Planning Commission - 05/10/2004 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, MAY 10, 2004 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Brooks, Larry Kacher, Kathy Nelson, Peter
Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Jon Stoltz,William
Sutherland, Ray Stoelting, Vicki Koenig
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, City Planner
Alan Gray, City Engineer
Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Larry Kacher, Kathy
Nelson, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting. Absent: Jon Stoltz, William
Sutherland, Vicki Koenig
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Stoelting to approve the agenda. Motion carried
5-0.
III. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the April 26, 2004 Community Planning Board Meeting
MOTION by Stoelting, seconded by Nelson to approve the minutes. Motion carried
4-0. 1 abstention.
IV. INFORMATION MEETING
A. EDENVALE HIGHLANDS by BC Development, LLC. Information meeting to
consider Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.62 acres and
Preliminary Plat of 10.62 acres into 9 lots and road right-of-way. Location: East
terminus of Alpine Trail, south of the Twin Cities and Western Railroad.
Floyd Calhoun, BC Development, LLC was present and said most of the
information would be handled by Steve Johnson, Engineer, of the project.
Calhoun felt that the proposal for nine lots is a good fit and consistent with the
surround neighborhood.
Community Planning Board
May 10, 2004
Page 2
Steve Johnson, BC Development, LLC said the proposed project is an extension
of the Alpine Trail cul-de-sac with nine proposed lots. There are six lots along
the creek and three lots that will not have that frontage. The alternative plan, as
requested by staff,proposes a reduction in the size of the cul-de-sac and with the
addition of retaining wall, the trees impact has been reduced to 34%. Overall, this
plan meets the goals of staff as outlined. The plan meets all the zoning ordinances
—lot size, density, and land use are consistent with the zoning. There will be a
storm water pond in the development and the pond has been engineered to be
sufficient size for the development. Storm water would be brought into the pond
with access to maintain the pond. Johnson indicated he would be happy to answer
any questions.
Franzen said that the property is guided low density residential with a cap of 2 1/2
units per acre. This project is proposed at .9 units per acre. It is in an area that is
surrounded by single-family and is a permitted use. This project meets all of the
lot requirements of the R1-13.5 and complies with the Shoreland Ordinance. The
only suggestion is that the developer takes a second look at tree impact to try and
reduce the amount of significant tree loss.
Harry Garish, 6850 Alpine Trail, said he was concerned about the elevation of the
lot that is next to his neighbor, Mrs. Brown. Garish explained that he was
concerned that water would flow down on his neighbor's property.
Paul Kozlicki, 6863 Alpine Trail, asked what the neighborhood could expect in
regard to truck traffic and safety issues.
Stoelting reiterated that there were concerns about elevations, water runoff, and
construction traffic,hours and where the trucks would park.
Johnson, referencing Garish's concern about his neighbor's yard, said that there
will be a retaining wall and the home would be about eight feet higher than the
other home. The grade on the property line will match the existing property line
so there should not be a concern about runoff. Johnson said there will be some
truck traffic removing excess material from the site, there will be truck traffic
during installation of the infrastructure,but on a long term basis there should not
be concern about traffic.
Stoelting asked Johnson what the stages of development would include and how
that would relate to truck traffic.
Johnson said that his best guess is that they will haul dirt for a couple of weeks
and place utilities for three to four weeks. Then there would be 2 1/2 to 3 months
of site construction.
Community Planning Board
May 10, 2004
Page 3
Paul Kozlicki, 6863 Alpine Trail, asked if the City has guidelines on the hours
that the trucks can operate. Kozlicki said he was concerned about the children
dodging vehicles on the way to school or waiting for the buses. Kozlicki wanted
to know the value of the new homes.
Johnson said the City has limits on the hours of construction. When the trucks
haul material, they usually wait until after rush hour. There shouldn't be a
conflict with school hours and truck traffic. Johnson said the new homes would
be valued comparable to the neighborhood.
Harry Garish, 6850 Alpine Trail, asked if there is more specific information on
the value of the new homes.
Calhoun said that they would follow the guidelines the City sets for construction
traffic. Calhoun said that as a father of three children, he takes very seriously the
safety of children. Calhoun said that all the contractors and subcontractors would
have to follow the set guidelines. Calhoun assured the audience that the children,
and their safety, are of the utmost importance. Calhoun said that the value of the
homes will be about$600,000+ and consistent with the neighborhood.
Stoelting asked if Alan Gray, City Engineer, would address the requirements of
the traffic hours.
Gray said that hours are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday. Gray said that the neighborhood would be more conscious of the trucks
because of the sound and size of the trucks. Gray said that the contractors are
expected to be courteous and operate according to the law. Gray indicated that
there would be additional traffic and the children should be made aware of that
and should be given additional training.
