HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Packet 3.9.2020AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 9, 2020 - 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS:
John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed
Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Christopher Villarreal, Carole Mette STAFF MEMBERS: Julie Klima, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
IV. MINUTES
A. Approval of the Minutes for the February 24, 2020 meeting
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VILLAS AT SMITH VILLAGE (2020-01) Request for:
Guide Plan Change from Medium High Density to Medium Density on 1 acre
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1 acre
Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1 acre
Zoning District Change from RM-2.5 to R1-9.5 on 1 acre
Preliminary Plat of 3 lots into 7 lots on 1 acre
VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
ANNOTATED AGENDA TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Julie Klima, City Planner
RE: Planning Commission Meeting for Monday, March 9, 2020 _______________________________________________________________________________ MONDAY, March 9, 2020 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. MOTION: Move to approve the agenda. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2020 MOTION: Move to approve the Planning Commission minutes dated February 24, 2020.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VILLAS AT SMITH VILLAGE (2020-01) Request for:
Guide Plan Change from Medium High Density to Medium Density on 1 acre
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1 acre
Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1 acre
Zoning District Change from RM-2.5 to R1-9.5 on 1 acre
Preliminary Plat to divide 3 lots into 7 lots on 1 acre
The applicant is proposing to develop a 1-acre property into six detached villas. The
property is located off of Glory Lane within the Smith Village development. The property is bordered on the southeast by the Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Regional Trail, on the west Trail Pointe Ridge and on the northeast by Applewood Pointe. The property consists of three lots. As a part of the Smith Village development, the project was approved for
attached townhomes: The approved plan, which was also proposed by Halley Land Corp.,
included two buildings with three units in each building. Due to changes in the market, Halley Land Corp. is proposing to change the six attached units to six detached villas on individual lots. The proposed site plan is very similar to the site plan approved with Smith Village.
MOTION 1: Move to close the public hearing. MOTION 2: Move to recommend approval for a Guide Plan Change from Medium High Density to Medium Density on 1 acre; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1 acre;
Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1 acre; Zoning District Change from
ANNOTATED AGENDA March 9, 2020 Page 2
RM-2.5 to R1-9.5 on 1 acre and Preliminary Plat to divide 3 lots into 7 lots on 1 acre based on Plans stamp dated March 3, 2020 and the Staff Report dated March 4, 2020. VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Move to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2020 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Christopher
Villarreal, Carole Mette CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Chair Farr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL
Commission members Pieper, DeSanctis and Villarreal were absent.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Mette to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 5-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Weber to approve the minutes of January 27, 2020.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
EDEN RIDGE, LLC (2019-20) Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.3 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.3 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 4.3 acres
• Preliminary Plat to divide 2 lots into 10 lots on 4.3 acres Jeff Schoenwetter, CEO and founder of JMS Custom Homes, presented a PowerPoint and explained the application. He also introduced project engineer
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 2020 Page 2
Aaron Carroll and project manager and director of Homestead Partners, Ralph Murphy. He introduced JMS Custom Homes as a local developer of over 100 developments in the Twin Cities, most recently of Eden Gardens. All homes building are proposed to be green path certified, and are typically single-family homes with a detached garage. The project is a PUD rather than a conventional
plat due to the waivers requests. Ten market-rate homes would be built on 4.7 acres creating a small infill, intimate cul-de-sac. Utilizing low impact site development strategies, these homes would be more efficient than most. There were no significant sidewalks within the plat, but had bike and walking trails
nearby. One issue to consider tonight was the City staff’ request for two
streetlights, whereas the applicant was proposing an alternative that had been successful in other communities: have only on streetlight at the intersection, and in lieu of the second streetlight, the developer would place coach lamps on the garages or recessed LED soffit lighting on every single home that would be controlled by a photo cell on each house. These would contribute a “warm,
naturally-lit street” rather than the intensity of a streetlight. This lighting would be included in the HOA documents and covenants. Schoenwetter displayed a map of the site showing the elevations and the housing
accommodations to the grade changes. He displayed the floor plans and elevations
of models derived from previous developments featuring multiple elevations and an ergonomic floor plan. The amount of differing models would prevent a “cookie-cutter” development. Farr asked Schoenwetter to describe the neighborhood meeting. Schoenwetter
replied there were 17 attendees predominantly concerned with density, quality of homes, tree removal and replacement, attached- or affordable-housing, water management and draining. Two ponds would be built and the site grading plan would eliminate standing water issues. Once the developer discussed these issues,
