Loading...
Planning Commission - 02/14/2005 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2005 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Larry Kacher, Vicki Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz, William Sutherland STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Al Gray, City Engineer Mike Franzen, City Planner Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Kacher, Nelson, Rocheford and Stoltz. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5- 0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 24, 2005 Stoelting requested to make a revision of the minutes on page 2, last paragraph. He requested that "from the Staff" be changed to "for the Staff. Quorum needed to approve minutes. Approval was tabled until the February 28, 2005, meeting. IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS A. HENNEPIN VILLAGE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE OFFICE TO LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL by Dan Herbst, Hennepin Village LP. (Continued from 12/13/04) Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Low-Medium Density Residential on 17 acres and Planned Unit Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 2 of 9 Development concept Amendment on 17 acres. Location: North of Highway 212, east of Spring Road. Mr. Herbst requested a two-week continuance in anticipation that he would receive a letter from MAC to present at the meeting. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Koenig, to recommend a continuance to the February 28, 2005 meeting, and to revise the development plans. Motion carried 5-0. V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING A. THE RIDGE AT RILEY CREEK (2004-12) by EPIC Development, LLC. An informational meeting for the developer to present a plan to develop 37 single- family lots. Location: North and west of Sky Lane, south and east of Riley Creek. Perry Ryan, of Epic Development, started out his presentation by using overhead diagrams to portray the overall view of the project. The diagram, which was put together by the City, showed the proposed development. Ryan stated that the development is situated east of Eden Prairie Road and the west border is Riley Creek. He also stated that the Williams-Small property on the south side of Beverly Drive has a concept approval for nine units and that it is developed close to 2 1/2 units per acre. The remainder of the Beverly Drive area is approximately 5-acre lots. Mr. Ryan explained that the proposed project is everything below the safety zone, which is for possible expansion of the Flying Cloud Airport. He stated that they are developing the property as low density, up to 2 1/2 units per acre. He stated that the property within the safety zone is developed at 1 unit per 3 acres. Mr. Ryan commented on the background of the property, stating that it is less than 37 acres and guided as low density for up to 2 1/2 units per acre. He stated that the proposal for the 37 units on the site is at a much lower density of 1 unit per acre; in relationship to the surrounding areas where the lots average from 1/2 acre to 1.5 acres. Mr. Ryan stated that they would be donating just under 10 acres of outlot A to the City. He also pointed out that there is approximately 2 1/2 acres of right-of- way on the project. Mr. Ryan stated that the tree loss is at 14 %. He also stated that the property is in the shoreline district and does meet the requirements set forth in the City code. As far as the wetland is concerned, it has been delineated along Riley Creek and all the setbacks have been met. Mr. Ryan pointed out that the Staff has requested some minor modifications and they will accommodate those modifications. The first modification would be to place the north pond entirely within outlot A. The second modification would be to accommodate required frontages on the cul-de-sac units in Block 1. He also stated that the utilities for the project are proposed through property that is owned by MAC. Mr. Ryan referenced the letter in the packet dated December 15, 2004, from MAC, Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 3 of 9 which authorized their staff to enter into the final agreement with Epic Development for the easement of utilities from Eden Prairie Road. He stated that the project proposed to extend utilities from the north side of Riley Creek and extend them down to the easement area, across the MAC property and bring the utilities to the development. Mr. Ryan stated that one positive to the residents of the area is that this project is proposing to pay for the utility extensions. He stated that there are approximately 20-30 property owners that would be proposed to be assessed for those improvements and in having the construction company do the improvements on the project, extending the sanitary and water main down Eden Prairie Road, across the MAC property to the site, it would greatly reduce the proposed assessments to quite a few of the property owners. Mr. Ryan also stated that he agrees with Staff on their points in the staff analysis. The first point being that the proposed project is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the property and surrounding area, and that all lots meet the zoning district standards. He also stated that the development is consistent with the existing and proposed extended Flying Cloud Airport. He feels that this project is a good fit into the neighborhood. