Planning Commission - 05/28/1985 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 28, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia
Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
H. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. 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 used 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. A continued public hearing.
B. TECHNOLOGY PARK, by Technology Park Associates. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial/High Density
Residential to Office on 19.65 acres, Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 68.36 acres for Office, Office/Showroom uses, and
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Review on 68.36 acres. A
continued public hearing.
C. TECH IV, by Technology Park Associates. Request for Zoning District
Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 4.52 acres and Preliminary Plat of
4.52 acres into one lot for construction of a 58,600 square foot
office/warehouse. A public hearing.
D. HERZOG ADDITION, by K.P. Properties. Request for Zoning District
Change from R -22 to R1-13.5 on 5.35 acres, and Preliminary Plat of
5.35 acres into ten single family lots. A public hearing.
E. PARKWAY APARTMENTS, by Bar-Ett Construction Company. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 35.9 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 35.9 acres into five lots, and Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Review, for construction of five, 73-unit
apartment buildings. A public hearing.
Agenda
Tuesday, May 28, 1985
Page Two
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 28, 1985
Special Meeting
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Robert
Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula (9:30 p.m.)
MEMBER ABSENT: Virginia Gartner
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 Johannes, seconded by Dodge, to adopt the agenda as
printed.
Motion carried--6-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. 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 used 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. A continued public hearing.
Mr. Fred Hoisington, representing proponents, stated that proponents had
been working with the Staff since the last Planning Commission meeting in
order to determine an appropriate land use plan as an end use for the
landfill area. He stated that the questions which had been raised by the
audience at the meeting of May 13, 1985, had been answered in written form
and submitted to Staff after that meeting. Mr. Hoisington stated that the
plan now showed a recreation complex as the center of the end use plan.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 May 28, 1985
Mr. Hoisington noted that one of the concerns at the previous meeting had
been traffic from the recreation area into the residential areas. Also,
traffic with only one way in, or out, was a matter of concern. He pointed
out that the road system had been changed and explained the alternative
routings available for vehicles for this revised recreation plan.
There would be two access points according to Mr. Hoisington. One would be
at County Road #1, and the second would be at Homeward Hills Road, via
Silverwood Drive. He stated that the trip generation numbers for Homeward
Hills Road showed that it would carry at least 700 trips per day. A third
access had also been provided on the plan, which showed a right-in/right-out
access only at Highway #169. Mr. Hoisington stated that the easterly
access/egress to Homeward Hills Road also provided a secondary access for
the residential neighborhood for exiting the neighborhood. He pointed out
that Silverwood Drive would not be connected to Highway #169. Another
change was that the parking lot was now located further to the north,
towards the north-center of the site. Mr. Hoisington stated that there
would be no change in the phasing plan proposed originally. Phase I would
be completed before 1988, which would include the berming, sliding hill, and
overlook park. In the southwest, four ball diamonds would be built by 1992.
Phase III would take place after 1992. There was no set date, or time
period, for completion of Phase III or the remaining recreation
improvements.
Mr. Hoisington stated that another question raised at the previous meeting
was whether the limited temporary expansion was a compatible use with the
surrounding existing uses. He stated that it was proponents opinion that it
was compatible. He stated that he understood that it was Staff's opinion
that the landfill itself was an industrial use. Mr. Hoisington stated that
another, equally valid, conclusion was that the landfill was also a Public
use in terms of its need to fulfill the public's interest in providing a
location for landfill of garbage. Mr. Hoisington pointed out that many
communities owned their own landfills. In these cases, they were operated
as a community facility, much as the water plant, or fire station, of most
communities. He stated that landfills were extensive land uses as opposed
to intensive land uses. He stated that they were temporary uses but not a
typical industrial use. Mr. Hoisington continued by stating that the
airport site, in close proximity to the landfill, operated as commercial,
industrial, and office uses in addition to its public use. In this regard,
Mr. Hoisington stated that the landfill was a transitional use to those uses
existing to the north, south, and west.
Mr. Hoisington stated that, in the opinion of proponents, the landfill use
was compatible with the residential area to the east as compared to other
industrial areas which are also adjacent to other residential areas in the
community and in surrounding communities. He stated that the landfill was
not unlike other industrial uses in that it would not generate traffic
through the residential area, nor did it now do so. Mr. Hoisington added
that the area would be completely screened from the residential area, and
from noise that is now emitted by the landfill activities, by the use of
screening and a buffer and the construction of the proposed 15-foot high
berm along the east boundary of the property. Mr. Hoisington reiterated
that the use was temporary. He stated that the closest residential
structure occupied was 1,000 feet away from the landfill and that this was a
rJ'
Planning Commission Minutes 3 May'28, 1985
greater distance than any other residential use adjacent to another
industrial use in the City of Eden Prairie.
