Planning Commission - 06/13/2005 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,JUNE 13, 2005 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Larry Kacher, John Kirk, 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: Kirk, Stoltz, and
Sutherland. Nelson arrived during the Duck Lake Knoll presentation.
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 MAY 23, 2005
A quorum was not met to approve the minutes.
IV. PUBLIC MEETING
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. DUCK LAKE KNOLL by Epic Development, LLC. This is a request for a
Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning District on 1 acre; and a
Preliminary Plat of 1 acre into 2 single family lots and road right-of-way.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2005
Page 2
Perry Ryan, of Ryan Engineering, representing Epic Development, presented the
proposal. He stated that they are proposing to rezone 2 lots that will be 125 feet
wide. He used the overhead projector to illustrate this proposal. He stated that
initially the proposal was for 3 lots to be on this parcel of land. Because of the
tree loss it would create, the proposal was not supported by staff. They have
come back tonight with a new plan to have 2 lots on this parcel of land. He stated
that in keeping with the 2 lot subdivision, the houses would be built out to the side
yard setback and that is where the tree loss would be calculated. The City
proposed another layout for a revised two lot subdivision, stating the tree loss
would go down significantly. Mr. Ryan felt that the City's layout would really
limit the lots. Staff recommends the first lot being 149 feet wide and the second
lot being 95 feet wide. Mr. Ryan stated the challenge is that it is hard to put a 95
foot wide lot next to a 150 foot wide lot and he would rather not.
Stoelting asked Kipp to review the staff report. Kipp stated that this is a two lot
proposal. It does not require a rezoning of the property. Tree loss is calculated at
51%. The City's recommendation to shift the property line 27 feet would reduce
tree loss to 29 %. The Commission would require a new public hearing for a
three lot proposal. He stated that Staff recommends approval of the two lot plan
based on recommendations on page 3 of the staff report, which includes revision
of the plat to shift the lot line 27 feet to the west for a 95 foot wide lot prior to
City Council.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input.
Glen Olson, of 17200 W. 67h Street Circle, stated that he boarders the back lot of
lot one. And Jason Wallace, neighbor, would boarder the other lot and the
Madison's would be to the north of the lots. He stated that he does support the
two lot proposal but would like to see less tree loss. He also stated that there is a
diseased oak tree on the lot and he would like to see that tree removed. He is an
advocate for saving trees and does feel that it is a shame to see the area destroyed.
Stoelting asked Mr. Olson if he was speaking for the Wallace's and the
Madison's. He also asked if lower tree loss was acceptable. Mr. Olson stated that
the neighbors would be coming forward with their opinions and that the lower
tree loss would be acceptable to him.
Stoelting asked Fox about the diseased trees on the property. Fox stated that the
assessment was based on the total inventory and that the large diseased oak tree
was not counted in the loss. Fox stated that for the most part the trees are very
healthy.
Tom Madison, who resides directly north of the project, stated that he does not
support the plan of the developer,but does support the City's plan of moving the
house back. He also stated that another concern of his is drainage, which
accumulates between his house and the oak trees.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2005
Page 3
Koenig asked Kipp if the City addressed the issue of just putting one house on
this property. Kipp stated that currently there is one house on the property and
pointed out that the developer has the right to subdivide this property consistent
with the zoning of the property.
Seymour asked the Staff to address the drainage issue. Gray stated that there are
improvements to the plan that would address the issue. One is that the interior lot
could be graded to take it east to the roadway, and secondly there is a storm sewer
in the roadway that could supply supplemental drainage to that area.
Stoelting asked if these improvements would be at the cost of the project
proponent or the City. Gray stated that it would be part of the project and the
responsibility of the proponent. Stoelting followed up with asking Kipp to address
the issue that if this was not included in the staff report then a motion would have
to be made to include that and Kipp confirmed that it would.
Koenig questioned Fox if the burr oak trees are resistant to construction damage.
Fox stated that it would be based on the condition of the trees, the age of the trees
and the timing of the construction. He stated that the most critical thing is to stay
out of the drip line of the trees. The City's recommendation is to be careful in the
placement of the homes and to use fencing to protect the tree roots. Koenig stated
that the site looked small in order to protect all of the trees at the drip line and
questioned Fox if they would have enough room to do the construction. Fox
stated that because of this, the fencing is something that should be required at all
times during construction.