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the Staff report Franzen stated that Mr. Ryan already covered half of the issues, but there are a few other important issues. The homes that are going to be constructed must have interior noise reduction to 45 dba. Franzen stated that most of the new construction techniques already have the 6" walls and triple pane glass so that should not be a concern for the builders. There should be a new bituminous overlay for the portion of Beverly Drive and Sky Lane and bond for potential damage so that they can restore the road to its current condition. Should also phase the development for contractors on-site parking area for so they will not park on Sky Lane. Franzen stated he received a letter from Roger and Jean Johnson, at 16895 Beverly Drive and highlighted a few points in the letter. The first being that they are recommending that the utility easement from Eden Prairie Road through the MAC property should be used for construction traffic. Second, that they would like to have street access to Eden Prairie Road to give this development two points of access. And they are in favor of the staff report item noting a construction staging area on the property. And lastly, they raised concern that the construction workers follow the hours of work from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and if the City can require that the sites be posted because it makes it easier for the Police Department to respond and write a ticket for those people working outside these hours. Stoelting stated that the purpose of this informational meeting was not to make a decision on this project but rather to listen to the project plan and to bring out questions or issues that the developer can address when he does return to present the plan. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 4 of 9 Mike Neuharth, who resides on the property right to the east of this development, stated that he does not disagree with the development but ather has a concern with the cul-de-sac waivers. He stated that if the waiver goes to 500 feet it could create problems in the future. He also stated that he is concerned with the construction access on Beverly Drive. Mr. Neuharth also asked who would handle the tree loss on the MAC property; the City or MAC. Ray Driver, 9805 Sky Lane, stated he has a few concerns with the proposed project. The first concern would be the construction traffic coming down Sky Lane. The second concern would be that he would like to see Epic put up some type of barrier for the properties that are to the east of the proposed development, as in some type of architectural fencing or tree line. He also would like to see some type of barrier during the construction process because he is concerned with the debris that gets blown around, especially since he has a pool in his yard. Mr. Driver also asked where the construction people are going to park because Sky Lane dead ends where his mail box is. There was also some concern as to who would plow this area since Mr. Driver is currently plowing his own road. Mr. Driver also questioned the proposing of the cul-de-sac being moved from 500 feet to 1000 feet, which would allow them to have just one access and asked if there had been a study done regarding traffic in this area because there would be 37 home with just one access. Robin Smith, 16511 South Manor Road, whose property adjoins Ray Driver's property, stated that before the project reaches the final approval stages, the comprehensive assessment of sewer and water revisions to Eden Prairie Road need to be addressed. His concern was that this issue has been talked about for years but nothing has been done on it. He also would like to see a visual barrier put up along Sky Lane and Beverly Drive because of all the heavy traffic that will come out of this project. He also was concerned with the abandon buildings on the MAC property because they are eyesores, and would like to know if they will be destroyed and who will be responsible for doing that. Lastly, Mr. Smith voiced concern for the residents who are adjoining this development and asked when their properties will be connected to the sewer and water and is there some special process they will have to go through. Stoelting summarized by stating that the following issues can be addressed by the project proponent. The first is the issue of the cul-de-sac waiver and why it is needed. The second issue would be the construction access on Beverly Drive and the question of where the construction parking will be. The next issue would be the topic of barriers or fencing. Stoelting asked the Staff to address who would handle the tree loss associated with the utility easement on the MAC property. There was also a question regarding a traffic study associated with the proposed cul-de-sac request; why it has one access point versus the need for two. The next issue would be the assessment of the sewer and water brought to the area, and if Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 5 of 9 Staff could go over the structure of the assessment, and how it is proceeding forward, the schedule, and how it would impact the neighbors. The last issue would be the question of what will happen to the abandon structures on the MAC property. Mr. Ryan stated that in regards to the issue