Mr. Hoisington stated that the question had been raised as to whether the
limited and temporary expansion of the landfill was incompatible with the
Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City of Eden Prairie. He stated that, until
the mid 1970's, there was no question about this. The use had been
considered compatible with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Now, the use had
been determined to be incompatible with the Comprehensive . Guide Plan. Mr.
Hoisington pointed out that industrial uses were still proposed' along the
west portion of the existing landfill property. He stated that this was
substantially less industrial than was proposed in the City's Comprehensive
Guide Plan and, therefore, this portion of the landfill end use could be
considered consistent in that respect with the City's Comprehensive Guide
Plan.
Towards the center of the landfill site, Mr. Hoisington pointed out that the
Comprehensive Guide Plan had designated a public use of the property. He
stated that because of the public importance and need for the landfills, the
landfill could be considered compatible with needs and considered a public
use.
Mr. Hoisington stated that another question had been raised regarding the
advisability of construction of a recreation facility on top of a landfill .
He stated that this could be, and had been, done in other communities. Mr.
• Hoisington said that there were numerous such successful projects throughout
the country and gave examples of those in Omaha, Nebraska; Inglewood,
California; Belview, Washington; and, Mountview, California. He stated that
the key to the success of these recreation areas as end uses was the
surcharging operation after closure of the landfills. If the surcharging
was done properly, he said that it would be possible to avoid and prevent
uneven settling of the property.
Mr. Hoisington stated that a question had been raised as to whether the
Pollution Control Agency of the State of Minnesota (PCA) would approve such
an end use for this property. He stated that in all of the discussi,qns with
PCA, the PCA staff had indicated that they would approve such an end use.
Mr. Hoisington stated that the PCA requirements regarding grading, drainage,
and other methods to avoid infiltration were very strict. In addition,
things such as lighting fixtures, which would normally puncture the cap,
needed to be constructed in accordance with very strict PCA requirements so
as not to puncture the cap.
Mr. Hoisington stated that, based on the information given, and information
previously presented, the proposed landfill expansion was compatible with
land uses in the area in the same way that other industrial facilities were
compatible with residential areas. He stated that it was proponents'
opinion that the proposed end use plan was consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Guide Plan, and that the recreation facility could be approved
on this site as end use by the PCA.
• Mr. Hoisington stated that proponents had endeavored to meet the needs of
the City as well, and questioned whether the City, if they did not approve
the proposed end land use, knew what they wanted for the end land use of
Planning Commission Minutes 4 May 28, 1985
this site. He stated that if the City wanted to leave the site in a
completely natural setting, such as with prairie grasses, then proponents
were willing to do so.
Mr. Hoisington stated that it was proponents opinion that the difficulty
with the Staff recommendation from their report of May 23, 1985, was that it
recommended denial of an end use plan which had been worked out with members
of the City Staff and which was consistent with the neighborhood. He stated
that proponents conclusions, based on the Staff recommendation, were that
the City perhaps did not want an end use, or that they were unsure as to the
final end use necessary for this property.
Mr. Dick Nowlin, attorney for proponents, presented the Commission with a
letter explaining that proponents had apparently misunderstood the exact
nature of the application required to initiate a proper zoning amendment to
allow the landfill expansion requested. The letter was formally requesting
the City to "consider the creation by zoning amendment of a new temporary
sanitary landfill district" that would apply to the 14.44 acres lying east
of the section line between Sections 26 and 27 and to that area lying east
of the current boundary of the waste deposit and west of the section line
between Sections 26 and 27, which was also proposed for inclusion in the
expansion area for the landfill and not currently used for fill (a total of
approximately 40+ acres) . The letter continued by stating that proponents
had understood from the Staff Report that their application was not
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. Mr. Nowlin pointed out
in the letter that, while the proponents disagreed with this position
regarding the consistency with the Comprehensive Guide Plan, proponents did
desire to cooperate with the City to secure whatever Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment was deemed necessary by the City to allow use of the property
consistent with the proponents' current application. The letter then asked
the Commission and City Staff for advice as to the proper application to be
made to meet the City's requirements, while continuing to maintain that the
amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan was not needed.
Mr. Nowlin reviewed the status of the permitting process at this time. He
stated that proponents were working with the legislature, Metropolitan
Council and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) on these matters.
Pending legislation included bills involving the term of the landfill, its
capacity, and possible end use plans for the site. In addition, bills
involving compensation mechanisms for adjoining property owners were& also
being considered. Mr. Nowlin stated that the proponents definitely remained
willing to work toward resolution of these issues. Proponents were aware of
legislation which would terminate the landfill within twelve years.
