Planning Commission - 07/10/2006 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,JULY 10, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Jon Duckstad, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig,
Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford,
Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz
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: Duckstad, Pitzrick, and
Rocheford.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 6-0.
III. MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 12, 2006
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Kirk, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 6-0.
IV. PUBLIC MEETING
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE#2006-06 by Anthony Lissick. Request:
To permit a garage and house addition 8.85' from the side lot line. City Code
requires a minimum of 10' side yard setback with a total of 25' both sides.
Location is at 17159 Trenton Lane.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2006
Page 2
Anthony Lissick presented the proposal. He stated that he was granted this
variance back in 2003 to build a garage addition but did not build within a year so
the approval to the variance became null and void. He would now like to rebuild
his garage and is here for a variance request. He pointed out that he had talked
with his neighbors and they are in favor of the variance. He said he would like to
rebuild the garage to extend it into three stalls.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that a three stall
garage fits in with the character of the neighborhood and the staff report identifies
reasons for approval.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0.
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to approve the garage and house
addition 8.85' from the side lot line based on plans stamped dated June 1, 2006,
and the staff report dated July 7, 2006. Motion carried 6-0.
B. VARIANCE#2006-07 by Douglas and Anne Steen. Request:
To permit a gazebo addition 10' from the rear lot line. City Code requires a 20'
rear yard setback. Location is at 9764 Linden Drive.
Douglas Steen presented the proposal. He stated that they would like the variance
for a 10' setback from the lot line. He said that he had talked with his neighbors
regarding the position of the gazebo and they are all in favor of the variance
request. Mr. Steen pointed out that they do not want to put a free standing gazebo
into their yard because it would not fit in with the character of the neighborhood.
He also stated that the gazebo would fit into the proposed location without
destroying any mature trees.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that the staff
report identifies reasons for approval.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0.
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to approve the gazebo addition 10' from
the rear lot line based on plans stamped dated June 2, 2006, and the staff report
dated July 7, 2006. Motion carried 6-0.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2006
Page 3
C. KLUGE RESIDENCE by Richard and Kelsey Kluge. Request for:
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 1.98 acres. Location is 7260
Willow Creek Road.
John Boyer, of Boyer Building Corporation presented the proposal. He stated
that the lot contains a small cottage and detached garage. The homeowner would
like to tear these both down and rebuild on the site.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that staff
recommends approval based on page 3 of the staff report.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Koenig asked if the cottage had any historical significance. Franzen stated that it
is not identified as a structure,but has been documented.
MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0.
MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Zoning District Change
from Rural to R1-22 on 1.98 acres based on plans stamped dated June 6, 2006,
and the staff report dated July 7, 2006.
D. OAK CREEK AT HENNEPIN VILLAGE, by Hennepin Village Limited
Partnership. Request for:
Guide Plan Change from Public Open Space to Medium Density Residential on
3.1 acres and from Medium Density Residential to Public Open Space on 3.2
acres; Planned Unit Development concept Review on 73.7 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review on 73.7 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural
to R1-9.5 on 73.7 acres; Preliminary Plat of 73.7 acres into 90 lots and one outlot.
Dan Herbst, of the Pemtom Land Company,presented the proposal. Mr. Herbst
gave a brief history of the property and used the overhead projector for
illustrations. He pointed out that the first plan in 2001 had 4 parcels on it. Phase
1, which was parcel A, had 125 homes on it. In 2002, the density was raised on
Site A from 125 to 144 homes. He also stated that part of the overall plan was to
give the City open space, which would constitute 8 acres in Site B, and 10 acres in
Sites C and D. Mr. Herbst stated that this evening they would like to address Site
B and reduce the housing from 167 to 93 homes,plus 3 homes across the street.
He also said that they would like to donate the bluff area to the City. Mr. Herbst
pointed out that infiltration bases would be added to this area, along with added
trails and landscaping. He also said that the homes would be styled after the new
version of Ryland homes.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2006
Page 4
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that in looking
at the diversification of housing on the property and the development of the area,
the staff report recommends approval of the modification of the planned
development.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input.