of the cul-de-sac waiver and why it is needed, is that it can be seen that this property does have right-of-way access at the end of Sky Lane and that is where he assumed the Sky Lane right-of-way was dedicated with the development of Beverly Drive. Mr. Ryan stated that one positive about the development is that they are going off of one right-of-way because that is currently the only right-of-way access. He stated that they do have utility easement through the MAC property. The MAC has 12 acres that lay south of safety zone B, which could be developed at low density, up to 2 1/2 units per acre. He stated that because of the situation that MAC is in with Northwest Airlines and the FAA, they are in no position to enter into an easement agreement, so they cannot transfer fee title to property at this point until it is resolved. Mr. Ryan said the point he was trying to make with this is that there are two points that could be access points back to Eden Prairie Road. The one access point is in the very southwest corner of the Neuharth property. Mr. Neuharth came forward to the City and requested that a right-of-way be joined with his property. Mr. Ryan also stated that they have an agreement with MAC for a proposed city park and stated that there will be an easement over that entire parcel. Mr. Ryan stated that as far as construction parking, it would be on site. He also stated that they are planting quite a few trees along the east border of the project and that they would also want to buffer that area and work with the adjoining properties to do that. Mr. Ryan stated that as far as construction hours, it is a good idea to put that right on the construction sign. Stoelting asked Mr. Ryan that of the 37 homes that he is going to develop, how they are planning on developing those. Will it be all at once or will they parcel out the development. He also asked how he would structure those 37 lots. Mr. Ryan stated that the masquerading for all the home sites, as well as the utilities and streets, would all be done in one construction phase. As far as the homes being developed, he assumes there will be 3 or 5 builders on the project and it would be probably a 2-3 year build out. Stoelting asked Gray to address the assessment issue. Gray responded by stating that back in 2000, they brought forth a feasibility study that was called the Charleston area improvements, which included the construction of utilities that reached a good portion of the Charleston property, which is Hennepin Village. At the time they finished the feasibility study, MAC was in the process of acquiring the Charleston land for airport improvement; this land was proposed to be assessed for improvements at the cost of approximately 8 million dollars. The Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 6 of 9 City entered into a complex agreement with MAC about the right-of-ways and easements that were needed for utility construction. One of the important factors of that agreement was that the City would not assess certain portions of the MAC property, but they would provide easements so that the City could utilize a portion of the property for city parks. The agreement was complex, but one of the problems that happened after the development of this agreement was that MAC ran into some difficulties with NWA, in which NWA has some issues with MAC about how they were financing reliever airports, and they took this specific issue of disagreement between MAC and the City and filed an objection with the FAA. They have been in the process of trying to work out these particular issues. MAC was able to provide the City with the easements, so the City was were able to complete the Charleston improvements that were included in that 2000 feasibility study. The next step is the continuation south along the Eden Prairie Road corridor. The City developed some of the initial overall plans for that feasibility study back in 2001 and 2002 and received a layout for utilities in this area that includes Beverly Drive, parts of Hennepin Village, and the area that was looked at during the meeting. The City has a preliminary plan for how to lay utilities out and how it should be served with a sanitary sewer water main. The plan presented at the meeting essentially implements a portion of that kind of concept plan. The City is working now to develop the feasibility study. There still is not a resolution between MAC, NWA and the FAA, but the City is ready to bring forth a feasibility study in the next few months that has a particular cost of that project and what the assessments might be. In looking at the project along the Eden Prairie Road corridor, it does not bring utilities to everyone but it brings the utility corridor down Eden Prairie Road and improves the road. Gray stated that the total development of 400 units would produce a traffic volume of approximately 4000 vehicles per day. He stated that it could be easily managed on a two-lane roadway. One of the outlets would be that Prospect Road would be extended across Riley Creek and connected to Eden Prairie Road. Gray stated that in looking at Beverly Drive, with 37 units, it would be producing somewhere between 350-400 vehicles per day. Mr. Gray stated that the City has many residential streets operating at that level and above. He stated that one of the struggles in this particular area is staging; what is the sequence