Regarding the Metropolitan Council, Mr. Nowlin stated that their Draft Staff
Report had been prepared and reviewed by the proponents. The Metropolitan
Council 's staff was recommending approval of the application, subject to
several additional conditions beyond the existing controls. These included:
a more permanent temporary cover for the open areas of the fill in order to
achieve minimization of dust, etc., and to minimize the amount of water from
precipitation which would infiltrate the raw fill area, thereby causing
leachate production; greater cooperation with the wildlife management
agencies, in particular with respect to the Grass Lake area; and
effectuation of several monitoring techniques. He added that the Solid
Planning Commission Minutes 5 May 28, 1985
Waste Advisory Committee and the Environmental Resources Committee would be
reviewing the item soon, as well .
With respect to the application for development before the Commission, Mr.
Nowlin stated that the City Attorney's office had informed the proponents
that the application should be for more than the 14+ acre parcel and that
the application should have included a request for a temporary landfill
district over the entire landfill area. Mr. Nowlin stated that proponents
felt it was in the City's best interest to formulate this Zoning District
Amendment and to initiate the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the
property.
Mr. Nowlin stated that the City's Staff Report discussed the need for a
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment in detail . He stated that proponents'
opinion was that the use was consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan
over the long term. He added that proponents did want to cooperate with the
City and, therefore, were asking at this time to be informed as to what
would be necessary to make a proper application in order that the proponents
could follow through with the proper documentation. Mr. Nowlin stated that
proponents would also like to know exactly what land area was considered
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan as they were unsure. Mr.
Nowlin pointed out that the City also had statutory authority to initiate
zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan changes, if they so desired.
Regarding the Staff Report by the City, Mr. Nowlin stated there were many
• references to the need for additional information regarding the end use, in
particular. Also, there were statements about the need for more information
regarding the compaction of the fill for purposes of locating a road' over
the filled areas. There were also questions regarding the compatibility of
the expansion with Metropolitan Council policies and with Hennepin County
solid waste needs for the immediate future. Mr. Nowlin stated that, per the
letter submitted at the meeting this evening, proponents were requesting the
opportunity to respond to these requests for additional information.
With respect to the Staff Report of the City in general, Mr. Nowlin stated
the proponents felt the report focused, in part, on the concerns listed in
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) . He stated that these concerns,
according to the Draft Permit by the PCA, would be resolved based upon the
conditions of that permit for the expansion. For example, he noted that
there were concerns listed in the Staff Report with respect to leachate
generation. Mr. Nowlin pointed out that the EIS did not assume development
and construction of a liner and impervious cover to control the leachate
generation. He stated that these, and other provisions, were now part of
the Draft Permit by the PCA for the proposed expansion of the landfill .
Mr. Nowlin noted that the City's Staff Report seemed to allege that the
landfill use was incompatible with the airport uses. He stated that the
Metropolitan Council was currently reviewing this matter, and that
proponents' indications were that the Metropolitan Council would pass
favorably on the matter, with the necessary mitigative measures in place.
• Mr. Nowlin stated that the suggestion that the landfill expansion not be
allowed within 1,000 ft. of the existing residential area was inconsistent
with PCA regulations. He stated that this was an old PCA regulation that
Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 28, 1985
could be waived by the Director of the PCA and which did not necessarily
relate to this system, which would be one that would have mitigative
measures such as a leachate collection system, methane barrier, etc.
Mr. Nowlin stated that he did not believe that the statement in the City's
Staff Report regarding expansion of the landfill causing an increase in
methane production was accurate based on what the PCA required of the
landfill operation for by the Draft Permit.
Planner Enger began his review of the City's Staff Report regarding the
proposed expansion of the landfill . He reviewed the history of the landfill
in Eden Prairie, from its original application in 1969, to the present,
including previous development assumptions made by the City in the early
1970's which had changed due to outside influences since the time of the
original application. For example, the alignment of Highway #169 had been
located further to the east. This was no longer the case.
Planner Enger reviewed assumptions which had been made by the City at the
time of the original application based upon materials and representations
then made by the proponents. These assumptions included such information
as:
The fill area would be limited to the large depression in the land
form, referred to as the "kettle," which was approximately 80-90
acres and which was estimated to be able to hold approximately 3,100
acre feet of fill .
The concept of a "sanitary landfill" in this location, with the
strong ground water flow to the south which would therefore cause
any infiltration from the landfill to flow through hundreds of feet
of subsoil before entering ground water and then finally entering
the Minnesota River, was based upon the most sound information
available at that time regarding siting of landfills.
Life expectancy of the landfill at that time was eight to twelve
years, with a top elevation of 890-900 ft.
The landfill operation at that time was allowed within the Rural
District as a "Quasi-Public" use.
Little, if any, impact was expected for the proposed adjacent
residential areas to the east-southeast
The City was relying on the expertise of other agencies (i .e.
Hennepin County and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) for
monitoring of the landfill operations.
Planner Enger continued with the history of the landfill, stating that in
1973, a portion of the property, which was to house the offices and
maintenance shop for the landfill, was rezoned from Rural to I-2 Park. This
totalled approximately twelve acres. In 1978, the City received an
• application for development of the property known as Bluffs West 2nd
Addition, totalling approximately 112 acres, for 207 single family homes.