Tim Baltzer, 6891 Alpine Trail, said that the present neighborhood had covenants
in place that address building material issues, substructure issues, no fencing, etc.
and would the new development have covenants that would be consistent. Baltzer
asked about grade and elevations. Baltzer inquired as to what the retaining walls
would be made of. Baltzer wanted to know if the truck traffic during construction
would deteriorate Alpine Trail and if so, would the neighborhood be assessed for
the road improvements.
Paul Kozlicki, 6863 Alpine Trail, said he had a copy of the existing covenants and
would they also apply to the proposed nine lots.
Barb Pries, 6898 Alpine Trail, wanted to know if the pond would be on
someone's lot and would it stay a natural area. She wondered if they were
creating a new pond or just calling a swamp a pond.
Community Planning Board
May 10, 2004
Page 4
Becky Brown, 6855 Alpine Trail, wanted to know how close the proposed
retaining wall would be to her property. Brown asked if the lots would be sold
individually or are all the homes going to be built at once.
Stoelting recapped the residents' concerns: the covenants, retaining wall material,
grade and elevation of the road, assessments on the road because of truck traffic,
is the pond going to be on someone's lot and is it going to be dredged, location of
the retaining wall, will the lots be sold individually or are they going to be built
all at once. Stoelting asked Calhoun if he could address the expressed concerns.
Floyd Calhoun, said he has not seen the covenants covering the existing
neighborhood, however, he said that the proposed neighborhood would be built
using natural materials, such as brick, and there would be no vinyl materials used.
Calhoun said that the new homes might desire a fence because there won't be a
lot of space in the back. Some of the homes sit on a bluff because the developer
is cutting into a hill in order to preserve existing trees. Calhoun said that his
preference for retaining walls is boulders that lend themselves to a natural look.
Calhoun indicated that there are seven builders that are interesting in building in
the new development. Calhoun said that the builders are aware that there are
strong covenants in the area and that he had control over the job sites and he
would be very strict on safety issues. Calhoun said his objective is to have
minimal impact on the existing neighborhood, but the new development would
enhance the value of the existing homes rather than detract from them.
Johnson said that there would be some retaining walls that would be substantial so
there is a possibility of looking at other materials,but that would be discussed at a
later time. Johnson said the street grade would climb at about 8%. There will be
a lot of tree planting so that the boulevards would be wooded. The street would
climb at about 8% and wrap around the corner. The pond is also a wetland buffer
and it needs to be discussed with staff as to the appropriateness of the plan.
Johnson explained that there is a wetland boundary, but the pond stays out of the
wetland area. The pond will be a NURP Pond and the maximum depth is ten feet.
The pond is proposed to be 6 to 10 feet. There will also be a safety bench around
the pond. Johnson explained that the retaining wall would be about 15 feet off
Brown's property line. There will be tree removal on that lot,but the area would
be revegetated.
Stoelting asked Gray to address the concern of future assessments on Alpine
Trail.
Gray said that back when their neighborhood was built, the City did some
pavement condition documentation before the truck traffic and after the truck
traffic. Gray explained that the trucks did not deteriorate the streets,but the street
had concrete added, curb and gutter. Gray said the assessment policy has changed
since that time. If the street was deteriorated, the City would pay 60% of the costs
Community Planning Board
May 10, 2004
Page 5
and they would be assessed 40%. Gray said that there should not be a need for
reconstruction. Gray said that the City would look at the street prior to
construction and after construction. If there are repairs needed, the City would
work with the developer to address the repairs.
Nelson said that she is concerned that the neighborhood realizes that the bluff area
is a protected area and should not be tampered with.
Johnson said that the retaining walls would be built first around the bluff. He said
that property owners would be made aware that they could not impact the bluff
area.
Nelson expressed her concern that the new homeowners be aware that there are
conservation easements in the area.
Franzen said that development covenants are private and the City could not
require covenants on properties. Franzen explained that the developer would be
responsible for setting up covenants for the neighborhood.
Kacher said that the developer seemed sensitive to the neighborhood and
encouraged the residents to meet with the developer so discuss their concerns and
a lot of issues could be worked out.
Stoelting asked Fox if the plan was altered to reduce some of the tree loss.
Fox answered that the plan came in Friday and he did not have a time to
thoroughly review it,but he will be taking a close look at the tree loss to make
sure it meets the City's expectations. Fox also mentioned they would be taking a
closer look at the retaining walls because anything over four feet has to be
engineered.
Stoelting told Calhoun that when they return, the Board would like to hear more
about covenants, retaining wall materials and anchoring, pond and storm water
drainage and construction scheduling.
V. PUBLIC MEETING
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE#2004-05 Petition of the City Eden Prairie for property at 13765
Staring Lake Parkway, Eden Prairie, MN to permit construction of an addition to
an existing City storage shed 65' from the Ordinary High Water Level of Staring
Lake. City Code requires 200'.
Community Planning Board
May 10, 2004
Page 6
Fox explained that the City runs outdoor education programs and rental facilities
at Staring Lake and due to the success of the program; the City is ready to put an
addition on the garage. The garage was constructed before the shoreland
ordinance. The City wants to add onto the front of the garage with the same roof
line and adding unheated storage for more program equipment.