that the property will develop in. Gray stated that if a feasibility study is done this spring and summer and it is approved, construction of Eden Prairie Road could begin in the spring of 2006. This schedule cannot be guaranteed because the City needs a certain level of cooperation from MAC. MAC is telling EPIC that they can give them an easement for utility across this property, even in light of the current status with their disagreement with NWA. Mr. Gray stated that this is a complex project but going back to the feasibility study, the City will be looking at some fairly significant assessments. Mr. Gray stated that there are a lot of issues to work out. Stoelting asked Gray, as far as the project was concerned, about if the cost of putting in the utilities will really be bore by the developer and the subsequent Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 7 of 9 development of the 37 lots. He also stated that as far as the assessments are concerned, it would not impact the residents until after they are hooked up. Gray responded by stating that what Stoelting said was a correct statement. He also stated that if we only proceed with the project that was proposed and stop there that they will end up with a utility system extending across MAC property and no one would be burdened with an assessment as a result of that. Stoelting responded by stating that they will eventually have to deal with this issue. Gray stated that if there is an additional City project to extend utilities further and implement road improvements, than everyone would be assessed. Franzen stated that he would find out from the MAC staff and get a definite answer for the takedown of the house and other abandoned property. The other question was about the obligation for tree replacement in utility easement and Franzen stated that it would be the obligation of the developer. Stoelting asked if there were any questions, issues or guidance from the Members. Brooks asked if Franzen could address the issue for the cul-de-sac waiver and the City's opinion relative to a potential couple easements where the road may ultimately have a second access point. Franzen stated that by looking on the location map, there are a couple of streets in the area that have cu-de-sacs longer than 500 feet, and there was no way that they were going to be able to go across the creek and hook up to the other side, so topography and natural resources became a reason for why there is a longer than normal cul-de-sac. He stated that there are numerous cul-de-sacs throughout the City that are longer than 500 feet. Stoelting stated that the Staff report states that the City code requires that all houses located along the radius of the cul-de-sac have at least 55 feet of frontage and that the lots on the radius of the westerly cul-de-sac do not meet the requirement and will need to be revised. He asked Franzen to respond to that statement. Franzen stated that all they would need to do is shift some of their lot lines and make some adjustments; some of the larger lots need to get a little smaller so that they can meet the 55 feet requirement on the radius of the cul-de-sac. Stoelting asked Franzen that since this is very close to Riley Lake Creek, does the Watershed District get involved in the review of the development plans when they are close to major tributaries. Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 8 of 9 Franzen responded by stating that for all of their project, they send a copy of the plans to the Watershed District whether they are next to a creek, a wetland or a lake. And if they are not, he stated that they still want to look at it because they want to look at what the storm quality ponds are like. Brooks stated that in listening to all the information this evening he would be in favor of the project. Sutherland stated that it is a reasonable way to develop the area. He stated that the comments from the meeting relate more towards implementation rather than concept and that these issues can be dealt with. Seymour stated that he agrees with Staff in that is seems an appropriate development for this location at this time. Koenig stated that the cul-de-sac length is not a concern for her and that she does not see that bringing in 37 homes will create a traffic problem. She stated that she likes the development and the fact that it is low density with minimal tree loss and feels that the contractor has been very sensitive to the environment. Stoelting stated that he concurs with all the comments from his fellow board members and looks forward to the next presentation by Mr. Ryan. V1. PUBLIC HEARINGS VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS IX. NEW BUSINESS X. PLANNERS' REPORTS A. 2030 WATER RESOURCES POLICY PLAN Franzen stated that enclosed in the packet was a memo from City staff on the Council policy plan for water quality. This plan includes new requirements that the City will incorporate into the next guide plan. Approximately 2 years from now, the Commission will review a local water management plan and make recommendations to the City Council. Franzen stated that he does not see any major changes to the local plans,just appropriate modifications. XI. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2005 Page 9 of 9 MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5- 0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.