Stoelting asked the project proponent in regards to moving the pads would he
have any problems with what the City has proposed. And secondly, to address the
issue of developing some sort of drainage solution for this property. Mr. Ryan
stated that they would like Staff to support their proposal. hi regards to the
second issue,he stated that there is a catch basin at the neighbors to the north area
of the property. He used the overhead projector to illustrate this. He stated that
what they are proposing is to move drainage along the common lot line. They
would work with Gray to minimize drainage to neighboring property.
Koenig asked the project proponent to address the issue of why he does not
support the staff's proposal of the two lot plan since it would be reducing tree
loss. Mr. Ryan stated that he believes that the one lot is too small in comparison
to the other lot.
Stoelting asked staff for comment. Kipp said that the commission has three
options to consider. If the Commission supports the proponents plan, it can
recommend approval of the their plan. If the commission supports the staff report
recommendation to revise the plan, it can recommend approval, based on the
recommendations of the staff report. Lastly, if the Commission does not support
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2005
Page 4
the proponents plan, and would like to send a strong message to the City Council,
it can recommend denial of the plan,based on the environmental impact on the
natural resources of the property, specifically the oak trees.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 5-0. Kacher abstained.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Seymour, to deny the request for Zoning
District Amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning District on 1 acre; Preliminary
Plat of 1 acre into 2 single family lots and road right-of-way,based on plans
stamped dated May 20, 2005, subject to the recommendations of the Staff report
dated June 10, 2005, to the City Council,based on the following findings: need
for a larger lot is outweighed by the impact of the trees.
Stoelting asked Rocheford if the denial was because Staff feels there needs to be a
larger lot. Rocheford clarified by stating that the project proponent wanted a
larger lot at the expense of greater tree loss.
Koenig stated that the tree loss is nearly double what it is in residential areas and
asked Stoelting if it could be put in the record that tree loss is too high. Stoelting
said that it states that the project developer's plan is 5 1% versus the City plan,
which is 29 %. Koenig stated that the average residential tree loss is between 30-
35%. Stoelting asked Kipp to address this issue. Kipp stated that a
recommendation for denial based on the lot size would not be appropriate since
the developer meets the Code for lot size,rather, the denial should be based on the
environmental impact.
Koenig asked if they are conforming in lot size, does Staff need to withdraw the
motion for denial. Rocheford stated that if Mr. Ryan wishes to have the lots
divided equally and not follow the staff recommendation, then it would be
appropriate to deny the request.
Mr. Ryan stated that they wanted equal lots and that they would be willing to
work with Staff to minimize the tree loss. He stated that he feels it is unfair to
have one lot larger than the other lot. He also does not believe that the tree loss
would be 51%. He stated that it would be a burden and challenge to market this
property.
Rocheford stated that he is concerned with the neighbor to the north and the tree
loss that would affect them.
Stoelting asked Mr. Ryan if he would be willing to compromise the lot line. Mr.
Ryan stated that there should be a fair balance between his proposal and the
neighbor to the north. He stated he feels that the neighbor to the north is
receiving more attention to the tree loss than the proposed project. He stated he
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2005
Page 5
would be willing to work with Staff in regards to tree loss but would like to keep
the lot lines as proposed.
Kipp stated the shifting the lot line so lot 2 is 95 feet would be consistent with
what is in the area. He stated that if Staff is recommending denial they should
deny the proposed plan based on the high tree loss.
Seymour stated that he is prepared to vote for denial of the project based on what
was proposed at the meeting. Stoelting asked Rocheford to address his previous
motion.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Koenig, to deny the request for Zoning
District Amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning District on 1 acre; Preliminary
Plat of 1 acre into 2 single family lots and road right-of-way,based on plans
stamped dated May 20, 2005, subject to the recommendations of the Staff report
dated June 10, 2005, to the City Council,based on the following findings: that
tree loss would be 51%.
Stoelting asked for an individual ruling. All Commission members voted for
denial, with Kacher abstaining. Stoelting suggested that the project proponent
work with the City to preserve tree loss. Motion carried 5-0. Kacher abstained.
B. PRAIRIE ESTATES,by T.H. Parker, Inc. Request is for a Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 6.47 acres; Planned Unit Development District
Review with waivers on 6.47 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-
13.5 on 6.47 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 6.47 acres into 10 lots, two outlots and
road right-of-way.