Stoelting asked Fox to explain the hardship.
Fox explained that if the City were going to meet code they would have to
relocate and build a completely new structure rather than add on to the existing
building. Then equipment would have to be moved between two locations. If
staff needed to haul equipment, they would have to use a vehicle from one
building to another.
Kacher asked if there has been a problem with water.
Fox said that in the 1987 storm there was about 6" of water in the structure.
Kacher asked if this would meet the program needs indefinitely.
Fox answered that this should take care of the City's needs for the next ten years.
Nelson expressed her support adding that she did not see the addition harming the
shoreland.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Nelson to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 5-0.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Kacher to approve the Variance#2004-05
for property at 13765 Staring Lake Parkway, Eden Prairie, MN to permit
construction of an addition to an existing City storage shed 65' from the Ordinary
High Water Level of Staring Lake. Motion carried 5-0.
B. PART II WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN— City of Eden Prairie
Leslie Stovring, Environmental Coordinator, City of Eden Prairie, presented the
Wellhead Protection Plan (WHPP). Leslie explained that the WHPP is intended
to provide the City with a comprehensive plan to provide the City with the basis
to protect our wellhead area from contamination while meeting the requirements
of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and the Minnesota Groundwater
Protection Act. The City current operates a total of 13 groundwater wells. One
well was removed for construction of Highway 312.
City wells were found to be vulnerable to surficial activities and potential
contaminants due to tritium identified within the groundwater by the Minnesota
Community Planning Board
May 10, 2004
Page 7
Department of Health (MDH). Tritium is a radioactive isotope that is used to date
groundwater. The presence of tritium means that the City's groundwater is
relatively young, which in turn makes it more vulnerable to surface activities.
MDH is the lead agency for developing the State's Wellhead Protection Program
which includes overseeing the development of WHPPs in individual cities.
Through visual representation, Stovring explained the locations of the Wellhead
Protection Area (WHPA), the Drinking Water Supply Management Area
(DWSMA), and the Emergency Management Zone (EMZ). The EMZ represents
a one-year time travel for groundwater. This area is the most critical area to
manage in terms of protection for the City's wells.
Part II of the Wellhead Protection Management Plan includes evaluation of items
such as: Potential sources of contamination to the DWSMA as well as the
degrees of risk of land uses within this area; Source-management controls to
control the risk and/or potential contaminant sources to minimize impacts to the
DWSMA (this could include evaluating measure to limit development activities
or change zoning regulations with the EMZ; Monitoring or educational tools to
evaluate the effectiveness of the source management controls; Contingency
measures to address potential interruption of public water supply if contaminants
are identified with the DWSMA; Requirements for management of three existing
septic systems within High Priority Areas of the Wellhead Protection Area that
may impact the groundwater areas, without the DWSMA and WHPA which
extend into the City of Minnetonka.
Stovring said that yearly WHPP reports would be submitted to the Planning Board
and City Council. Stovring explained that WHPP would also be part of the
development review process.
Nelson expressed her concern that something is done about the septic systems that
are high risk to the groundwater. Nelson suggested that these residents connect to
City sewer and water.
Stovring said that the Inspections Division is looking at updating the septic
ordinance to address these issues.
Stoelting said that the Wellhead Protection Plan is an identification of problems or
risks. It is an inventory to assess the greatest risks. Stoelting suggested an
ordinance to address or change the problems areas identified by the Wellhead
Protection Plan.
Rocheford said it seems that the septic system issue is a decision that the City
Council must make.
Community Planning Board
May 10, 2004
Page 8
Gray said that there is a legal requirement especially in regard to the septic system
issue. Addressing the issues of old septic systems and unused wells are of high
importance and City staff will be working to resolve these issues.
MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Nelson to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 5-0.
MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Nelson to approve the Part II Wellhead
Protection Plan. Motion carried 5-0.
VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
X. PLANNERS' REPORTS
A. Golden Triangle Study
Franzen said that staff is asking City Council to adopt the Golden Triangle Study.
Franzen said that the Golden Triangle Study is an advisory tool and will be used
in the development review process with developers. Franzen asked that the Board
recommend the Study to City Council.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Nelson to recommend the Golden Triangle
Study to City Council. Motion carried 5-0.
B. Upcoming Projects
Franzen explained that the upcoming projects are: Revisit the Kleve Retail site
whether the City should leave the land guided industrial or commercial; there is a
small garage addition variance that is required because the lot is part on a straight-
away and part on a cul-de-sac; there a variance for a lot that is next to Little Red,
the City is going to redo the intersection of Valley View Road and Eden Prairie
Road—part of the reconstruction is going to close the driveway access to Little
Red off of Valley View Road and move it to the east which will take some of the
land away from the single-family property. The home on the property will be torn
down and rebuilt and there will be a lot size waiver required.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Seymour to adjourn the Planning Board meeting of
May 10, 2004 at 8:38 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.