Michael Boland, of 13579 Berkshire Lane, stated that his concern, as well as
some other residents that were present in the audience, was the extension of
Prospect Road. He first pointed out that he felt that the water infiltration system
was better than expected. He stated that he would like to do his presentation in
three steps. First would be a video, second would be some additional speakers,
and third would be a PowerPoint presentation. He introduced Jeff Strate, of 1501
Summit Hill Drive, as narrator of the video. The first part of the video showed
Millers Creek, Lions Tap, and Miller Spring. The second part of the video
showed the trout springs in Riley Creek. Jeff Strate showed where the addition of
Prospect Road would go to. He also showed on Eden Prairie Road and Lake
Riley areas where the silt fences were broken down and ineffective runoff systems
were found. He stated that the point of this video was to demonstrate how
important natural resources are and recommends the strongest precautions in this
new development. Mr. Strate also pointed out that old Dell Road is eroding into
the creek,but the water temperature of the lower creek is still healthy enough to
house trout.
Michael Boland introduced John Lankas, of 9752 Cupola Lane, to address some
additional issues in the area. Mr. Lankas stated that he moved into the area two
years ago and was told about Prospect Road at that time. He pointed out that his
concern is if Eden Prairie Road is closed at the point where it goes into Highway
212, that this would create another problem. He feels that the slope that starts at
Pickett Lane would be very steep and slippery in the winter. Mr. Lankas pointed
out that there is a serious blind spot at Pickett Road and Prospect Road and can be
very dangerous if coming up Prospect Road from the creek. He stated that public
safety should be the first concern and preservation of wildlife needs to be the
second concern.
Michael Boland gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding environmental
impacts. Some of these impacts include preserving Miller Spring; maintaining the
trout basin in Riley Creek, east of Eden Prairie Road; and the impact that the
extension of Prospect Road would have on the storm water runoff. In summary,
Mr. Boland stated that the Prospect Road extension would contaminate Miller
Spring; the impact of bringing all of this fill into the area would be catastrophic;
and the slope of the road and size of embankment would be a hazard.
David Carroll, of 9776 Cupola Lane, stated that he has concerns about how the
Prospect Road extension would impact the traffic at Cedar Hills Park.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2006
Page 5
Jan Mosman, of 15117 Scenic Heights Road, stated that she feels the issue should
be preservation of natural areas and suggests that Prospect Road be a gravel or
grass road.
Dean Edstrom, of 10133 Eden Prairie Road, stated that he believes when the City
allowed development in the area is when natural resources were lost and damage
to the area occurred. He stated that he believes that the infiltration ponds would
contaminate the area and that the overall density has had a negative impact on the
environment. He stated that keeping the access at 212 was not a good idea
because of all of the accidents and deaths at the intersection.
Stoelting summarized some of the important issues that were presented. They are
as follows:
1. Legal precautions protecting Miller Spring and lower Riley Creek.
2. Public safety and the steep grade from Cupola Lane.
3. Parking concerns on Prospect Road.
4. Blind spots and emergency vehicle access and slope of the road on
Prospect Road.
5. Rain water runoff.
6. Traffic on Prospect Drive.
7. Suggestion of gravel or grass on Prospect Road.
Gray stated that public safety is the top issue. He stated that the entire area will
see 300-350 residential units and that areas of this size should have multiple
accesses and that the extension of Prospect Drive would solve this. Gray stated
that they could continue to access Eden Prairie Road to Highway 212,but the cost
to make grade 10% for this area would be very expensive. Gray also believes
Prospect Road would be much safer. He stated that by not building Prospect
Road, it would not eliminate water quality. An example of this would be to look
at the area around Riley Creek and Grace Church and how it has not has not
significantly affected the water run-off. Gray pointed out that Prospect Road
would shorten the distance into the area in regards to emergency vehicles. Gray
suggested that in regards to Miller Spring, tests of soil in the area should be
completed to determine if there would be a problem with water run-off. Gray also
felt that selecting Prospect Road as a secondary road would be a much better
solution all around and that it would not turn into a busy road.
Mr. Herbst stated that in regards to parking, there should be ample space in the
parking garage. Mr. Herbst introduced Dwight Jelle to discuss water infiltration.
Mr. Jelle stated that Ryland has put in 4 storm water treatment systems into the
area. He illustrated where these would be located on the overhead projector. He
said that portions of Prospect Road would go into the NURF pond, and then into
the creek. He said that the first 3/a" of rain water will go into infiltration.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2006
Page 6
Kirk asked if there would be any traffic issues with the old Highway 212 and the
new Highway 212. Gray stated there would be no significant impact.