Thomas Parker, of 5100 Norman Drive in Minnetonka, presented the proposal
with the assistance of Charlie Howie, engineer of the project. Mr. Parker stated
that the property is 6.5 acres with two single-family homes. He also stated that the
current owner, who owns both of the pieces of property, would be moving out of
the area. He stated that their current proposal does meet the requirements of the
City.
Charlie Howie presented the plan to redevelop the two existing properties. He
illustrated the proposal using an overhead projection. He showed access to all
lots. He stated that Staff wanted to keep a substantial amount of wetland in outlot
B, which they have done. Mr. Howie also stated that portions of lot 10 would be
placed within a wetland conservation easement. He stated that they will also be
dedicating additional right of way for 62nd Street. All the lots meet the setback
requirements by the City. Outlots A and B will be dedicated to the City. They
have met all of the City's requirements except for the length of the cul-de-sac,
which they will be seeking a waiver from the City to have that extended. Mr.
Howie stated that the tree loss would be met within the City standards.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2005
Page 6
Stoelting asked Mr. Howie if an Environmental Assessment was completed and
Mr. Howie confirmed that it was.
Stoelting asked Kipp to review the staff report. Kipp stated that this property is to
be rezoned to R1-13.5, which would be consistent with the surrounding area. He
stated that there is a large wetland that will be dedicated to the City. He explained
that when the City looks at a wetland they try to contain as much as possible in an
outlot to maximize wetland preservation. The Commission can support a PUD
waiver for average lot depth of less than 100 feet for Lot 10 to accommodate the
staff recommendation for the wetland to be placed within the outlot. The other
waiver for the length of the cul-de-sac is supported by the staff because the
majority of the property served by extending cul-de-sac and provides public
access to other neighboring property for future development. Kipp stated that the
City recommendation is for approval.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input.
Stefan Peterson, of 6311 Country Road,had a question regarding outlot A and
how it would be configured. He also was concerned about the tree loss.
Mike Lanigan, of 6251 Country Road, had the same concerns as Mr. Peterson in
wanting to maintain as many trees as possible. He was specifically concerned
with what would happen to the trees on the east side of the project. His other
concern was the outlot pond and the concern for safety for children in the
neighborhood. Mr. Lanigan also asked if the sidewalks would still be kept.
John Marshalla, of 17039 Claycross Way, wanted to address the trees in lot 10
and asked if they are normally tagged as to which trees are staying and which
trees are going. Kipp stated that the developer does look at all of the trees as part
of preparing development plans. Fox confirmed that the developer does do a
complete inventory on the trees;but they do not have to inventory elms,box
elders, and willows. Mr. Marshalla stated that he and the neighbors do enjoy the
trees in the area and he is concerned because it looks as if half of those trees will
be taken out. Mr. Marshalla also asked if lot 10 was going to have access via a
driveway from Claycross Way. Kipp confirmed that was correct. Mr. Marshalla
asked where the house was going to be placed. Kipp stated that it would be
placed in the largest developable portion of lot 10. He stated that it does provide
for a house pad design and could possibly be a custom built home. Mr. Marshalla
reiterated his concern for the tree loss and asked if they had a plan in place for the
planting of new trees. Stoelting stated that there is a landscaping plan that the
developer submitted.
Stefan Peterson wanted to know the elevation of the lot in the northeast corner,
north of the pond and what kind of homes were going to be built in that area.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2005
Page 7
Charles Gould, of 6285 Duck Lake Road, stated that he has lived at this address
since 1962, and was concerned about the tree loss in the area. He stated that
previously they were promised sewer and water by the City and have not received
that yet, and now has some concerns with this forthcoming project. Stoelting
asked Mr. Gould if his concern was that he was going to be assessed for storm
sewer or sanitary sewer. Mr. Gould stated that was his concern.
Stoelting summarized the questions and issues that were brought before the
Commission and the project proponent. They are as follows:
1. Outlot A and how it will be configured and also what will be the impact to
the trees in the area.
2. The issue of the sidewalks on the east side of this property and also the
impact to the trees in that area.
3. The outlot pond and how safe it would be.
4. Waiver for the cul-de-sac and is there a possibility that it could be moved
more towards the east.
5. Would there be storm water pipes between outlot A and the wetlands.
6. What are the expectations for lot 2; will there be elevation changes.
7. Concerns for lot 10; what is the landscaping plan, and provide an
explanation of the access driveway on this lot.
8. The property owner to the southwest of this project plan has some
concerns about tree loss and assessments.