the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Farr noted the cul-de-sac was
narrower than standard and with no sidewalk. Schoenwetter stated that relatively short cul-de-sac and existing trail systems satisfied the need for connectivity. This prevented shoveling sidewalks also. Farr also observed there was no street parking provided. Schoenwetter replied the development would provide sufficient off-street parking to address the needs of the residents, while sparing them the
chore of shoveling sidewalks. He could not guarantee no one would park on the street, but it was more likely they would park in the driveways. Mette asked if Schoenwetter had reached out to the additional house directly west
and asked if the owner was not interested in selling. Schoenwetter replied that
owner did not want to sell and was indeed contacted. Mette noted the one property that was rather large for a single-family home would not work well subdivided but asked if the cul-de-sac could be moved over to make that subdivision possible. Schoenwetter replied the grading and the lack of length at that parcel prohibited such a move.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 2020 Page 3
Klima presented the staff report. This was a PUD, preliminary plat, and rezoning request. The zoning change to R1-9.5 was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant was also seeking waivers for lot width. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. The applicant has
already addressed some of the conditions, including the tree replacement. Farr asked if this cul-de-sac would be a City right-of-way. Rue replied this would indeed be a public street. Farr asked for Rue’s response to a narrower curb-to-curb
dimension. Rue replied the street as proposed was not narrower than a standard
street. A sidewalk there would serve a small number of houses whereas the trail would serve all of these residents. Farr asked his opinion of the eight percent slope. Rue replied eight percent was the maximum, and general the City would have that be in the two-percent range coming up to a stop condition. Farr asked the life expectancy of the long wall along Valley View Road. Rue replied it would
be replaced at some point by the City. Kirk stated his residence was a similar circumstance to this development, and the residents did not miss having a sidewalk at all far. He thought it less important
than the street itself. Higgins asked for City staff’s response to the streetlight
proposal. Rue replied it was standard practice to put in streetlights in new residential developments. Staff requested a streetlight both at the intersection and in the “bulb” of the cul-de-sac. It was up to the commission to recommend differently. Farr asked if there was precedence in Eden Prairie for such a departure. Rue replied there were old neighborhoods without streetlights, but
since the 1980s that standard streetlight was included in all residential developments. Farr stated he had heard about the glare on standard streetlights versus the less glaring downward-cast lumières and asked if the standard streetlight was the only choice. Rue replied there was a “cobra-head” type for
commercial areas, and there was a coach light style owned by Xcel which utilized
LEDs. The older style of streetlight was more diffused. However, the conversion to LEDs made these less diffuse. Farr asked if less diffuse lighting could contribute to any significant increase in crime, according to police departments. Rue replied he was not sure he could answer that; of course lighting on a public street was important. The difference was between a uniform diffuse light in
commercial areas, and the nonuniform pattern of dark and light in residential areas. Schoenwetter agreed the standard lighting developing since the 1980s were put in for security, but today this new design, using LEDs, would last longer and be warmer and less intrusive. Safety would not be compromised. Farr asked
whose responsibility it would be to maintain this nonstandard LED, recessed
lighting. Schoenwetter replied the responsibility would be the homeowner’s but the requirement to maintain it would be in the HOA documents making it the Homeowner’s Association responsibility in the case of a “bad actor.”
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 2020 Page 4
Kirk stated he often drove through an older neighborhood with older lighting; street lighting was absolutely a requirement. However, the new LED streetlights were inoffensive. To his mind the question was between the newer LED streetlights, developed since the 1980s, versus this creative new approach by the applicant. Farr thanked him and noted all the master bedrooms were either on the
side or rear of the house, not facing any street lighting. Mette stated she lived in a cul-de-sac two blocks east of the development with only one streetlight, and while she agreed that light was necessary for safety, in her opinion what the applicant was proposing was superior to a streetlight and would be a benefit to the
neighborhood. She added she was glad her cul-de-sac did not have a sidewalk,
and hers had 14 homes. She did not see this as a safety issue. Kenneth Sien, of 7400 Ontario Boulevard, asked if the developer would be replacing a retaining wall. His property abutted Valley View Road and asked if this was the one to be replaced, and with what result.
Leslie Scharpen, of 7312 Franklin Circle, asked why the development included 10 lots instead of eight, since eight would probably not require the width waiver. Also, he asked if the developer’s creative lighting plan was due to a wish not to
provide electricity under the street. He added he also heard the residents would
not park on the street, but he worried about the addition of curbs, traffic flow and noted some people did indeed park on the street. He expressed concern about visitors and the accommodation of emergency vehicles. Coleen Morehouse, of 7470 Ontario Boulevard, expressed concerns about
drainage. Her household had had water issues in her backyard, and there was a culvert beneath the driveway of this development which froze, causing water to back up in her house. The City looked at this and opened the culvert, but said it would not open it again due to it not being City property. She feared a repeat of
this nuisance.