This proposed residential development adjoined the landfill property on
Planning Commission Minutes 7 May 28, 1985
east. Planner Enger reported that there had been no indication at that time
that excavation had taken place beyond the 1970 fill limits, and further,
there had been no indication of an intent to expand.
In 1979, the City received an application for development of property to be
known as Bluffs West 3rd Addition. At that time, it was estimated by the
PCA and proponents that the landfill would be closed within 32 to 52 years,
slightly earlier that previous projections. The City had contacted various
agencies to determine what a "safe distance" away from a landfill would be
for residential uses. Responses were, in general, to maximize the distance
between the landfill use and any residential uses. Planner Enger stated
that the City had recommended that this development not take place until
such time as the end uses were known and because the landfill would extend
beyond the development of the residential development proposed.
Planner Enger stated that, in 1982, the development of the B1uffS West 3rd
Addition did not ultimately proceed as early in the year, the proponents
applied for amendment of the PUD Concept Plan to include, in part,
authorization for expansion of the area to be used for sanitary landfill .
An end use of a golf course was also proposed at that time. Subsequently,
and, as a result of the request for expansion of the landfill ,
theEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for the use. The EIS
was completed in December, 1984, placing the proponents before the City with
their current requests.
City Attorney Rick Rosow responded to points raised by Mr. Nowlin regarding
the application submitted to the City. He stated that the City Attorney's
office had responded immediately, on March 29, 1985, by letter to the first
application submitted by the proponents, explaining the discrepancies in the
requests of the City by the proponents and explaining what would be
necessary to correct the situation. City Attorney Rosow stated that the
letter was clear as to the advice that the City Attorney's office would be
giving the Planning Commission and City Council regarding this matter.
City Attorney Rosow stated that it was the City Attorney's opinion that
everything other than the original "kettle" area, required amendment.
With respect to the what was granted by Planned Unit Development (PUD) 70-1,
City Attorney Rosow stated that it should be clear that PUD 70-1 did not
grant zoning to the property. It was approved by the City Council in the
form of a resolution, not an ordinance granting zoning of the property. PUD
70-1 approved the Planned Unit Development Concept for the property, only.
At that time, proponents, based on the materials presented, sought approval
for 90 acres of fill within the "kettle" area. Other future uses of the
site, i.e. the proposed golf course end use, were also approved. City
Attorney Rosow reiterated that the only property approved for landfilling
was the 90-acre "kettle" area. He stated that all other proposed
landfilling would require rezoning, including any vertical and horizontal
expansion proposed.
Regarding the Comprehensive Guide Plan, City Attorney Rosow stated that the
landfill was proposed on land designated for Industrial use by the
Comprehensive Guide Plan and was allowed as a Quasi-Public use, which was a
Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 28, 1985
permitted use in the Rural District per the Zoning Ordinance. The landfill
expansion was currently being proposed over an area designated for Public
Open Space/Park and Low Density Residential per the Comprehensive Guide
Plan. Further, it was no longer an allowed use in a Rural District
according to the Zoning Code.
City Attorney Rosow stated that the proponents speak of the landfill as a
temporary use. He stated that fifteen years could not be considered
temporary, nor could the expansion proposed be considered temporary in terms
of a use of the property.
Regarding the airport, City Attorney Rosow stated that the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) had regulations which prohibited landfilling within
1,000 feet of an airport. He stated that even though the FAA had been
impressed with the operation of the landfill in this regard, the fact
remained that this was a regulation of another agency which the City could
consider in its decision. City Attorney Rosow referred to the bird strikes
which had taken place in the vicinity of Flying Cloud Airport, causing
danger to the aircraft using the airport.
City Attorney Rosow stated that even if the PCA would recommend approval of
the proposed expansion of the landfill, the City was under no obligation to
do so, if the City felt that the use proposed was not in compliance with
City requirements.
City Attorney Rosow explained that the Metropolitan Council Policy Plan
regarding solid waste management had set certain goals for the region
involving solid waste management. He stated that proposed expansion of the
landfill would be inconsistent with the Policy Plan's stated needs for the
region. He continued saying that the Policy Plan stated that Hennepin
County would need no new space until the year 1991. After that time, only
space for processed waste would be necessary. City Attorney Rosow pointed
out that the staff report from the Metropolitan Council ran contrary to the
Policy Plan for solid waste management, which stated that the Metropolitan
Council should avoid implementation of any new capacity which would prevent
implementation of solid waste management for the region.
Planner Enger continued with review of the City's Staff Report and findings
on the proposal . He stated that the regulations of the PCA required a 5-6%
slope for the cap of the landfill to prevent infiltration. He pointed out
that the Draft Permit of the PCA did not state that it would be acceptable
to have an average 5-6% slope for the cap, yet it was still unclear as to
what proponents were proposing as a final elevation for the cap.
