Loading...
Planning Commission - 02/22/2010 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2010 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Katie Lechelt, Jacob Lee, Alexander Martin, Jerry Pitzrick, Peter Rocheford, Kevin Schultz, Jon Stoltz, Travis Wuttke STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Michael Franzen, City Planner Rod Rue, City Engineer Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoltz called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Kirk, Martin, Rocheford and Wuttke. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Schultz, seconded by Lechelt, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. III. MINUTES A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 25, 2010 MOTION by Lee, seconded by Lechelt, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 3-0. Pitzrick and Schultz abstained. IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS V. PUBLIC MEETINGS VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance 2009-13 by Anderson-Johnson, Inc. Location: 6385 Beach Road Request to: • Permit a wetland buffer strip width less than 10 feet and structure setback of less than 15 feet Jonathan Hussman, 3349 Erving Ave. S, Minneapolis, Minnesota, of Anderson & Johnson, is here tonight representing International School of Minnesota. He utilized the overhead protector to show an outline of the project. They would like EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 22, 2010 Page 2 to construct a running track at the school and are asking for this variance to permit a wetland buffer strip width less than 10 feet and a structure setback of less than 15 feet along the running track. The City Code requires a 20 foot wetland buffer strip and a 15 foot structure setback. They will construct an 8 lane running track. Inside of the track would be a soccer field. There will also be some pole vaulting areas. The south side of the property is the only area on the property this could be placed due to wetlands, floodplaln, trees, and utilities. The variance would be for the area on the north side of the track. Mr. Hussman also pointed out there would be retaining walls along the track. Stoltz asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated City Code requires a three step undue hardship test based on reasonable use of the property, unique circumstances, and neighborhood character. Staff states they meet the three step test. The findings in the staff report are as follows; it is reasonable for a school to have a running track, the track was approved in this location prior to current wetland rules and regulations, and alternative locations are not available due to floodplaln, existing wetlands, trees, slopes and existing utilities. Stoltz opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Pitzrick asked, being they are so close to the wetland, if they have considered using permeable track material. Mr. Hussman said they did not consider it because the track is pitched inward. Schultz asked if when the plans were submitted previously in 1994,has anything changed. Mr. Hussman said he was unsure because he was not around then. Franzen said track is the same and it is in the same location. MOTION by Schultz, seconded by Pitzrick, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION by Schultz, seconded by Pitzrick, to recommend approval of Final Order 2009-13. Motion carried 5-0. B. Oak Creek at Hennepin Village Sixth Addition Land Alteration Permit By Pemtom Land Company Location: 9735 Eden Prairie Road and surrounding area Request for: • Land Alteration Permit for Hennepin Village Site B A land Alteration Permit Application has been submitted for Hennepin Village Site B to remove approximately 190,000 cubic yards of earth and tree removal. Daniel Herbst, of Pemtom Land Company,presented this request. He used a PowerPoint presentation to discuss and give the history of Hennepin Village. He stated they acquired Cedar Hills Golf Course property, which was the first of the groundbreaking. He said part of the plan back then was to protect the Riley Creek EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 22, 2010 Page 3 Corridor. They have added numerous neighborhood amenities to the area, such as trails, a swimming pool and restoration of the barn. They have also dedicated a substantial amount of land to the City and are paying all park fees plus other amenities. He pointed out when all is done with this project the City would receive approximately 300 million dollars, which would be an economic benefit for the City. Mr. Herbst said they are here tonight to ask for the site grading to be done now because they would like to do it in phases versus doing it as one mass project. The grading plans are consistent with plans that have been approved in the past. Mr. Herbst also pointed out this project would be more economical to do it now than in the future and could save money for future homeowners. The benefits would be that it would increase the chance to make the site more competitive and timely to develop. This would in turn, turn into revenue for the City for such things as taxes and building permits. The benefits to the neighbors would be the tree perimeter would be left in place to protect the view shed of the adjacent neighbors. They would eliminate some of the trees in the area to do the grading but when they are finished they will also replace the trees. Doing this project now would also minimize the stockpiling of material. Another advantage would be that sewer and water would become available to certain areas. Mr. Herbst said in regards to the staff report in reference to Prospect Road, they would like to work with the City because they cannot commit to the $87,000 for Prospect Road or the signing of the special assessment agreement for$2 million dollars for future improvements to Eden Prairie Road. Stoltz asked Rue to review the staff report since this came through the Engineering Department because it is a Land Alteration Permit. Rue pointed out the project proponent did have a neighborhood meeting in January, so the