Kirk stated he would like more detail about the proposed stormwater handling. Farr said he did not believe the wood timber retaining wall along Valley View Road was deteriorating or would be replaced any time soon. Engineer Aaron
Carroll replied there was an existing retaining wall directly in front of the development which would be left intact to preserve a large heritage tree. Sien’s property to the east had a different retaining wall not involved in this consideration. Regarding the culvert, it was an eight inch pipe (actually a mix of
pipes) beneath the driveway, but the development would provide a much larger
pipe. There would be a clear opening to a 15-inch concrete pipe to convey the water to the north. None of the existing conditions were worsened. Rather the pipes were lowered and the drainage improved. The Watershed was looking at the plan. The drainage would not cross Ms. Morehouse’s property even in the worst-case scenario.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 2020 Page 5
Schoenwetter stated the density was not negotiable with regard to affordability. The lots were actually larger than many lots in Eden Prairie and fully sufficient to accommodate this price point. Reducing density would increase costs. Farr asked for and received confirmation from Rue the cul-de-sac street size was actually of
standard size. Rue added that parking is allowed on one side. Most homes had garages, at least a double- and many a triple-car garage. Farr asked for and received confirmation from Klima the City could not enforce additions or retractions on private HOA covenants the commission could make.
Mette stated “no parking” signs could be erected if parking on the street became an issue. She thought the street could accommodate extra visitor parking. Two houses per acre was still low density, so the number of houses was acceptable. Kirk agreed, and added the benefit of living on a cul-de-sac, particularly near the “bulb,” was the relatively large lot but a small footprint toward the street. He
found this development to be a reasonable compromise. He was intrigued by the proposed lighting alternative. Weber disagreed, saying he was uncomfortable with the surprise of this creative
lighting plan. He lived on a major corner and his exterior lights did not reach the
end of his driveway, whereas the streetlights did a better job of illuminating the street. He was not sure the commission should be called upon to approve an unknown design. MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Higgins to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Discussion followed on the streetlight alternative provided by the applicant. Mette stated she understood Weber’s point, but suggested making the lighting an option
subject to staff approval. She asked if a streetlight required a waiver. Farr clarified
staff recommended approval of this project with the second streetlight; the extra unknown contributed by the applicant was not a part of staff’s recommendation or this commission’s vote. Mette thanked Farr, and asked what would happen had the developer come to staff with the lighting change after the Planning Commission’s vote.
Klima replied Farr was correct: the original plans did not include the light at the end of the cul-de-sac, and staff requested the plans be revised to include it. These are the plans being considered tonight. As an advisory body, the commission
could only recommend to the City Council. Had this been raised sometime in the
future, it would depend upon the timing: after the development agreement was signed, the plans would have to be changed to be consistent with City policy, and it would not be brought back to the commission. Higgins asked if it was possible for the developer to bring this before the City Council. Klima replied the developer could bring this before the City Council and ask the same question.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 2020 Page 6
Kirk stated he was sure the City Council would hear and take counsel from the Planning Commission’s discussion, so a discussion was fruitful. He stated he was “on the fence” on this issue, and Farr added he was as well. Farr urged coming to a consensus or at least show findings in the minutes.
Higgins noted that house lighting can work well. Mette stated she was cautiously for the creative solution as long as City staff found it acceptable, which might involve the Public Safety and Engineering departments. She called for a lighting plan. Weber clarified he would be in favor of the creative solution if it was
sufficient lighting, but did not have sufficient information on this. The
commission same out in favor of retaining the standard streetlight design until proven otherwise. Farr commended the development with the varied elevations with front porches that promoted a walkable community and was in full compliance with tree
replanting. Kirk agreed and added the water management around this development would be an improvement and beneficial to the environment as well. Higgins concurred and congratulated the developer. She also thanked the public for attending and speaking.