Planner Enger stated that the final cap of the landfill presented two major
concerns to the City:
1. Effectiveness in the prevention of infiltration of water,
and, therefore, leachate generation; and,
• 2. PCA regulations preclude end uses which require irrigation,
which would be the case if ball fields are the end use of
the property.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 28, 1985
Planner Enger stated that proponents may have made a proposal for an end use
that was thought to be feasible; however, if it is not feasible, the City
must be aware of this because of its own needs, not only for recreation
facilities, but as to what uses would be acceptable as end uses of such a
site. He stated that the Staff was not comfortable approving an end use and
waiting to see if the PCA would later determine whether it was feasible, or
not. The currently proposed end use for the site showed a 2% slope and
required irrigation, both conditions which were in conflict with the Draft
Permit.
Planner Enger stated that the other sites noted by Mr. Hoisington earlier in
the proponents' presentation were not like the site in Eden Prairie. For
example, the Omaha site, which had been visited by City Staff, supported a
landfill which was approximately 40-50 feet deep. The Eden Prairie landfill
was already 100 feet deep. This made it difficult for the City to determine
when the land would be available for the athletic fields, if ever, due to
concerns about settling of the fill which would take place over time.
Planner Enger stated that the City had requested additional information from
the proponents in this regard, but had not yet received it. If additional
information was to be provided, Staff would need time to evaluate that
information and would require an extension of time from the proponents to do
so. (Proponents, because of legislative requirement, had requested the City
• to act by July 2, 1985 on the current request.)
Planner Enger pointed out that use of the property for potential industrial
structures was also a matter of concern due to the potential for settling of
the fill area, and, therefore, potential settling of the structures.
Another matter of concern involving settling of the fill involved the
location of the scenic drive proposed along the river bluff. If the fill
settled, such a road would be dangerous and difficult to maintain.
Currently, there was conflicting information as to whether the proposed
scenic road was feasible, or not due to the lack of information of the exact
location of fill in the vicinity proposed for the scenic road. The "blow
out" of the bluff area several years ago raised questions as to how close to
the bluff fill had been located.
The Community Services Staff had reported that, within the next 10-15 years,
the City would be in need of a facility such as that proposed by proponents
as their end use. However, without certain questions answered, it would be
difficult for the City to count on the landfill site to meet these needs at
that time, if ever.
Planner Enger reviewed the environmental impacts discussed by the EIS,
including, leachate, surface water, erosion of the bluffs, methane gas,
flora and fauna of the Minnesota River Valley, air quality, noise, dust,
debris, wind-blown litter, visual impact, odor, vibration from the
construction taking place, fire, traffic, household hazardous waste, etc.
. Several concerns were common amongst the impacts discussed. Planner Enger
stated that complaints had been received by the City over the years
regarding many of these issues. If the landfill were allowed to expand as
proposed, closer to the existing residential uses, the nuisances of these
impacts could only be expected to intensify. Noise, litter, odor, etc.,
Planning Commission Minutes 10 May 28, 1985
would be located closer to the residents than ever before. Planner Enger
explained that another common concern about these impacts was that the
"worst case" scenario of the EIS had to be assumed by the City as there
existed little or no evidence to indicate that such things as leachate
generation, methane gas generation, or danger to the flora and fauna of the
environment could be controlled. He pointed out that the EIS suggested
methods of monitoring all of these situations, but offered little in terms
of mitigative measures which were known to correct these situations.
With respect to the consistency of the proposal with the City's zoning and
Comprehensive Guide Plan regulations, Planner Enger stated that a portion of
the landfill was proposed within an area designated for Low Density
Residential development according to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, which, in
addition to the issues discussed by City Attorney Rosow and the issues
discussed in the Staff Report, was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide
Plan.
Planner Enger stated that the City had adopted its current Comprehensive
Guide Plan after much study, public hearings, and input, and that the City
was content with its Comprehensive Guide Plan as it existed. Therefore, it
was incumbent upon the proponent, as was true of any other proponent
proposing a use inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, to
substantiate any Comprehensive Guide Plan change to the City. Proponents
. had not done so by the materials presented to date.
Planner Enger stated that the City Staff recommended denial of the proposed
expansion of the landfill based on the findings and conclusions of the Staff
Report dated May 23, 1985.
(Marhula arrived at 9:30 p.m.)
Ms. Kathy Palmer, 10294 Winter Place, had prepared a written statement for
the Commission. She stated that she did not feel the proponents had
considered the human side of the impacts of the landfill expansion. She
asked what guarantee the residents had that the expansion would not continue
further to the east. She also asked about the impact of the landfill on
property values. Ms. Palmer continued, stating that the residents had been
assured that the landfill would be closed in 1982. She stated that she was
disappointed to see that there was no definite termination date for the
expansion, and asked that a final closure date be established.