neighbors were made aware of what potentially could happen in their area. Rue stated the staff report does include concerns from the Staff, such as traffic,road maintenance and grading operations. Staff recommends approval based on staff recommendations listed on pages 4, 5 and 6 of the staff report. Stoltz opened the meeting up for public input. Michael Boland, of 13579 Berkshire Lane, stated this is not an alteration permit but a mining permit. He pointed out the developer has talked about benefits but they appear to be for the developer. He asked how the removal of this material would benefit the people of Eden Prairie. There would be degradation of roads and pointed out the roads are not even wide enough for dirt hauling trucks. He would like this permit denied. Jack Rhode, of 15859 Porchlight Lane, said he is more concerned with the City than Dan Herbst. He stated two builders have already passed on this site. Due to the economy, this is probably not the time to be developing on this site. The City should be looking at these conditions. The dissemination of ecology would be huge. The haste and push to do this is a mistake. Staff has not done a very good job at entrances into this community. Request that this application be denied. EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 22, 2010 Page 4 Sue Johnson, of 10065 Eden Prairie Road, is the house to the south of the development. She stated we need to look at what has been approved because we do not even have a developer as of yet. She would also like this request denied. Jeff Schoenwetter, of 9750 Sky Lane, stated he is in support of this project. He said Mr. Herbst is going to have to export material/dirt at some point and it is better to do it now in an orderly fashion than in a hurried fashion in the future. It will also benefit our economy by stimulating money. He is in support of the developer's request. Schultz asked Franzen if this has come up before where a permit has been sought on speculation. Franzen said no. There are some projects that have early grading permits, especially late in the year,but in those cases the development agreement is signed with 30 days of the permit, and the grading plan is a final plan, not just removal of dirt. Schultz asked what benefits would be to grant this now versus in the future. Franzen said the dirt would have to come out at some point and now would be a benefit with the special assessment agreement because it would help the City and would benefit to get Prospect Road fixed. Schultz asked how traffic flow would be regulated. Rue said all material would be taken out to the north of the project. The project proponent utilized the overhead projector to show where this would take place. Stoltz asked Rue if there were any issues going to the north and Rue said there would be no issues except for the narrow roadway especially by the creek. He said it would be better to go north than to go south and stated the project proponent would have to provide safe sight line. Schultz asked if sooner development would push the improvement of Spring Road and Eden Prairie Road. Rue said it would. Lee asked Mr. Herbst about his oppositions to recommendations in the staff report. Mr. Herbst said in regards to Prospect Road, it would appear money would be wasted on this. In regards to the assessment on the site,he does not feel it is necessary right now. When Site A was built,he did not own the land where Prospect Road was in place. Schultz asked why would we grade Prospect Road and not finish it. Rue said since Site B is not ready yet; we need to have it ready to go. The rough grading at the roadway shows the road would be coming through and we need Prospect Road in order to build Eden Prairie Road by providing local and emergency access during construction. Lee asked about the developers for this project. Mr. Herbst said Ryland has had control of the site and they developed Sites C and D,but they did not want to EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 22, 2010 Page 5 build Site B. Mr. Herbst pointed out this is a very good site that is unique to Eden Prairie but right now he has to get the cost down. Stoltz asked what the feasibility study was about and how long would it take to complete. Rue said there was a draft done four years ago and it sat on a shelf this whole time. When the project came up, that is when several issues were seen with this report; such as cost estimate and potential for MAC development. This study describes the scope of work to be done. Stoltz asked if it was a public document. Rue said it was not yet and that it is a work in progress and will take a few months to finish. Stoltz asked why it could not be done now. Rue said it is a process of determining the scope of work, cost estimate and benefitting properties.. Stoltz asked Mr. Herbst if he would be willing to wait four months for the feasibility study to be completed. Mr. Herbst stated first of all,he is opposed to the $2 million dollar assessment. He stated he would also like to be ready with this project if a developer does come on board. Stoltz asked what the City Council has approved for Site B. Franzen said in 2001 there were 167 units approved for this site. In 2007, they came back and wanted only 109 units for Site B. This was granted preliminary approval by the City Council. The next step would be to take the development agreement and get it approved and the project would be good to go. Stoltz asked Mr. Herbst if he sees any change from the concept plan approved in 2007. Mr. Herbst said he would not see any change from the concept plan that was approved in 2007. Lechelt asked if there is a hauling ordinance for trucks. Mr. Herbst said they are allowed to haul from 7 am to 7 pm, including Saturdays. Lechelt asked if Grace Church was informed of this project. Franzen stated they were informed of the project. Lechelt asked if the City knew this amount of material was to be removed. Rue said they did know of the amount that would be removed. Lechelt asked if the developers wanted to change this and not take so much material off