Rue added the retaining walls along Valley View Road were built when Valley View Road was constructed, and thus were City walls. Some were wooden and bowing; the City had been monitoring them. They were slated for replacement within the next ten years. The City would make every attempt to save nearby trees, but some trees could be lost. A concrete wall would most likely replace the
wooden walls. There would be no changes to the plat. MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Kirk to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.3 acres, a Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 4.3 acres, a Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 4.3 acres, and a Preliminary Plat to divide two lots into 10 lots and two outlots on 4.3 acres based on plans stamp-dated January 21, 2020 and the staff report dated January 5, 2020. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Higgins to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Trail Pointe Ridge Applewood
PROPOSED VILLAS
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission FROM: Beth Novak-Krebs, Senior Planner
DATE: March 4, 2020
SUBJECT: Villas at Smith Village
LOCATION: Glory Lane
APPPLICANTS:
Halley Land Corp.
OWNER: United Properties Development, LLC
120 DAY REVIEW: May 29, 2020
REQUEST: 1. Guide Plan Change from Medium High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 1 acre
2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1 acre
3. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1 acre
4. Zoning District Change from RM-2.5 to R1-9.5 on 1 acre
5. Site Plan Review on 1 acre 6. Preliminary Plat of 3 lots into 7 lots on 1 acre
BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing to develop a 1-acre
property into six detached villas. The
property is located off of Glory Lane within
the Smith Village Development. The property is bordered on the southeast by the Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Regional Trail, on the west
Trail Pointe Ridge and on the northeast by
Applewood Pointe. The property consists of
three lots.
The property is part of the Smith Village project and was approved for attached
townhomes. The approved plan, which was
also proposed by Halley Land Corp., included
two buildings with three units in each
building. Each of the 6 for-sale attached townhomes as approved were custom homes that are approximately 3,500 square feet with
two- or three- car garages.
Staff Report – Villas at Smith Village
Page 2
2
Due to changes in the market, Halley Land Corp. is proposing to change the six attached units to six
detached villas on individual lots.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING The property is currently guided Medium High Density Residential as a component of the overall Smith Village project. As a separate project, the proposal requires an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
because single family detached homes are not allowed in the Medium High Density Residential category.
The applicant is requesting an amendment of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to reguide the 1 acre property
to Medium Density Residential, which allows 5 to 14 units per acre. The proposed density is six units per
acre. The Medium Density Residential category allows single-family detached housing that resembles single family attached housing. This requested 2040 Comprehensive Plan Amendment requires action by both the City of Eden Prairie and the Metropolitan Council. Provided the City approves the Amendment,
the City will submit an application for the 2040Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan
Council following the 1st reading of the project at City Council
The property is currently zoned RM-2.5. Single family detached homes are not permitted in the RM-2.5
Zoning District. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to rezone the property to R1-9.5.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
On the approved plat for Smith Village, this property included three lots. One lot for each three unit
building and the third lot for the access drive and the parallel parking stalls. The preliminary plat
associated with this application of detached housing includes 6 individual lots for each unit and one lot
for the access drive and parallel parking stalls.
Approved Plat Proposed Plat
Staff Report – Villas at Smith Village
Page 3
3
SITE PLAN
The proposed site plan is very similar to the
approved site plan except that the units are
detached and situated on individual lots. Consistent with the approved plan, access is proposed off of Glory Lane and through a
shared driveway with Applewood Pointe
and the project includes 9 parallel parking
stalls for visitors.
TREE REPLACEMENT The project requires 38 caliper inches of
tree replacement, which is the same number
of caliper inches in the approved plan. The
applicant has submitted a tree replacement
plan that meets the requirement. Although single family developments do not require landscaping per
City Code, the plan includes additional trees as well as shrubs and planting beds to create balanced landscaping on the site. The proposed landscaping plan is very similar to the plan approved with the overall Smith Village project.
SIGNS Conceptual sign details submitted with the Smith Village application, appear to meet the standards.
However, the proposed monument sign will require review and approval through the sign permit process.
ARCHITECTURE
The applicant has provided examples of the building design and materials expected with the villas. The
Development Agreement will include language requiring variety in the overall appearance of the villas.
The language will include the following: the applicant shall offer to prospective purchasers a variety of
architectural styles, building materials and colors; homes located next to each other may not have the same architectural style; the applicant shall notify potential buyers of the house architectural style and building material colors selected for adjacent lots already under contract for sale; and the applicant shall
encourage purchasers to select materials and colors that provide variation from selections made for homes
on adjoining lots.
UTILITIES The water and sewer mains will be installed along with Trail Pointe Ridge and Applewood Pointe, which are both currently under construction. The applicant is responsible for installing the individual sanitary
sewer and water services to each individual lot. The plans will be revised so the services are not located
under the driveways to the individual homes.