Mr. Timothy Homes, 10391 Greyfield Court, stated that one of his biggest
concerns was methane gas production. He also expressed concern about long-
range environmental impacts for the area. Mr. Homes stated that every
evening from his home, he could smell the odors from the landfill . He
stated that these were unpleasant, obnoxious odors, which he considered
offensive. Mr. Homes expressed concern for the leachate production and its
possible impacts on the Grass Lake ecosystem. He asked proponents how the
original PCA projections for 2.5 million tons of waste for the site had been
• raised to 3.6 million tons of waste, without the City being involved. He
added that he felt the City of Eden Prairie had an opportunity to assume a
leadership role as far as solid waste management for the Metropolitan Area,
and that the City should do so.
Planning Commission Minutes 11 May 28, 1985
Mr. James Giddings, 12510 Sandy Point Road, stated that he could not
understand how the landfill use could be considered in harmony with the
residential uses in the area. He complained about the obnoxious smells from
the landfill. Mr. Giddings stated that he felt allowing the expansion would
only exacerbate the problems already existing for the residents because of
the existing landfill . He stated that the landfill had already been
scheduled for closure once, and should be closed as soon as possible. He
asked what guarantee the citizens had that there would not be yet another
request for expansion of the landfill. Mr. Giddings stated that the single
family home owned by proponents had no one living in it at this time, was
the target of vandalism and a haven for runaways. He pointed out that-this
has put additional pressure on the City Police Department. Mr. Giddings
suggested that the house be torn down.
Ms. Ginny McCanna, realtor representing the Jepsons, owners of the property
at 12601 Pioneer Trail, stated that the Jepsons owned farm acreage in this
location. She stated that the sale of their property for development had
been lost due to the proximity of the property to the landfill . The
potential buyer happened to be viewing the site on a windy day when the
property was covered with wind-blown paper from the landfill and terminated
discussions of purchase then and there because of the landfill . She stated
that she did not feel the property could be developed as residential in the
future, given the problems caused by the landfill .
• Mr. LeRoy Jedlicka, 12501 Pioneer Trail, stated that the trucks from the
landfill were of particular concern to him. One had run through is fence,
unable to stop. He stated that he had been promised that the damage would
be repaired; however, to date, the fence had not been repaired by
proponents.
Ms. Betsy Mueler, 9569 Yorkshire Lane, stated that in her neighborhood,
north of Pioneer Trail, she could smell the odors from the landfill . She
stated that there were problems in her area with wind-blown paper and with
the noise from trucks early in the morning. Ms. Mueler said that she felt
the operators of the landfill could not handle the operation they had now
and keep it under control, therefore, she did not feel an expansion should
be allowed on that basis, if they could not keep the nuisances confined to
the site. She related an incident that had happened to her while driving on
the road on April 20, 1985, when her windshield was suddenly hit by flying
debris from the landfill, forcing her to drive off the road.
The Commission discussed the Staff Report, presentation by the developer,
and public hearing testimony.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council denial of the request for Woodlake Sanitary Services, Inc., for
Planning Commission Minutes 12 May 28, 1985
i
amendment of PUD 70-1, Development Stage, and Code Amendment of 14.4 acres
to allow landfill expansion, based upon the findings and conclusions of the
Staff Report dated May 23, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
B. TECHNOLOGY PARK, by Technology Park Associates. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial/High Density
Residential to Office on 19.65 acres, Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 68.36 acres for Office, Office/Showroom uses, and
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Review on 68.36 acres. A
continued public hearing.
Mr. Brad Hoyt, proponent, reviewed the mass grading plan requested by the
Commission during its previous review of this project. He stated that he
still intended to only develop that area east of Golden Triangle Drive at
this time.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report for the project. He stated that Staff needed more detailed
information regarding the retaining wall proposed along the oak-wooded knoll
on the property.
• Marhula asked when a decision about the future alignment of Smetana Lane
might be forthcoming. Planner Enger stated that the current information
available to the City indicated that Smetana Lane would need to be connected
to the overall road system for the area eventually for purposes of traffic
circulation. Planner Enger stated that, since the developer was not
requesting land use decisions of the City for the area west of Golden
Triangle Drive at this time, the City would be willing to reconsider the
need for Smetana Lane at the time proponent did request such decisions from
the City. Planner Enger stated that another consideration was that Smetana
Lane not be connected while the existing residential uses were still in
effect on Smetana Lane.
Mr. Frank Smetana, Jr., 7722 Smetana Lane, presented a letter to the
Commission regarding the final elevation of the portion of the property
adjacent to his lot. He expressed concern about the fact that the final
elevation for this property was to- be at 875 based on previous plan
approvals by the City for another developer in 1975, but that the proposed
plans did not show this final elevation. He stated that he felt the
buildings and rooftop mechanical equipment would be visible from his home if
the elevations were not changed. He added that he felt the views from
everywhere else, i.e. I-494, would be better, too, if the elevation of the
property were maintained at the approved 875 elevation from 1975.
