fill .
Marhula stated that it was his impression that in fact the amount of
material that was placed in the landfill was placed in excess of what was
permitted and that BFI was operating in violation for some period of time.
Mr. Nowlin responded that the Pollution Control Agency did not allow
operation without a permit, and that the Pollution Control Agency did not
have finite numbers for capacity from 1972 to 1982.
Johannes stated that he took exception to Mr. Nowlin's comments in terms of
closing dates. He stated that up until less than one year before the 1982
application for Planned Unit Development amendment, the closing date had
been proposed for 1982. Johannes stated that he felt that the "kettle area"
had been expanded by BFI beyond its original size.
Johannes questioned why the City, other than for legal reasons, was being
required to review this plan at this time. He pointed out that the
Metropolitan Council was set to rule on whether the plan was acceptable, or
not, in the manner proposed. Johannes added that, in terms of overall end
use, questions regarding this should be addressed to the Parks, Recreation,
and Natural Resources Commission and its deal with that Commission's
recommendations regarding the needs of the City in the future. Planner
• Enger stated that the end land use plan with a primary component athletic
field was one of those proposals which should be reviewed at the same time
by the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, or with dialogue
back and forth between the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources
Commission and the Planning Commission. He stated that it may be valuable
to obtain their recommendations in tandem with those of the Planning
Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 22, 1985
Mr. Rick Rosow from the City Attorney's office, in response to why the City
was looking at this now, responded that State law required that any agency
identified within the EIS as one needing to make a decision on the project
must make final those decisions for all permits and actions required by a
certain time. He stated that the City had been identified as an agency
needing to make a decision on this matter.
Johannes stated that he felt it was possible that the Metropolitan Council
could turn down the proposal of BFI and that there were likely higher and
better uses for this site. Planner Enger stated that the Pollution Control
Agency, in the draft permit, maintained that it has final authority over the
end uses because of its concern about the "cap" of the landfill. The
Pollution Control Agency did not want to have an increase in the filtration
of water through this cap. A golf course was no longer proposed because a
golf course requires watering and watering causes infiltration and potential
leachate problems.
Mr. Nowlin stated that the Metropolitan Council would have its decision by
May 30, 1985. He stated that one of the reasons the proponents were before
the Commission was to begin the long process of review required by the EIS.
Johannes noted that the surcharging was proposed at a final elevation of
923. He asked what elevation the property would be after the surcharge had
settled. Mr. Nowlin responded that it would be necessary to have an
• engineer determine this. He stated that it would depend upon what was being
surcharged and what materials were used for surcharging. Johannes stated
that he felt this information would be important to the Planning
Commission's review of this project. He added that he felt more of this
type of information was necessary before the Planning Commission could make
a recommendation. Johannes added that he felt it would be hard to predict
the Parks and Recreation needs of the City for 1992, if the closure date of
the landfill would be postponed. He stated that he agreed with the concern
regarding liability and wanted more information on the compensation issue
and laws covering this issue.
Johannes stated that he felt there needed to be a greater "comfort level" on
the part of the City from the standpoint of when BFI would leave the
landfill and the City would be left with the problems. He noted that it
appeared that the road was located through more stable soils. He questioned
whether the parking area should also be located on stable soils and asked
for more information about maintenance of the athletic field area. Mr.
Hoisington responded that there would be a gravel road through the parking
lots for some time. If the road were to be relocated to the alternative
alignment, Mr. Hoisington stated that it would need to be gravel as well .
He added that sooner or later, the entire area would be able to be surfaced.
Hallett asked about the indemnity payment referred to for homeowners whose
value had decreased because of the landfill . Mr. Nowlin stated that the
Minnesota Legislature was dealing with this issue at this time. He added
• that BFI was not proposing to do this at this time.
Mr. Dan Malone, 12139 Chesholm, Blaine, stated that he appreciated the
concerns of the Commission and had several others including: land uses which
were in contrast to City plans; noise generated from the landfill , which, in
Planning Commission Minutes 13 April 22, 1985
his opinion, would likely be worse as the landfill operations came closer
and closer to the residential areas; the closing date of the entire
landfill, which, according to current patterns, may end up being after the
turn of the century.
Mr. William Henak, 12235 Oxboro Drive, stated that he felt the fill proposal
should be more complete, given the time element. He asked what was
happening with the water that would be draining through the landfill itself
and water which fell on the landfill areas during open periods prior to
daily coverage of the garbage. Mr. Hanek stated that just because the
mitigative measures had been proposed, there were no guarantees that all
potential health problems had been solved. He asked if there would be a
problem from such things as lighting standards puncturing the cap of the
landfill and allowing the water to drain through to the landfilled area
given the fact that the watering of golf courses had been considered
inappropriate landfill use based on water filtration. Mr. Hanek also
questioned how the City could determine the amount of the bond would be
adequate to support any problems from the landfill in the future. He asked
what would happen if BFI filed bankruptcy, for example.
Mr. John Klein, 1495 Lone Oak Road, Eagan, stated that the Flying Cloud
Drive-In was in the process of litigation with BFI at this time. He stated
that he had recently read that athletic fields as an end use for landfill
• property were being abandoned because of health problems. He stated that he
felt the City should look into this matter and should have a back-up plan
available for any health related problems resulting from the landfilling of
this area. He added that he felt just because the EIS had been completed,
it should not be assumed that the problems for this type of project were
over.
Mr. Hoisington stated that proponents would be willing to hold special
meetings if that would help.