Staff Report – Villas at Smith Village
Page 4
4
SUSTAINABLE FEATURES
The home builder is a designated Green Path Builder whose homes consistently achieve among the
highest Home Energy Rating System scores for energy efficiency in the State. The homes will
include sustainable features such as high efficiency furnaces and air conditioning, high efficiency appliances, low flow toilets, LED lighting, and more.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS
The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as stated in the City Code is to provide for a
more creative and efficient approach to the use of land within the City; to allow variety in the types of
environment available to people and distribution of overall density of population and intensity of land use where desirable and feasible; and provide for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design.
As a part of the amendment to the PUD, the applicant is seeking waivers to City Code requirements as
outlined below.
A. Density The R1-9.5 zoning district allows 3.5 dwelling units per acre. This project density of 6 units per acre and remains unchanged from the approved plan. The detached units require a
rezoning to a residential zoning classification. R1-9.5 zoning is the most appropriate fit for the
project. The proposed density is consistent with the proposed guiding of the property.
B. Gross Site Area City Code requires the total area of the site to be 9,500 square feet per unit or 57,000 square feet (1.31 acres). The site provides 7,260 square feet per unit or 43,560 square feet (1 acre). The waiver allows the total site area to be less than 57,000 square feet. The overall site is part of the
larger Smith Village project and the size of the site is fixed and is consistent with the approved
plan
C. Parking Setback City Code requires a 10 foot parking setback for the parallel parking stalls from the property line. The proposed parking lot is 1 foot from the property line, which remains unchanged from the approved plan. The waiver allows for including visitor parking on the lot and provides for
maneuvering room into the garages of the villas.
D. Lots Without Street Frontage
City Code requires lots to have frontage on a public street. The villa lots and Lot 7 do not have
frontage on a public street, which remains unchanged from the approved plan. Due to the location of the existing lots and the fact that Glory Lane is a private street, the applicant cannot create lots that front on a public street. The waiver allows lots with no street frontage.
E. Minimum Lot Width
City Code requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet in the R1-9.5 Zoning District. The waiver
allows Lot 1 at 55.50 feet wide, Lots 2-5 at 48 feet wide, Lot 6 at 60.50 feet wide and Lot 7 at
44.50 feet wide. With narrower lots and reduced setbacks the single-family homes resemble
Staff Report – Villas at Smith Village
Page 5
5
attached units.
F. Minimum Lot Size City Code requires a minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet in the R1-9.5 Zoning District. The
waiver allows Lot 1 at 5,605 square feet, Lots 2-5 at 4,848 square feet, and Lot 6 at 6,110 square feet. The proposed lot sizes are similar to the lots sizes in some recently approved single-family developments zoned R1-9.5.
G. Building Setbacks
City Code requires a side yard setback of a minimum of 5 feet and a total of 15 feet in the R1-9.5
Zoning District. The waiver allows Lots 2-5 to have a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet, but a
total of only 10 feet since the buildings are only 10 feet apart. With narrower lots and reduced setbacks the single-family homes resemble attached units.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the following requests:
• Guide Plan Change from Medium High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential
on 1 acre
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1 acre
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1 acre
• Zoning District Change from RM-2.5 to R1-9.5 on 1 acre
• Site Plan Review on 1 acre
• Preliminary Plat of 3 lots into 7 lots on 1 acre This is based on plans stamp dated March 3, 2020, and staff report dated March 4, 2020.
1. Prior to the 1st reading by the City Council, the applicant shall:
A. Revise the Landscaping Plan by creating a phasing plan for the tree replacement installation.
Phase 1 trees are those that are installed after the mass grading on the site has occurred. This
may include trees used for screening, trees on the perimeter of the property, and trees in common areas. Phase 2 are those plantings on the individual lots that have the potential to be damaged during home construction. This may include trees in the front and side yards and
trees in the rear yard close to the construction area.
B. The public utility plan is not included with the submittal although Sheet C0.01 references the
utility plan sheet C4.09 and the public sanitary sewer and water mains and services are shown
on the preliminary plat. The public sanitary sewer and water are planned to be installed as part of the Applewood Pointe – the sanitary sewer and water services for the villa locations with the updated plan must be coordinated with the public infrastructure plans.
C. The sanitary sewer and water services should be within the turfed area of the lots rather than
the driveways. This must be coordinated with the public sanitary sewer and water plans and
installation of the infrastructure as part of Applewood Pointe.
2. Prior to release of the final plat, the applicant shall: A. A security for the public improvements that will serve this project shall be in place.
