Loading...
Planning Commission - 04/09/2007 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,APRIL 9, 2007 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz, Kevin Schultz 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: Stoltz. II. SWEARING IN NEW MEMBER—ADMINISTER THE OATH OF OFFICE Franzen administered the Oath of Office to new Planning Commission Member, Kevin Schultz. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 8- 0. IV. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 26, 2007 Koenig had one change on page 4, paragraph 5, sentence 2. She would like the sentence to read, "Pitzrick stated in regard to Housing Goal 3, we should increase affordable housing in the City,but maybe not in the middle of the MCA". MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Kirk, to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Rocheford, Stoelting and Schultz abstained. V. PUBLIC MEETING- INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 9, 2007 Page 2 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE#2007-08 - 14389 Westridge Drive Request: To permit an above ground pool with a front yard setback of 22.5 feet from Cumberland Drive. City Code requires 30 feet. Kevin Jach, owner of the property, presented the proposal. He showed illustrations of the location of the pool and the fact it is not visible to the public. He stated the pool has been in place for approximately one year. They were unaware they encroached into the front yard setback from Cumberland Drive by 7.5 feet. That is the reason for the variance request. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated on page 2 of the staff report are options for the Commission Members to consider. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Powell expressed concern that this is a reoccurring problem with corner houses and the two front yard setbacks. Franzen stated corner lots are platted 15 feet wider since there are two frontages with a 30 foot setback. Interior lots have a 10 and 15 foot setback. This is a subject for review and these houses do have a wider setback. Normally they give the benefit to one side so it comes out to 10 feet on one side and 15 feet on the other side. Koenig asked if Mr. Jach has discussed this project with his neighbors. Mr. Jach said he did talk with the neighbors closest to his residence and they did not see a problem with this project. Rocheford asked if the homeowner was still planning on building a deck with this project. Mr. Jach said if the variance request was granted he would request a deck but it would not encroach into any setbacks. Franzen concurred it would be acceptable as long as it was within the setback requirements. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Seymour, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Seymour, to recommend approval of the variance to permit an above ground pool with a front yard setback of 22.5 feet from Cumberland Drive based on plans stamped dated April 6, 2007, and the staff report dated April 6, 2007, including the findings that the pool is not visible from Cumberland Road and would be screened by berm and fence and the conditions that this variance would be void once the above ground pool is dismantled and that any additional deck additions that are attached to the above ground pool would conform with the setback requirements. Motion carried 8-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 9, 2007 Page 3 B. HENNEPIN VILLAGE ROADWAY ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET REVIEW (EAW) Stoelting asked Franzen to review the Hennepin Village Roadway Alternatives Discretionary EAW. Franzen stated that the EAW was selected as a format to review the environmental impact of 6 road alternatives and that the EAW is not mandatory. The comment period opened on March 12 and expires on April 11, 2007. Comments can be submitted in writing or given orally at a hearing. The next step on April 23, is a determination of the accuracy and completeness of the Eaw and a presentation of the roadway alternatives. The City Council will also discuss the road alternatives on May 1, 2007.. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Michael Boland, of 13579 Berkshire Road, wanted to make a clarification comment. He wanted to state, in regards to the EAW and Prospect Road, the word "always" does not necessarily mean always. Mr. Boland stated that in regard to this project and Prospect Road he has heard Staff say it has "always" been there or it's "always"been in the plan, and that is not true. Mr. Boland previously submitted written commentary for public record. David Carroll, of 9776 Cupola Lane, had comments on Paragraph 6 and 21. In summary he stated Paragraph 6 is concerned with the identification of various alternative roadways, however, a number of important alternatives have not been identified and have therefore received no consideration whatsoever in the EAW. Paragraph 21, along with the EAW Appendix, concern traffic, however, the traffic study was woefully inadequate. Mr. Carroll submitted written commentary for public record that details his thoughts on Paragraph 6 and 21. Jack Rhode, of 15859 Porchlight Lane, pointed out he was the first to live in his community. He stated he has concerns about the speeding on Spring Road going into Prospect Road. He feels if Prospect Road is expanded it will just be a matter of time before a serious accident occurs. He also feels there are safety issues with the snow banks and site lines and people not being able to see when pulling out into traffic. He also stated the development will occur west of Eden Prairie Road but does not understand why the access roads will be to the east of Eden Prairie Road. Ron Kosteliz, 9756 Gable Drive, stated he did send an e-mail to the Mayor expressing his thoughts,but wanted to reiterate some of his concerns. He said he walks 5 to 6 miles a day and he sees the high traffic volume Mr. Rhode was talking about and is also concerned about the traffic and safety issues. He also stated he was not given notice that a road was going to be put through his development. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 9, 2007 Page 4 Jill Anderson, of 15751 Porchlight Lane, wanted to comment that where she lives is a very high density area filled with kids and pets and she is also concerned with the traffic in the area. Tom Benson, of 15837 Porchlight Lane, stated he feels strongly about the fact there is a safety issue when coming off of Spring Road onto Prospect Road because the road goes by a park and he sees it as a potential problem with traffic and safety issues for kids playing in the park. Dennis Doyle, of 9980 Dell Road, wanted to comment on Turnbull Road and express his concern that he feels there has not been enough of a study done on the impact of widening this road. He pointed out there are many Indian burial mounds that need to be preserved. John Lankas, of 9752 Cupola Lane, stated that there are two matters he would like to clarify. The first matter is Site A, in Hennepin Village, where he is a resident. They do not have a spokesperson in this Site and in regards to this project only 14 % of the 144 residents received letters regarding this issue. The second matter is that this project posses a serious public safety issue for residents in Site A in relation to Prospect Road and he feels this problem falls on the shoulders