Loading...
Planning Commission - 03/14/2005 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2005 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD 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 Scott Kipp, Planning Department Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Sutherland, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 9-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 28, 2005 MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Sutherland, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 9-0. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. COLUMBINE ROAD ADDITION, (2005-10) by City of Eden Prairie. Request for Preliminary plat of 31.49 acres into one lot, three outlots and road right-of-way for Columbine Road. Location: Columbine Road and Prairie Center Drive. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2005 Page 2 Al Gray, City Engineer, presented the proposal. He stated that the Columbine Road plat was originally the platting and subdivision of a piece of property that the City acquired from the State. It is located along Prairie Center Drive, south of the Flagship Athletic Club, between Flagship and Broodmor Apartments, or the Castleridge Development. The property went tax forfeit in the mid 1990's. At that time it was subject to the Wetland Restoration Order. The property owner at that time, a development company out of Canada, and the EPA could not reach an agreement on the restoration of the wetland. The development company felt that there was little property to develop and they let it go tax forfeit, with a substantial tax burden on it. Gray stated that the City had always looked for a right-of-way through the property for the construction of Columbine Road. After the property went tax forfeit, EPA was looking for a way to resolve the restoration order that they had. They approached the City to see if it would be interested in doing some restoration work or at least closing the case file. The City entered into an agreement with EPA that stated that if in the future the City became the owner of the property and was able to extend Columbine Road, the City would provide approximately 1.3 acres of wetland restoration to close the case file; EPA agreed to that. Gray stated that the property is fairly large and the westerly half of the property is primarily wetlands and because there are so much wetlands on the property, State law required that once it went tax forfeit it became part of the public domain. In 1999, the City sought special legislation from the State to allow the State to transfer title to the City. The City was successful in this endeavor and received the deed in 2001. The City is proposing a subdivision that creates a right-of-way for Columbine Road, and also to create an additional right- of-way for Castlemoor Drive. The City is also proposing to create a large outlot in the form of outlot A, which would become part of the Purgatory Creek recreation area, and the City is also creating a small outlot B. Outlot B is situated on a portion of the Flagship parking lot. Flagship does not have title to the parking lot property; the City's intention is to give Flagship the title to their parking facility. In exchange, the City would gain a right-of-way from the corner of the Flagship property for Columbine Road as it approaches Prairie Center Drive. The City is also looking at creating Lot 1 Block 1, which would be a marketable piece of commercial land that would be used for some type of development proposal. Stoelting noted the property is currently zoned RM 6.5 and guided regional commercial. He asked what type of project the City would be looking to develop in this area. Gray responded that he was unsure at this time what developments would be proposed for this area. Brooks asked how large of a structure would end up on this site. Gray stated that the site is not very large so the structure would have to coincide with what the zoning allows to be built in the area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2005 Page 3 Brooks asked if the size of the lot would be consistent with City code. Gray stated that it will be larger than the code requires. Kipp stated that the City is currently conducting the MCA study and part of that study entails discussing what type of land uses the City would like to see constructed in that area. He stated that in the staff report on page 2 there are some ideas of what the land can be used for. Koenig stated that a few years ago there was some tax forfeit property adjacent to Windsong and asked if that was related to this project. Fox stated that it is not related and that the pieces adjacent to Windsong are currently being processed. Koenig asked if it was suppose to be deeded over to the City. Fox stated that it would be deeded over to the City. Koenig asked if it was in the process of being deeded over to the City. Fox responded by stating that it is in tax forfeiture,but because it is a wetland complex,by State law the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has the first right of refusal on those pieces of property, unless there is another governmental agency. He stated that the City has to go through a legislative process to basically take the property from one government ownership to another and that is what the City is currently in the process of doing. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION was made by Nelson, seconded by Kacher, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 9-0. MOTION was made by Nelson, seconded by Koenig, to approve the request for Preliminary plat of 31.49 acres into one lot, three outlots and road right-of-way for Columbine Road,based on plans stamp dated February 17, 2005, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated March 11, 2005, to the City Council. Motion passed 9-0. B. THE RIDGE AT RILEY CREEK (2004-12) by Epic Development, LLC. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.22 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 42.22 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 42.22 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 42.22 acres into 39 lots, two out lots and road right-of-way. Location: North and west of the Sky Lane, south and east of Riley Creek. Stoelting recognized Commissioner Larry Kacher, who asked to be excused from the discussion on this development because it could potentially impact him as a property owner in this development. Kacher was excused from participation, and sat in the audience during this item. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2005 Page 4 Perry Ryan, of Ryan Engineering and representing Epic Development, presented the proposal. He stated that approximately one month ago, on February 14, they were present at the Commission meeting for an informational hearing and discussed several of the items involved in the project. The project is north and west of the end of Sky Lane and immediately east of Riley Creek. The proposal is for 39 single-family units on 42.22 acres, which is zoned R1 13.5 at a density of 0.92 units per acre. Mr. Ryan stated that some of the major changes from the last meeting were the adding of a rear drainage system behind all of the units that are adjacent to Riley Creek and also working out some of the details with Staff on the geometries of the access along Sky Lane to meet a 30-mile an hour design. Mr. Ryan also stated that they are proposing to dedicate outlot A, which is entirely along Riley Creek, which is slightly over 10 acres. One other minor modification was some minor changes to the ponds. Mr. Ryan stated that Epic Development has been working with Staff to resolve any issues that were discussed a month ago. He also stated that the answers to the questions that came up from the neighbors at that meeting could be seen on the last two pages of the staff report. Stoelting asked Kipp to review the staff report. Kipp stated that the Staff would recommend approval of the project based on the recommendations in the staff report, dated March 11, 2005, shown on pages 5-7. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Ray Driver, 9805 Sky Lane, stated that he would like to propose to the City that during the time of construction they put up no parking signs on Sky Lane, along Beverly Drive out to Eden Prairie Road, and have police enforcement so that there is no construction traffic parking on either Sky Lane or Beverly Drive. He said he would also like to propose that the City put up a stop sign at the intersection of Sky Lane and Beverly Drive. Mr. Driver also asked if Sky Lane would be widened during the construction because it is currently 12 feet wide from the mailbox to Beverly Drive. He also requested that if they do widen Sky Lane that they put asphalt down afterwards. Koenig asked Mr. Drive if he would object to parking in the development. Mr. Driver stated that he does not object to parking in the development; he is just concerned with Sky Lane. Stoelting asked Mr. Driver if the 23 feet of Sky Lane is currently asphalt. Mr. Driver stated that it was. Stoelting asked if there was any unpaved area. Mr. Driver stated that it was currently all asphalt,but 270 feet from his property to the mail box, the road is 12 feet wide is not very thick. He stated that it is all cracked and weathered and would not last very long with the heavy equipment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2005 Page 5 Mike Neuharth, 9610 Eden Prairie Road, stated that he would like to commend Epic Development with a nice development and commend City Staff for the thorough evaluation of the property. He does have some concerns. He stated that Eden Prairie Road is narrow down from where the new road was made down to Beverly Drive. It is a 6-ton road and Mr. Neuharth would like to ask the City if it is going to make this a 9-ton road to handle all the construction trucks coming in and out of the area. He would also like to know how wide Eden Prairie Road is down at the curve,right across from Riley Creek. He stated that it is a very dangerous point. Mr. Neuharth would like to see if that road could be upgraded to a 9 ton. Stoelting asked, in regards to the width of Eden Prairie Road, where was the concern. Mr. Neuharth stated that it would be right across from where Eden Prairie Road comes down across Riley Creek. Resident, at 9850 Eden Prairie Road, which is on the corner of Beverly Drive and Eden Prairie Road,had concerns with the assessments along that portion of the project. He asked if the reconstruction of Eden Prairie Road would include the assessments for utilities or simply the structure of Eden Prairie Road itself. He stated that his concern is bringing in assessments for road construction if they do not include utilities and being assessed again at a future time for the utilities. Stoelting summarized and redirected the questions by asking that Gray address the request for no parking signs on Sky Lane and Beverly Drive, and whether the request for the stop sign stays after the project is completed at the intersection of Sky Lane and Beverly Drive. He also asked that he address the issue of Sky Lane. There was a question regarding the width of the road, and the issue that there is a road there currently and how will the old road be integrated into the new road development; and how is that going to work. There was a question regarding Eden Prairie Road and it currently being a 6-ton road and would there a plan to make it 9 ton, and address the issue regarding the width of Eden Prairie Road at Riley Creek. The last question would be the assessments associated with Eden Prairie Road and will utilities also be assessed. Gray stated that he would start with the parking restrictions. He stated that the City would not be opposed to placing restrictions on Beverly Drive and Sky Lane for a couple of reasons. Parking restrictions will apply to everyone; even the residents,but on these roads it would probably not be an issue. Beverly Drive and Sky Lane do not have a lot of curves, which means if there were parking on the street;parking on the grass would not be an issue, as it is in other developments. The City has asked the development up front to plan for parking areas in the development. Gray stated that in regard to the