Staff Report – Villas at Smith Village
Page 6
6
3. Prior to land alteration permit issuance, the applicant shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, wetland, utility, street and erosion control plans for
review and approval by the City Engineer. B. Obtain and provide documentation of Watershed District approval. C. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading.
D. Install erosion control at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the
City.
E. Submit a tree replacement letter of credit, or escrow surety equivalent to 150% of the cost
of the tree replacement. A surety will be required for each phase of tree replacement as shown on the Exhibit B Plans. F. Submit a land alteration bond, letter of credit, or escrow surety equivalent to 125% of the
cost of the land alteration.
4. Prior to building permit issuance for the property, the applicant shall:
A. Pay the appropriate cash park fees B. Provide recorded copies of any Home Owner Association documents or private covenants and agreements to the City following recording of the final plat.
C. The public sanitary sewer and water to be located within Lot 7 as identified with Smith
Village must be constructed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the villas.
5. The following waivers are granted through the PUD for the project as indicated in the plans
stamp dated March 3, 2020.
A. Density
The R1-9.5 zoning district allows 3.5 dwelling units per acre. This project density of 6
units per acre and remains unchanged from the approved plan. The detached units require
a rezoning to a residential zoning classification. R1-9.5 zoning is the most appropriate fit
for the project. The proposed density is consistent with the proposed guiding of the property.
B. Gross Site Area
City Code requires the total area of the site to be 9,500 square feet per unit or 57,000 square
feet (1.31 acres). The site provides 7,260 square feet per unit or 43,560 square feet (1 acre).
The waiver allows the total site area to be less than 57,000 square feet. The overall site is part
of the larger Smith Village project and the size of the site is fixed and is consistent with the approved plan
C. Parking Setback
City Code requires a 10 foot parking setback for the parallel parking stalls from the property
line of Lot 7. The proposed parking lot is 1 foot from the property line, which remains
unchanged from the approved plan. The waiver allows for including visitor parking on the lot
and provides for maneuvering room into the garages of the villas.
Staff Report – Villas at Smith Village
Page 7
7
D. Lots Without Street Frontage
City Code requires lots to have frontage on a public street. The villa lots and Lot 7 do not
have frontage on a public street, which remains unchanged from the approved plan. Due to
the location of the existing lots and the fact that Glory Lane is a private street, the applicant cannot create lots that front on a public street. The waiver allows lots with no street frontage.
E. Minimum Lot Width
City Code requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet in the R1-9.5 Zoning District. The waiver
allows Lot 1 at 55.50 feet wide, Lots 2-5 at 48 feet wide, Lot 6 at 60.50 feet wide and Lot 7 at
44.50 fee wide. With narrower lots and reduced setbacks the single-family homes resemble
attached units. F. Minimum Lot Size City Code requires a minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet in the R1-9.5 Zoning District. The
waiver allows Lot 1 at 5,605 square feet, Lots 2-5 at 4,848 square feet and Lot 6 at 6,110
square feet. The proposed lot sizes are similar to the lots sizes in some recently approved
single-family developments zoned R1-9.5.
G. Building Setbacks City Code requires a side yard setback of a minimum of 5 feet and a total of 15 feet in the R1-9.5 Zoning District. The waiver allows Lots 2-5 to have a minimum side yard setback of 5
feet, but a total of only 10 feet since the buildings are only 10 feet apart. With narrower lots
and reduced setbacks the single-family homes resemble attached units.