the site, could this be done. Mr. Herbst said he does not see this development changing because of the topography on the site. Lechelt asked in regards to tree removal, what happens if the land is not developed for 3 to 5 years; would the land just sit with soil on it. Franzen said when trees are removed they have to replace them. The Staff is recommending not removing trees until grading is to be completed. Mr. Herbst utilized the overhead projector to show where the tree removal and replacement would take EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 22, 2010 Page 6 place. Lechelt asked if Mr. Herbst was the owner of the property. Mr. Herbst stated he was the owner of the property. Pitzrick commented since there is not a development agreement in place then we need to re-evaluate this whole request. Mr. Herbst said this removal is going to be done regardless, so if there is more time we can find a home for the material before development begins. He pointed out they are not asking to change City Code. Franzen pointed out that the 2001 agreement required the developer to be responsible for Prospect Road and improvements to Eden Prairie Road, but it was general language. The 2006 Oak Creek draft agreement is based on a final plan and the specifics of Prospect Road construction and the amount of the special assessment is identified. Payments on the assessment do not start until the City Council approves the project. Rue stated in the packet there is background information from 2007 that discusses this. It is in paragraph 18. Lechelt asked what the requirements are for tree replacement. Franzen said they have to put together a plan for tree replacement and they would have to meet with City Staff to finalize the plan. Lechelt asked what type of trees were being removed. Franzen said there is a plan in the packet and most of the trees being removed are oak and basswood. Stoltz asked the Commission Members for their input. Lee felt the project was premature. Lechelt said she would deny the request with no development plan. Schultz stated the Commission Members have to look at the three step criteria for undue hardship and take that into account. He stated in his opinion, the three step criteria for hardship has been satisfied. He also pointed out this is going to happen, it is in the books. This is most likely the last piece of property that will be developed and you have to take into account the impact this will have on the developer, City and the community. The project will bring more people into our community thus generating more money for the City. If this development is going to help with infrastructure in the area,he stated he is all for the project. Pitzrick said in 2001 it was stressed this was the master plan. The City has been flexible with the developer and in regards to this plan; Mr. Herbst needs to be flexible. He stated he is not in favor of this request. Stoltz asked Mr. Herbst for his final statement. Mr. Herbst said this would be a win/win situation for everyone, given the economy. Stoltz asked Rue for his final comments. Rue stated recommendation was for approval based on the staff report and he stands by that recommendation. Pitzrick said what Staff recommends is the $2 million dollar assessment, which Mr. Herbst objects to, so that is where the Commission Members are coming from in denying this. EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 22, 2010 Page 7 Franzen stated given the amount of dirt taken away, this does have to have Council approval. The Commission should advise Council. Pitzrick asked if Mr. Herbst was familiar with staff recommendation. Mr. Herbst said he was and stated some things could be negotiated with Staff. Pitzrick said he would consider a continuance in which Mr. Herbst and Staff would work out some of the staff recommendations. Stoltz said he would be in favor of a continuance also. Stoltz asked when they would be able to come back. Franzen stated there are two meetings scheduled in March. Stoltz asked Mr. Herbst if he would like a continuance to the March 22nd meeting or a "no" vote. Mr. Herbst said he wants a decision tonight to move it forward to the City Council. MOTION by Pitzrick, seconded by Lechelt, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION by Pitzrick, seconded by Lee, to recommend denial of the Land Alteration Permit. Motion carried 3-2. C. Variance 2009-14 by Pemtom Land Company Location: 9735 Eden Prairie Road and surrounding area Request for: • A variance from Section 11.55 Subd. 4 (D) that requires replacement trees to be planted within 18 months from the date of issuance of a land alteration permit to require replacement trees to be planted within 36 months from the date of issuance of a land alteration permit. Mr. Herbst stated he would like to see a compromise on the tree deal to work out with Staff to leave as many trees on site,but take some down that need to be taken down. Stoltz asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated City Code requires a three step undue hardship test based on reasonable use of the property, unique circumstances, and neighborhood character. Staff states they meet the three step test. Stoltz asked Franzen to review the staff report. Stoltz opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Lechelt said this circumstance is created by the owner's actions and he should grade the property in one space and plant trees and move on and she stated she does not agree with this because he created it. Pitzrick stated he feels this is tied into the other request and if we turned down the other request this should be turned down too. MOTION by Pitzrick, seconded by Lee, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 22, 2010 Page 8 MOTION by Pitzrick, seconded by Lee, to recommend denial of the Final Order 2009-14. Motion carried 4-1. VII. PLANNERS' REPORT VIII. MEMBERS' REPORT IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS X. NEW BUSINESS XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Lechelt, seconded by Lee, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m.