Hallett stated that he felt, considering the extensive amount of mining
which had taken place on this property, that the proposed 870 elevation was
reasonable. Planner Enger stated that it was Staff's opinion that the 870
elevation would be reasonable, also; however, the 875 elevation would create
an even better situation. Hallett stated that he felt, if the City made a
agreement to do something ten years ago, the City should honor it.
Planning Commission Minutes 13 May 28, 1985
Mr. Frank Smetana, Sr., 7680 Smetana Lane, stated that he did not feel the
developers should be allowed to intrude upon the existing residential area.
Mr. Sig Helle, representing the property owner north of the proposed site,
asked if the proposed grades could be achieved without grading the property
to the north. He stated that no agreement existed at this time to allow
this to happen, but that the owner of the property to the north and
proponents were working this out. Planner Enger stated that, eventually,
both parcels would need to be graded to a mutually acceptable elevation.
Marhula stated that the grading plan indicated grading would take place on
the property to the east, as well, and asked if arrangements had been made
with that property owner to effect that portion of the grading plan. Mr.
Hoyt responded that he would furnish the City with a copy of the agreement
between proponents and the property owner to the east.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Marhula, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Technology Park Associates for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Industrial to Office on 2.8 acres,
based on revised plans dated May 17, 1985, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Reports dated April 19, and May 24, 1985, with the following added
conditions:
a) The natural contour of 875 be preserved for the area west of Golden
Triangle Drive until such time as the Planning Commission and City
Council may recommend and approve otherwise, based upon review of
final development and grading plans for that area west of Golden
Triangle Drive; and,
b) Smetana Lane construction shall not be required at this time;
however, if it is determined to be required based upon traffic flow
in the area and if the proponent wishes to have Smetana Lane
eliminated from the development plans at that time, it shall be
incumbent upon proponent to prove, via traffic study information,
that Smetana Lane is not a necessary element of the development for
traffic circulation purposes.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Technology Park Associates for Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 21 acres for Office/Office Showroom uses,
based on revised plans dated May 17, 1985, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Reports dated April 19, and May 24, 1985, with the following added
Planning Commission Minutes 14 May 28, 1985
conditions:
a) The natural contour of 875 be preserved for the area west of Golden
Triangle Drive until such time as the Planning Commission and City
Council may recommend and approve otherwise, based upon review of
final development and grading plans for that area west of Golden
Triangle Drive; and,
b) Smetana Lane construction shall not be required at this time;
however, if it is determined to be required based upon traffic flow
in the area and if the proponent wishes to have Smetana Lane
eliminated from the development plans at that time, it shall be
incumbent upon proponent to prove, via traffic study information,
that Smetana Lane is not a necessary element of the development for
traffic circulation purposes.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City
Council a finding of no significant impact for the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet for Technology Park Associates for Technology Park.
Motion carried--6-0-0
C. TECH IV, by Technology Park Associates. Request for Zoning District
Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 4.52 acres and Preliminary Plat of
4.52 acres into one lot for construction of a 58,600 square foot
office/warehouse. A public hearing.
Mr. Brad Hoyt, proponent, reviewed the plans for the subject project.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of May 24, 1985. He also explained that an error had been found in
the public hearing notice regarding the preliminary plat portion of the
request, which would be corrected for the Planning Commission meeting of
June 10, 1985.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
D. HERZOG ADDITION, by K.P. Properties. Request for Zoning District
Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 5.35 acres, and Preliminary Plat of
5.35 acres into ten single family lots. A public hearing.
Mr. Don Peterson, proponent, reviewed the development plan with the
Commission. He explained that it may be necessary to relocate several of
the trees on the site, but that proponents would do whatever was possible
not to disturb the trees at all.
Mr. Peterson stated that proponents had spoken with several of the neighbors
and that their concerns seemed to be about two specific points: 1) the
value of the homes to be built; and, 2) the possibility of the new
development affecting the storm water drainage for the area.
Planning Commission Minutes 15 May 28, 1985
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report regarding this project.
Marhula asked when the sanitary sewer line was proposed to be located
between the lots, instead of within the right-of-way. Mr. Peterson stated
that proponents would be willing to relocate the sanitary sewer line to be
within the right-of-way, rather than between the lots.
Mr. Bob Higley, 17021 South Shore Lane expressed concern that the proposal
was for R1-13.5 lots, instead of for R1-22 lots like those already in this
area. He stated that he felt the development should remain consistent with
what was already existing in the neighborhood.
Mr. Lance Finberg, 17060 South Shore Lane, stated that, currently, after a
rainfall, there was often water standing in the street. He expressed
concern about adequate storm water drainage for the area because of the
proposed development. He asked if there would be additional assessments
against the existing homes in this area based upon the rezoning request.