StreamsPrincipal ArterialA Minor ArterialB Minor ArterialMajor CollectorMinor Collector
City of Eden Prairie Land Use GuidePlan Map 2040
¯
DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctnessof the information contained in this map. It is your responsibility to verify the accuracyof this information. In no event will The City of Eden Prairie be liable for any damages,including loss of business, lost profits, business interruption, loss of business informationor other pecuniary loss that might arise from the use of this map or the information itcontains. Map information is believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed.Any errors or omissions should be reported to The City of Eden Prairie.M:\GIS\Users\Departments\CommDev\Themes\Shapes\Zoning and all other land use information\OfficialMaps\OfficialGuidePlan.mxd Map was Updated/Created: April 18, 2008
DATE Revised 02-23-06
DATE Approved 03-19-03DATE Revised 01-07-05DATE Revised 11-07-05
DATE Revised 03-23-06DATE Revised 06-23-06
DATE Revised 12-06-06DATE Revised 03-01-07DATE Revised 06-01-07DATE Revised 10-01-07DATE Revised 03-01-08DATE Revised 03-01-09
Current Guide Plan Map: Villas at Smith VillageAddress: Glory LaneEden Prairie, MN 55344
Parcels
Rural
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed-Use
Town Center
Transit-Oriented Development
Regional Commercial
Commercial
Office
Industrial Flex Tech
Flex Service
Eco Innovation
Industrial
Airport
Public / Semi-Public
Parks & Open Space
Golf Course
Utility & Railroad
RIght-of-Way 190 0 19095 Feet
Medium High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre
40-75 Units Per Acre
Project Site
Glory LaneEden Prairie RoadMinnesotaRiverBluffsLRTRegionalTrail
StreamsPrincipal ArterialA Minor ArterialB Minor ArterialMajor CollectorMinor Collector
City of Eden Prairie Land Use GuidePlan Map 2040
¯
DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctnessof the information contained in this map. It is your responsibility to verify the accuracyof this information. In no event will The City of Eden Prairie be liable for any damages,including loss of business, lost profits, business interruption, loss of business informationor other pecuniary loss that might arise from the use of this map or the information itcontains. Map information is believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed.Any errors or omissions should be reported to The City of Eden Prairie.M:\GIS\Users\Departments\CommDev\Themes\Shapes\Zoning and all other land use information\OfficialMaps\OfficialGuidePlan.mxd Map was Updated/Created: April 18, 2008
DATE Revised 02-23-06
DATE Approved 03-19-03DATE Revised 01-07-05DATE Revised 11-07-05
DATE Revised 03-23-06DATE Revised 06-23-06
DATE Revised 12-06-06DATE Revised 03-01-07DATE Revised 06-01-07DATE Revised 10-01-07DATE Revised 03-01-08DATE Revised 03-01-09
Proposed Guide Plan Map: Villas at Smith VillageAddress: Glory LaneEden Prairie, MN 55344
Parcels
Rural
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed-Use
Town Center
Transit-Oriented Development
Regional Commercial
Commercial
Office
Industrial Flex Tech
Flex Service
Eco Innovation
Industrial
Airport
Public / Semi-Public
Parks & Open Space
Golf Course
Utility & Railroad
RIght-of-Way 190 0 19095 Feet
Medium High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre
40-75 Units Per Acre
Glory Lane
Eden Prairie RoadProject Site
MinnesotaRiverBluffsLRTRegionalTrail
City of Eden Prairie Zoning Map
In case of discrepency related to a zoning classification on this zoning map, the Ordinanceand attached legal description on file at Eden Prairie City Center will prevail.
¯
Shoreland Management Classifications
100 - Year Floodplain
Natural Environment WatersRecreational Development WatersGeneral Development Waters (Creeks Only)GD
NERD
Up dated through approved Ordinances #26-2008Ordinance #33-2001 (BFI Addition) approved, but not shown on this map editionDate: March 1, 2009
0 0.080.04
Miles
DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctnessof the information contained in this map. It is your responsibility to verify the accuracyof this information. In no event will The City of Eden Prairie be liable for any damages,including loss of business, lost profits, business interruption, loss of business informationor other pecuniary loss that might arise from the use of this map or the information itcontains. Map information is believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed.Any errors or omissions should be reported to The City of Eden Prairie.M:\GIS\Users\Departments\CommDev\Themes\Shapes\Zoning and all other land use information\OfficialMaps\OfficialZoning.mxd Map was Updated/Created: June 11, 2008
Zoning Map: Villas at Smith VillageAddress: Glory LaneEden Prairie, MN 55344
RuralR1-44 One Family- 44,000 sf. min.R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min.R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min.R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min.RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A. max.RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A. max.Airport OfficeOfficeNeighborhood CommercialCommunity CommercialHighway CommercialAirport Commercial
Regional Service CommercialRegional CommercialTC-CTC-RTC-MUIndustrial Park - 2 Acre Min,Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min.General Industrial - 5 Acre Min.PublicGolf CourseWaterRight of WayTOD-R Transit Oriented Development - Residential Transit Oriented Development - Residential