of the City of Eden Prairie Engineering Department. He stated the EAW and City did not take into account the safety issues of residents. Mr. Lankas submitted written commentary for public record. Todd Johnson, of 10020 Dell Road, wanted to thank the Commission for their time on this project and also understands this project is going to be a costly endeavor. But at the same time Mr. Johnson feels by expanding Prospect Road it would have a huge impact on the environment in the area. Linda Johnson, of 10020 Dell Road, pointed out when residents decided to live in Hennepin Village they should have understand it is a higher density area and should expect a higher traffic volume. But she feels there are two issues going on here; and that would be safety and design. How are safety vehicles going to get in and out of Hennepin Village. She also feels the environment will be impacted by this project because there will be a lot of trees that will be taken out along Turnbull Road. Greg Peterson, of 10011 Dell Road, stated his residence is at the end of Turnbull Road. He wanted to know when the residents could make comments in regards to all 6 alternatives. He said he has been to every meeting and is unsure what is happening with the process. Franzen reiterated the public commentary period and said the April 23 Planning Commission meeting will be when they compile the public commentary and discuss the 6 alternatives. The Commission Members will decide the best alternative and it will go to the City Council meeting on May 1. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 9, 2007 Page 5 Travis Wuttke, of 16860 Flying Cloud Drive, said his concern is that when they do Hennepin Village Phase B he wants to have a connection with the amenities of Phase A. Jeff Strate, of 15021 Summerhill Drive, took this time to review his comments that were brought up at the Planning Commission meeting on March 12. He stated he does not live in the area but is familiar with the area and feels strongly that the natural resources will be impacted by any of the 6 alternatives that would be chosen. He is also going to be submitting an additional 30 page e-mail packet for public commentary. Tim McLaughlin, of 9999 Dell Road, stated he finds it hard to believe the City can come to one determination based on alternative road sites that would not equally impact the area. Norma Wuttke, of 16860 Flying Cloud Drive, stated there was a lot of talk about traffic mainly coming from the Hennepin Village residents. From her residence she accesses Eden Prairie Road, as do her neighbors. She would like to know how Staff knows what the traffic patterns will be. She also feels this project will impact the environment, especially the wild flowers in the area. She asked that if the new road goes in, would it be possible if the environment in the area could be saved. Dean Edstrom, of 10133 Eden Prairie Road, stated an alternative to the traffic problem on Prospect Road would be to put up a stop light on Prospect Road and Spring Road and also have a back way out of Prospect Road; this would eliminate some of the traffic issues. He also believes, according to the environmental worksheet and in regards to the listed alternatives, that the alternative associated with the Prospect Road would have much less of an environmental impact than the other alternatives. Sandy Tundel, of 9751 Cupola Lane, said she sees two neighborhoods not wanting to have anything done in their area. She said Summit Oaks is a small residential area with narrow roads where Hennepin Village is a more populated area. She would like all the members of the Planning Commission to look at both of these neighborhoods and find out what is best for the area. Robin Smith, of 9765 Sky Lane, stated Prospect Road was approved years ago and should have been made known to potential residents of Hennepin Village. Mr. Smith asked if the issue of Prospect Road will impact Miller Springs. He also asked if a bridge could be put up in the area. Mr. Smith asked if a neighborhood park was put up in the MAC property. Fox confirmed there was a park in the area. Stoelting reiterated that the Commission Members will be revisiting all of the comments on April 23, at the Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 9, 2007 Page 6 Pitzrick wanted to clarify that the Commission will be going over 6 alternatives at the next meeting and would also like an alternative 7 added to the list. And that alternative would be to not close Eden Prairie Road. He said given the situation of one neighborhood versus the other, it seems the best alternative would be alternative 7, with keeping Eden Prairie Road as is with minimal improvements. Gray said it would be difficult to get that option approved by the State. Pitzrick asked if we could include an alternative 7 in this plan. Gray said an additional alternative cannot be added to the EAW at this point. Kirk asked if one of the alternatives would be that the Commission could reject all 6 of the alternatives. Franzen stated the Commission could reject the alternatives but should identify the one that has the least environmental impact and that the 7th alternative would be addressed at the next meeting. Koenig stated she agrees with Pitzrick and Kirk and feels there are still a lot of open ended issues with this project. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Powell, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. C. FLYING CLOUD CORPORATE CAMPUS Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Office/Community Commercial/High Density Residential on 47.65 acres; Planned Unit Development concept Review on 47.65 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 47.65 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural and I-2 to Office on 47.65 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural and I-2 to Office on 47.65 acres; Site Plan Review on 47.65 acres; Preliminary Plat of 47.65 acres into two lots, one outlot and road right-of-way. Franzen stated the project proponent submitted a letter asking for a continuance to the May 14, 2007 MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Pitzrick, to recommend a continuance to the May 14, 2007 meeting. Motion carried 7-0. Rocheford was not present for the motion. VII. PLANNERS' REPORT A. Active Community Planning Franzen stated 6 issues will be addressed over the next 3 to 4 months to the Planning Commission. The City received a grant from Blue Cross Blue Shield to look at ways in which the guide plan and zoning code might be modified to address the principles of active community living for a healthier community. B. May, 22 2007 Planning Commission Meeting Franzen asked if there will be a quorum for this meeting. It was confirmed there will be a quorum. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 9, 2007 Page 7 C. Guide Plan Open House April 19, 2007 Franzen stated the Guide Plan Open House will be held at Eden Prairie City Center in the Heritage Rooms. D. City Council Presentation May 15, 2007 Opportunity for Planning Commission to address City Council E. Awards Ceremony Franzen stated there will be an awards ceremony for past Commission and Council Members. VIII. MEMBERS' REPORT IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS X. NEW BUSINESS XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 8-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:16 p.m.