9. Address the wetlands.
Thomas Parker addressed the issue of lot 10 and described how it was to be
configured using the overhead projector. He stated that initially they were going
to divide it into two lots but decided to keep it as one large lot. He also stated that
the foliage in the area, as well as the wetlands, would remain untouched. Mr.
Parker stated that lot 10 would definitely have a woodsy feel to it. Mr. Parker
stated that the sidewalks would also remain untouched. In regards to lot 2, Mr.
Parker stated that the spruce trees would be untouched and that there would be a
driveway access to this area. The home that would be put on this would be a one
level rambler. He also stated that Mr. Labotta's property, which is located by the
cul-de-sac, would benefit him at the time he chooses to develop because he would
get three lots out of his property, not just two,because one lot can utilize the
proposed cul-de-sac.
Mr. Howie used the overhead protector to illustrate the tree loss to the lot 10 area.
He stated that there would be 4 significant trees that would stay in that area. He
said that the reason that lot 10 could not be moved is because of the sewer pipe
that drains in that area. Mr. Howie pointed out that with their landscaping plan,
they are saving a substantial amount of trees. He also addressed the pond issue
stating that it would be between 4 and 5 feet deep and that they would be willing
to put a fence around the area if required to do so. He also addressed the issue of
the movement of the cul-de-sac in regards to the waivers. He stated it was placed
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2005
Page 8
in that location to provide the best access to the property. It was a
recommendation by the City.
Kipp stated that the cul-de-sac was placed there in order to allow full
development of the property and also for access to the neighboring property. He
stated that this was the most efficient use of the right-of-way. He also stated that
the wetland area has been delineated and is fully within the development area.
The staff is recommending that portion of lot 10 be included in outlot B. Kipp
stated that the sidewalk would remain intact, except for a portion where the sewer
line will be installed.
Gray stated that in regards to the storm water pond, it is partially for esthetic value
and that is why they are not fenced. In regards to safety, the City has not had any
issues with that. Gray said that in regards to assessments, the City would not be
doing any assessing on this property since the developer will be completing all the
infrastructure improvements.
Stoelting asked if development plans in the area have deviated from what was
approved with regard to the trees in the area. Fox stated that at the time of
neighboring development there was no tree preservation polity or ordinance. Fox
stated that the developer is not responsible for mitigating the non-significant trees.
Stoelting addressed the Commission for comments.
Koenig asked Fox if moving the cul-de-sac to the east would save more trees.
Fox stated that shifting the cul-de-sac to the east would not save any more trees.
He stated that the developer is putting in over 100 trees. Koenig asked if it would
help the tree loss to have less lots. Kipp stated that this developer is not over
developing the land and that it is a reasonable development for the area.
Removing an additional lot or two would not appreciably affect the tree loss.
Nelson asked if the reason lot 2 is facing the driveway was because of its height
and she stated that it would seem more reasonable to extend it to Country Road.
Kipp stated that the access to W. 62nd is the most feasible approach. Nelson asked
about lot 10, in regards to wetland going further into the lot and has there been
any consideration for putting the west end into the wetland permanently instead of
including it with lot 10. Kipp stated that Staff is recommending that the majority
of that wetland be placed in outlot B. This is to preserve the wetland.
Nelson asked if it was ever thought of to put it into outlot B versus a conservation
easement. Mr. Howie stated that marketability wise,it was not considered.
Kacher stated that he is concerned with consistency and that this project seemed
to have the same tree loss as the previous proposal and questioned why would the
Commission turn down one project and recommend support of another project.
Kipp stated that there is a difference between landscaping trees and naturally
occurring trees. Fox stated that the previous project had 25" diameter oak trees
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2005
Page 9
where this project has 16" spruce trees. Nelson stated that in regards to tree loss,
both cases are very different. Seymour made the point that in this proposal, the
Staff is addressing 10 lots versus 2 lots. Rocheford stated that he agrees with
Nelson in that these are two separate cases in regards to tree loss and he would be
in favor of this project.
Paul Forrest, of 6227 Country Road, which is directly across the pond on the
proposed project asked how far the pond will be setback from the sidewalk where
the kids will be walking from the bus stop.
Mr. Howie used an overhead projection to show where the pond is located; which
would be 40 feet from the back of the sidewalk. He also stated that two more
spruce trees can be added to the area to act as a buffer. Fox also added that three
parks in the City have ponds in them and there have been no problems.
