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.