Koenig stated that she feels the project proponent is getting a better trade off than
the City in regards to open area. Fox stated that the developer asked if we would
like the old clubhouse facility and the City felt it could be a building that the City
might utilize as an art center.
Seymour asked how old the building is and would it be a significant amount of
expenditure that would go into renovation. Fox stated it would be minimal.
Stoelting asked Franzen if this proposal consists of 2 guide plan changes. Franzen
confirmed that it does. He said the Commission members should ask themselves.
First if changing from a 180 to 96 unit plan for more conventional single family
housing is acceptable, then ask if the site plan is acceptable.
Koenig suggested that a broader look into the area may have to be taken.
Stoltz stated that he is concerned with the lots on Lot C. Stoelting said that he
received an e-mail from Jerry Petzrick and one of his concerns was the land swap
of open space.
Mr. Jelle stated that their company have some visual studies into this project and
the newly built houses are very well protected with the use of retaining walls and
water drainage systems.
After some discussion with the Planning Commission Members, Stoelting came
to the conclusion that most of the Commission Members were not comfortable
with the guide plan and PUD changes.
Franzen suggested that more time should be given in making a decision on this
proposal. Stoelting asked Mr. Herbst if he would be willing for a continuance.
Mr. Herbst stated that he would be willing to come back on August 14, 2006.
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0.
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to continue request to the August 14,
2006 meeting and to revise the development plans according to the staff report
and other requirements as identified by the Commission; including guide plan
issues relating to swap of property, more information on Prospect Road and
Highway 212 and how it would impact development information from the City as
to use of swapped property. Motion carried 6-0.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2006
Page 7
E. WILLIAM SMALL PROPERTY by Pemtom Land Company. Request for:
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5.01 acres; Preliminary Plat of
5.01 acres into 9 lots and road right-of-way.
Dan Herbst presented the proposal. He stated that the original plan for Hennepin
Village that was approved in 2001 was a 249 acre mixed land use project. There
were four phases in the master plan. Phases A, C, and D have been approved for
rezoning and subdivision and that building permits have been issued for these
sites. He pointed out that Site B has a concept approval for approximately 180
units, a mix of small lot single family and townhouses. The proposed change
would be from 180 single family and townhouse units to 93 single family units.
The proposed net density is 5.18 unites per acre. He pointed out that waivers
from the City code are for lot size, lot dimensions and setbacks.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that this project
conforms to all the standards and Staff recommends approval.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input.
Travis Wutke, an Eden Prairie resident who resides on Flying Cloud Drive, stated
that the issue regarding the street is with connectivity. Mr. Wutke illustrated this
by using the overhead projector. He stated that the residents in that area do not
want to impact Beverly Drive with additional traffic. He pointed out on the
diagram that Street A should be eliminated to the south of where it connects with
Street B. Mr. Wutke pointed out that this would also create larger lots in the area.
Robyn Smith, who resides on 9765 Sky Lane, stated that he, along with other
residents in the area, are concerned with the development along Prospect Road
and thought Prospect Road was a better solution than improving Eden Prairie
Road at 212.
Stoelting asked Gray to address the issues of Street A and assessments to the area.
Gray stated that without Street A extended, it would have to be redesigned and
would require a variance, because it would not meet City Code. Gray addressed
the issue of assessments and stated that for the current plan it would be
approximately $9500; to connect Eden Prairie Road with Highway 212, it would
be a substantial assessment.
Stoelting stated that the road needs to be addressed in more detail to substantiate
this variance request and suggested this request be continued.
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Seymour, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2006
Page 8
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Seymour, to continue request to the August 14,
2006 meeting and to revise the development plans according to the staff report
and other requirements as identified by the Commission; including a resolution of
the Prospect Road issue and the impact on sewer connection to the property and to
address the issue of road assessments for Eden Prairie road and its connection or
non-connection to Highway 212. Motion carried 6-0.
VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS
X. NEW BUSINESS
A. 2008 GUIDE PLAN PRESENTATION BY SRF CONSULTING GROUP
Julie Wischnack, of SRF Consulting Group gave a short presentation of the 2008
Guide Plan. She stated that the plan is projected to be completed in September of
2007. They will make presentations to the Planning Committee throughout that
time and the first presentation will address the issue of housing.
XI. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Franzen stated that there will be two variances for the July 24 meeting. One will be for a
rezoning for office and the other will be a guide plan update.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Seymour, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried
6-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.