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Kacher, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0.
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Kacher, to approve the request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 6.47 acres; Planned Unit Development
District Review with waivers on 6.47 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to
R1- 13.5 on 6.47 acres; Preliminary Plat of 6.47 acres into 10 lots, two outlots and
road right-of-way,based on plans stamp dated May 19, 2005, subject to the
recommendations of the staff report dated June 10, 2005, to the City Council.
Also recommending a waiver for average lot depth of less than 100 feet for lot 10
allowing for the wetland to be placed within the outlot. Motion carried 6-0.
C. EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE STATION No. 4, by the City of Eden Prairie. Request
is for a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 3.66 acres; Planned
Unit Development District Review with waivers on 3.66 acres; Zoning District
Amendment within the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District on 3.66 acres;
Site Plan Review on 1.32 acres; Preliminary Plat of 3.66 acres into two lots and
one outlot.
Scott Neal, City Manager for Eden Prairie, stated that they are here to propose the
fourth fire station for Eden Prairie and will be in the southwest quadrant of Eden
Prairie. This has been part of the City's development plan for over a decade.
Miles Britz, project architect for SEH Inc., presented the proposal. He used the
overhead projector to illustrate exactly where the fire station would be located,
which would be between Dell Road and Linwood Court. He stated that the fire
station would be built on the southern area of lot 2. Mr. Britz pointed out that
Miller Parkway would be created this year to allow direct assess to the fire
station. He stated that they have created a rain garden for storm water run off.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2005
Page 10
This will also purify the water because there are drain tiles in the water gardens to
recharge the water. He showed an image of the fire station and how the design
would blend in with the residential area.
Stoelting asked Mr. Britz where the 27 parking stalls are going to be located and
why so many stalls. Mr. Britz stated that it is based on the number of firefighters.
Stoelting asked Kipp to review the staff report. Kipp stated that an underlying
plan approval for a commercial development took place in 1985 but was not
constructed. He pointed out that the fire station is authorized for any zoning
district. He also said that lot 1 will be sold by the City for commercial
development. Kipp pointed out that there are some waivers associated with the
project, and includes setbacks, lot size and building height. Staff recommendation
is for approval.
Stoelting asked Kipp about the front yard building setback and questioned which
road it would be, Linwood Court or Miller Parkway. Kipp said that it is along
Miller Parkway. The staff report indicated Linwood Ct.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input.
Craig and Mary Peterson, of 8430 Kimball Drive, had three questions and one
comment. The first question is would there be a stoplight or stop sign at the cul-
de-sac. The second question would be if the stop sign can have a flashing light
when the fire trucks come up. The third question would be when the fire trucks
come out could they go the other direction because of the many children on
Linwood. Their comment was that a lot of money has come into the land and
they want the City to be careful about what they put into lot 1.
Stoelting asked Gray to address the traffic flow issue of the fire station and the
concept of the flashing light. Gray stated that there are a lot of fire stations that
exist in residential environments without a lot of conflict;because of this he does
not see a need for a signal at Linwood Court because this is not a high traffic area.
Mr. Britz stated that the reason the vehicles go out on Dell Road is because 90%
of their calls will have to have access to go either north or south on Dell Road and
not the other direction. There will be a 4 way controlled stop light at Dell Road
and Linwood Court.
Stoelting asked Mr. Britz if there were any sidewalks in the area. Mr. Britz stated
that there are walkways on Dell Road and they will be straightened out per
MNDOT. There will also be new walkways developed by MNDOT.
Stoelting asked Mr. Britz what will be going into lot 1. Mr. Britz stated that the
developer has no actual plan for what will go in there but that they City has
controlled of what will be placed in that area.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 13, 2005
Page 11
Seymour stated that he liked the design of the fire station.
MOTION by Kacher, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0.
MOTION by Kacher, seconded by Nelson, to approve the request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Amendment on 3.66 acres; Planned Unit District
Review with waivers on 3.66 acres; Zoning District Amendment within the
Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District on 3.66 acres; Site Plan Review on
1.32 acre; Preliminary Plat of 3.66 acres into two lots and one outlot,based on
plans stamp dated May 20, 2005, subject to the recommendations of the staff
report dated June 10, 2005, to the City Council. Motion carried 6-0.
VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
X. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Franzen stated that there is one project on the agenda for the June 27, 2005, meeting. It
will be a proposal for a maintenance building.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Nelson, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.