Planner Enger stated that there were no guarantees that there would be no
additional assessments for this area, adding that better information would
be available at the City Council meeting.
Mr. Mark Rademacher, 17120 South Shore Lane, asked what assurances the
existing neighbors had that the homes would be in the price range of their
homes. Chairman Schuck explained that the City was unable to regulate this
for any development. Mr. Rademacher added that he felt the front yards of
the homes to be built should be located as far back from the road as those
existing in the area, which would be more than the 30 ft. shown on the
plans, in order to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. Planner
Enger stated that this would mainly affect Lots 1 and 3 of the proposed
development. Mr. Peterson stated that he would be willing to work this out
to keep the front yard setbacks at a similar distance from the road as
existed currently in the neighborhood.
Mr. Joe Jullie, 17041 Prairie Lane, stated that during winter months, the
evergreen trees on this property acted as a buffer against the winds. He
stated that he would prefer not to see these trees removed from their
current location. Mr. Peterson stated that the plan was not to remove them,
unless absolutely necessary. Mr. Jullie asked who the builder would be.
Mr. Peterson responded that it would be Brookhaven Homes.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
. Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of K. P. Properties for Zoning District
Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 5.35 acres, known as the Herzog Addition,
based on plans dated May 7, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the
Planning Commission Minutes 16 May 28, 1985
Staff Report dated May 24, 1985, and with the following conditions:
a) Lots 1 and 3 shall have similar front yard setbacks to the existing
lots along the same street frontage.
b) Rear lot lines of Lots 1, 2, and 3 be extended to match those of
lots to the east.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of K. P. Properties for Preliminary Plat of
5.35 acres into ten single family lots, based on plans dated May 7, 1985,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 24, 1985, and
with the following conditions:
a) Lots 1 and 3 shall have similar front yard setbacks to the existing
lots along the same street frontage.
b) Rear lot lines of Lots 1, 2, and 3 be extended to match those of
lots to the east.
. Motion carried--6-0-0
E. PARKWAY APARTMENTS, by Bar-Ett Construction Company. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 35.9 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 35.9 acres into five lots, and Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Review, for construction of five, 73-unit
apartment buildings. (365 units) A public hearing.
Mr. James Cooperman, architect for proponents, reviewed the proposed plans
with the Commission. He stated that the density of the project was
approximately 10.17 units per acre. However, it had been suggested that a
recreation building be built for the residents of this complex, centrally
located on the site. It was explained that if the recreational amenities
were removed from the individual buildings and placed in a central location,
more room would be available in each structure for two additional units in
each building, raising the density to 10.47 units per acre. No additional
floor area would be necessary. Proponents were asking for approval to add
to units to each of the buildings, for 75 units per building, based on this
plan. He added that proponents had no difficulties with any of the
recommended conditions of the Staff Report.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report evaluating the project.
Marhula asked if the apartments would be rented at market rates. Mr. Scott
Bader, proponent, stated that they would be, with rent for one-bedroom units
• at $575 and rent for two-bedroom units at $650.
Planner Enger explained that the 10.47 units per acre was slightly higher
than the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation for this site allowed.
Planning Commission Minutes 17 May 28, 1985
However, he stated that it was Staff's opinion that this site was able to
accommodate the slightly higher density and that Staff could also support an
amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan to High Density Residential for
this site based on its design. Planner Enger stated that it was a decision
for the Commission as to whether this site needed to have a Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment processed based on the density proposed.
Hallett asked if the City would be setting a negative precedent by allowing
the slightly higher density in this case. Planner Enger stated that the
difference in density was not significant, in Staff's opinion and that,
should another such request be made, it would have to be done in a similar
manner, and be one that could be supported by the design and location of the
use.
Hallett asked about the park access to this site. Planner Enger stated that
the developer would be constructing the park access on site. The flood
plain area would not be built upon, but would be protected from development.
It was noted that approximately 24 of the 35.9 acres of the site would
remain in green area.
Bye asked if the pedestrian system for the site would be connected to the
proposed recreation building. Mr. Bader responded that this could be done.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the
• audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Marhula, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Bar-ett Construction for Zoning District
Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 35.9 acres, based on plans dated May 6, 1985,
with a recreation building subject to Staff review, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 24, 1985.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Bar-ett Construction for Preliminary Plat
of 35.9 acres into five lots for five, 75-unit apartment structures, with a
recreation building subject to Staff review, based on plans dated May 6,
1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 24, 1985.
• Motion carried--6-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 18 May 28, 1985
MOTION 4:
Move to recommend to the City Council a finding of no significant impact
based on the Environmental Assessment worksheet for Parkway Apartments.
Motion carried--6-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Dodge, seconded by Bye. Chairman Schuck
adjourned the meeting at 12:30 a.m.
•