Chairman Schuck stated that he felt strongly that there was need for more
detailed information on the project.
Johannes asked if it would be possible for a scale model of the landfill to
be prepared. In addition, Johannes requested that proponents stake the
proposed vertical and horizontal boundaries of the project on the site,
itself, to give the residents a better idea of their plans. He stated that
often, when such models were presented, projects were more easily
understood.
Chairman Schuck stated that he felt it was necessary for not only the City,
but especially the proponents to work toward making sense out of this
request. He told proponents that they should take a leadership position in
providing adequate information to Commission for review.
Hallett stated that he felt a tighter guarantee of the ending or closure
• date of the landfill would be beneficial.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Gartner, to continue this item to
Planning Commission Minutes 14 April 22, 1985
i
the May 28, 1985, Special Meeting of the Planning Commission.
Motion carried--6-0-0
C. RIDGEWOOD WEST PLAT V, by Centex Homes, Inc. Request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Amendment on 88 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Amendment on 6.03 acres, with variances; Zoning
District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 6.03 acres; and,
Preliminary Plat of 6.03 acres into 27 single family lots.
Location: Saratoga Lane and South of Wellington Drive. A public
hearing.
Mr. Tom Boyce, proponent, reviewed the proposed plan with the Commission.
He stated that they were proposing 27 single family cluster units in an area
currently designated for 64 condominium units. He added that they would be
preparing an overall development plan, keying specific unit types to
specific lots. Also, they would prepare an overall site development plan,
indicating the location of walkways, fencing, mail boxes, plant materials,
etc., similar to other completed phases of the development.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of April 19, 1985, evaluating the request.
• Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 2•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Centex Homes for Planned unit Development
Concept Amendment on 88 acres, for Ridgewood West Plat V, based on written
materials dated March, 1985, plans dated April 3, 1985, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 19, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Centex Homes for Ridgewood West Plat V
for Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, and Zoning
District Amendment from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 for 6.03 acres, based on written
. materials dated March, 1985, plans dated April 3, 1985, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 19, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
Planning Commission Minutes 15 April 22, 1985
•
MOTION 4•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Centex Homes for Ridgewood West Plat V
for Preliminary Plat of 6.03 acres into 27 single family lots, based on
written materials dated March, 1985, plans dated April 3, 1985, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 19, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
D. SAM'S WHOLESALE CLUB, by Wal-Mart Properties, Inc. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service for 16.17
acres, and Preliminary Plat of 16.17 acres into one lot for a
106,000 square foot building. Location: Plaza Drive and Prairie
Center Drive. A public hearing.
Representatives of Wal-Mart Properties, Inc., called to inform Staff that
they would like to be removed from the agenda for this meeting. They asked
to have the item postponed to the following meeting of the Commission.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to continue the public hearing
• to the May 13, 1985, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried--6-0-0
E. THE OAKS BUSINESS CENTER, by Steiner Development, Inc. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 16.88 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review on 16.88 acres; Zoning District Change
from Rural to I-2 Park on 13.68 acres; and, Preliminary Plat for
three lots and one outlot. Location: North of Valley View Road and
Golden Triangle Drive. A public hearing.
Mr. Greg Dumonceaux, architect for proponent, reviewed the site features and
characteristics of the proposed development plan with the Commission. He
explained that the exterior perimeter of the structures would be where the
office uses would be located within the project.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report dated April 19, 1985, with the Commission. He stated that there had
been a request received from a property owner in the area, whose project
name was "Oak Park Business Center," to have proponents change the name of
their project, as it was so similar to that of the existing project.
Marhula asked if the area along the west side of the site was a designated
wetland by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Planner Enger
responded that it was not. Marhula asked if the floor area ratio
calculation included proposed Outlot A in the calculation. Planner Franzen
• stated that Outlot A was not included.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
Planning Commission Minutes 16 April 22, 1985
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Gartner, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Steiner Development, Inc., for Planned
Unit Development Concept on 16.88 acres for the Oaks Business Center, based
on written materials and plans dated April 3, 1985, revised plans dated
April 17, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
April 19, 1985.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Steiner Development, Inc., for Planned
Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to I-
• 2 Park for 13.68 acres for the Oaks Business Center, based on written
materials and plans dated April 3, 1985, revised plans dated April 17, 1985,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 19, 1985.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 4•
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Steiner Development, Inc., for
Preliminary Plat of 16.88 acres for three lots and one outlot for the Oaks
Business Center, based on written materials and plans dated April 3, 1985,
revised plans dated April 17, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated April 19, 1985.
Motion carried--6-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
Ad Hoc Committee on Referendum--City Needs
Hallett reported the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee regarding
potential City needs to be included in a possible referendum before the
voters soon. He stated that a City Hall and a fire station in the Preserve
area were among the priorities for the City. Park development needs
included the areas around Round Lake and Mitchell Lake, as well as another
sheet of ice at the Community Center. School District needs included
Planning Commission Minutes 17 April 22, 1985
another elementary school and another middle school building. The total
amount of money anticipated to cover these needs was approximately $10-
12,000,000.
Hallett stated that it was the conclusion of the committee that the average
size of a community in Minnesota was one with a population of 2,500. Based
on Eden Prairie's growth patterns, the City was adding approximately that
many people to the City each year, and their needs would have to be met.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Johannes, seconded by Marhula. Chairman
Schuck adjourned the meeting at 12:30 a.m.