stop sign on Beverly Drive and Sky Lane, the City would normally put up stop signs when they are warranted. In taking a look at this intersection, it is a T intersection and all of the traffic that would be exiting this new neighborhood and coming up Sky Lane to Beverly PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2005 Page 6 Drive is going to be making a right or left turn. Because of this, the law states that they are obligated to yield to traffic on Beverly Drive. The traffic on Beverly Drive at that intersection is extremely low volume; there are only a few homes to the west. Mr. Gray stated that this is not the kind of intersection that the City would warrant the necessity to put a stop control device on it. In regards to Sky Lane and its width, Gray stated that part of the plan is that Sky Lane has to be upgraded and widened, preferable to 28 feet, with a minimum of 25 feet, all the way out to Beverly Drive. The City expects Beverly Drive to be overlaid and the developer of homes, over a period of several years, needs to be obligated for any repairs to existing Beverly Drive. This should not be a neighborhood expense or City expense. Gray stated that the City's preference would be that a temporary construction assess road be built over the MAC property, and one alternative would be to use the utility corridor. He stated that there has been some discussion if MAC would allow that; this request has not yet been presented to MAC. Gray stated that in discussing Eden Prairie Road, in regards to assessments, what property owners should expect are assessments for the upgrading of Eden Prairie Road and the extension of utilities from Riley Creek down Eden Prairie Road. This project would potentially be building 40 percent of the utilities in the area, which would mean less of an assessment for the homeowners in the area. From an overall construction standpoint, the most intense construction traffic will start in 2006 when the developer will be building the homes. At that point in time the City will be tearing up Eden Prairie Road and rebuilding it so that it can sustain 9 ton trucks except for the 2 months a year when the City has seasonal restrictions. Stoelting asked for clarification that Eden Prairie Road would be going from a 6- ton road to a 9-ton road and that it would begin in the summer of 2006. Gray stated that if things stay on track that is what the City is anticipating. Stoelting asked what the width of Eden Prairie Road would be at Riley Creek. Gray stated that when it is rebuilt it would be 32 feet. Stoelting asked the developer to elaborate on the staging area and how traffic will move in and out of this area. Ryan stated that they would be in agreement with the staff report and would be willing to have no parking on Beverly Drive and Sky lane. He stated that the location of Lot 5 would be the staging area for supplies and parking and stated that it is shown on the site utility plan. Stoelting asked about the overlaying and maintenance on Sky Lane and Beverly Drive. Ryan stated that they are in agreement with the City Staff. Nelson asked gray if the cul-de-sac would be large enough for a school bus to turn around in. Gray stated that all standard cul-de-sacs enable school buses to do a turn around. Nelson asked Gray if this was a standard cul-de-sac and Gray confirmed it was. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2005 Page 7 Nelson asked if the noise levels from the airport would be so high that residents could not enjoy being out on their decks. Kipp stated that this development is 1 1/2 to 2 miles off of the runway and being so relatively close the residents will observe noise from the runway. Nelson asked what the current flight numbers over the property are now. Kipp stated that the EIS does provide that information but he does not have an exact number but that it would be higher now than what they will be in the future. Nelson stated that what the residents hear now is what they will hear in the future. Kipp confirmed that statement. Rocheford asked Gray whether or not MAC had been requested by Epic to build a road over the easement or did they say that it would not be possible. Rocheford stated that he is concerned with the staging and construction. Gray stated that MAC entertained a request for a permanent road and denied it. What MAC staff said is that they have not been actually asked if they would accept a temporary construction road. Rocheford asked if a construction road were made on top of that easement, would that be a costly endeavor for the developer. Gray stated that there would be some cost involved but it would eliminate the need to overlay Beverly Drive and maintain it and it would shorten the amount of Eden Prairie Road. Rocheford requested that it go on record that a construction traffic road should be installed and have the staging area moved back towards Lot 1, instead of Lot 5,because he sees that as a problem for Mr. Driver. Stoelting wanted to clarify what Rocheford was requesting by asking what lots he was talking about; Lot 5 to which Block. Rocheford responded by stating Lot 1 on Block 4. Stoelting addressed this question to the project developer. Mr. Ryan stated that the moving of the staging area would not be a problem. He also stated that Epic did talk to MAC to see if they changed their position on the permanent road and they said that they did not. MAC stated it was for utilities only. Stoltz asked Mr. Ryan if he would be willing to make a formal request to MAC for trying to gain access for the utility easement for construction purposes; in order to bring construction trucks up to the area. Mr. Ryan stated that they would be willing to make the request but they would not like that to slow down this project because he stated he did not know how fast MAC would act on that issue. Stoltz stated that it is important to the public and he would like to make this a formal request that this process be completed before the project can go forward. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2005 Page 8 Ryan stated that if they can move forward with the project he would make that formal request. Gray stated that the City should be able to keep the project on track, subject to Planning Commission recommendations and City Council approval, and if the City gets to the point that they are writing a development agreement and waiting for a MAC decision for a temporary access road, the City could write a development agreement stating, "subject to MAC approval", and if it is denied, then it would be the alternative way around and conditions would be listed for each. Mike Neuharth, 9610 Eden Prairie Road, stated that he had talked to the neighbors and access is the real problem. He stated that if a construction access is put in through the corridor of the utility easement more problems would arise with people coming out and vandalizing the properties. He asked that if the property cannot be patrolled or monitored who or what would stop this action. Mr. Neuharth stated he would like to go on the record stating that if this development goes through he would like to see it go through the Beverly Drive and Sky Lane access. Gray stated that the City recommends the access across the MAC property versus trying to run all the traffic through Beverly Drive and Sky Lane. Koenig asked the property proponent what was the situation with the tree replacement plan, and has it been revised. Mr. Ryan stated that the plan has been changed and they are in agreement with the City,but it has not been submitted to the Planning Department as of yet. Stoelting requested to Gray that a recommendation be made for two access points in the PUD approval, contingent on MAC acceptance. Gray stated that they would actively pursue MAC concurrence for the temporary access. There are two houses on the lot that need to be condemned and removed because they do become a source of vandalism. MAC appears to be in favor of taking these houses off the property. Mr. Ryan stated that they would make a formal application to MAC to get the easement for construction through the corridor. He stated that if they do not get this temporary easement then they can discuss access through Beverly Drive and Sky Lane. Brooks stated he did not see the restrictions of parking on Beverly Drive and Sky Drive, and the other issues of overlaying,paving and the staging area on the staff report and these issues should be addressed with the motion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2005 Page 9 Stoelting reiterated by stating that when a motion is made these specific issues can be addressed at that time. Robin Smith, owner of the lot at 9765 Sky Lane, next to Ray Driver and on the southern end of the MAC property, stated that his property is next to the condemned houses and he feels that if there is a temporary road put in through this area it would bring in a lot of unwanted people that do not live in the area, therefore the potential for more vandalism and theft exists, especially since there really are no neighbors to watch the area. He asked that if a temporary road is put in, could the developer or MAC also put in a fence to eliminate some of this. Stoelting asked Gray to address this issue. Gray stated that fencing is an option and also a construction gate down at Eden Prairie Road is another alternative. Koenig asked that in regards to fencing, could MAC be asked if that area could be fenced, regardless of where the staging area would be. She asked if there were "no trespassing" signs in the area. Gray was unsure if any signs were up in the area but it is unsure if MAC would want to get involved in the no trespassing issue and questioned if they would enforce it. He stated that even without the construction corridor people are still trespassing in the area. Gray was unsure if a fence would eliminate the problem. Koenig was concerned with having the staging in this area. Gray stated that this area is wide open at this point and that the City needs to reach an agreement with MAC on this issue. Koenig suggested being more proactive with MAC. Gray stated MAC could fence entire property to keep trespassers out. (Rocheford left the meeting at this time) Koenig asked if the neighbors have any recourse for trespassers. Fox stated that he has talked to Bridget, at MAC, and there have been "no trespassing" signs posted in the past and people would rip them down. Once the signs are down, the police cannot enforce the "no trespassing"issue. Fox stated that this is a constant problem for the area. Nelson asked if there has been a particular police problem on this property. Fox stated that he was not aware of any particular problem. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 7-0. Kacher was dismissed from this public hearing and Rocheford left the meeting before the motion took place. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Brooks, to approve a request for Planned Unit Development concept Review on 42.22 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 42.22 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to R1- 13.5 on 42.22 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 42.22 acres into 39 lots, two out lots PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2005 Page 10 and road right-of-way,based on plans stamp dated March 11, 2005, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated March 11, 2005, to the City Council, with the addition of the following items: restrict parking on Beverly Drive and Sky Lane, move the staging area from Block 4 Lot 5 to Block 4 Lot 1, and make a formal request to MAC for using the utility easement for moving construction in and out of the area. Koenig made the comment that she would like to go on record that she would prefer to see the staging area occur at Beverly Drive. Motion passed 7-0. VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS IX. NEW BUSINESS X. PLANNERS' REPORTS Koenig asked when the new term would start for new Commission Members. Kipp stated he was unaware of when that would take place. Brooks stated it would be the first meeting in April. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Stoltz, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 8-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.