Proposing to Rezone from RM-2.5 to R1-9.5
Project Site
Park and Open SpaceEden Prairie RoadGlory Lane
MinnesotaRiverBluffsLRTRegionalTrail
¯
Location Map: Villas at Smith VillageAddress: Glory LaneEden Prairie, Minnesota
0 190 38095 FeetEDEN PRAIRIE ROADGLORY LANE
TIMBER LAKE DRIVE
CURTISLANEMinnesotaRiverBluffsLRTRegionalTrailMiller Park
Applewood Pointe
Trail Pointe Ridge
SheldonPlace
Highway212PROJECT SITE
¯
Aerial Map: Villas at Smith VillageAddress: Glory LaneEden Prairie, Minnesota
0 190 38095 FeetEDEN PRAIRIE ROADGLORY LANE
TIMBER LAKE DRIVE
CURTISLANEMinnesotaRiverBluffsLRTRegionalTrailMiller Park
Applewood Pointe
Trail Pointe Ridge
SheldonPlace
Highway212PROJECT SITE
1
PROJECT PROFILE – MARCH 9, 2020
PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 9, 2020
1. VILLAS AT SMITH VILLAGE (2020-01) by Halley Land Corp. (BETH)
Proposal for re-platting of attached townhouses to detached homes at Smith Village Location: Glory Lane off Eden Prairie Road Contact: Dave Young, 952-837-8667
Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from Medium High Density to Medium Density on 1 acre
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1 acre
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1 acre
• Zoning District Change from RM-2.5 to R1-9.5 on 1 acre
• Preliminary Plat to divide 3 lots into 7 lots on 1 acre
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 01/21/20
Date Complete 01/21/00
120 Day Deadline 05/19/20
Initial DRC review 01/23/20
Notice to Paper Date 02/18/20
Resident Notice Date 02/19/20
Meeting Date 03/09/20
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20
Resident Notice Date 00/00/20
1st Meeting Date 00/00/20
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING – MARCH 17, 2020
1. EDEN RIDGE, LLC (2019-20) by Eden Ridge, LCC (BETH) Proposal for 10 single family lots
Location: 15807 & 15817 Valley View Road
Contact: Ralph M 952-494-3630 Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.3 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.3 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 4.3 acres
• Preliminary Plat to divide 2 lots into 10 lots on 4.3 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 10/11/19 Date Complete 12/18/19 120 Day Deadline 04/16/20
Initial DRC review 10/17/19
Notice to Paper Date 01/22/20 Resident Notice Date 01/23/20 Meeting Date 02/10/20
Notice to Paper Date 02/25/20 Resident Notice Date 02/26/20 1st Meeting Date 03/17/20
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
2. GOLDEN TRIANGLE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (2019-26) by Opus Development Company LLC (SARAH AND BETH)
Proposal for a 130,000 square foot industrial building
2
Location: Intersection of Valley View Road and Golden Triangle Drive Contact: Kit Bennett, 952-656-4546 Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.258 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.258 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to Industrial I-2 on 10.258 acres
• Site Plan Review on 10.258 acres
• Preliminary Plat of one lot and one outlot on 10.258 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 11/27/19
Date Complete 01/03/20
120 Day Deadline 05/02/20
Initial DRC review 12/05/19
Notice to Paper Date 02/05/20
Resident Notice Date 02/06/20
Meeting Date 02/24/20
Notice to Paper Date 02/25/20
Resident Notice Date 02/26/20
1st Meeting Date 03/17/20
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
3. THE OVERLOOK (2019-23) by Gonyea Homes, Inc. (BETH)
Proposal for a subdivision consisting of 59 single family lots and 4 outlots Location: 9955 Spring Road Contact: Gonyea Homes, Inc; 612-868-5862
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 27.51 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres
• Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 59 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 11/08/19
Date Complete 12/26/19
120 Day Deadline 04/24/20
Initial DRC review 11/14/19
Notice to Paper Date 02/05/20
Resident Notice Date 02/06/20
Meeting Date 02/24/20
Notice to Paper Date 02/25/20
Resident Notice Date 02/26/20
1st Meeting Date 03/17/20
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
CITY COUNCIL CONSENT – MARCH 17, 2020
1. CENTRAL MIDDLE SCHOOL ADDITIONS AND REMODEL 2020 (2019-22) by Eden Prairie Public Schools (BETH) Proposal for building additions, interior remodeling and site improvements
Location: 8025 School Road Contact: Jason Mutzenberger, 952-975-7071 Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 57.4 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers and a Zoning District Change from Industrial, Rural and R1-22 to Public on 57.4 acres
3
• Site Plan Review on 57.4 acres
• Preliminary Plat to combine multiple parcels into 1 lot on 57.4 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 10/11/19
Date Complete 11/12/19
120 Day Deadline 04/09/20
Initial DRC review 10/17/19
Notice to Paper Date 11/20/19
Resident Notice Date 11/21/19
Meeting Date 12/09/19
Notice to Paper Date 12/23/19
Resident Notice Date 12/24/19
1st Meeting Date 01/21/20
2nd Meeting Date 03/17/20
PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 23, 2020
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING – APRIL 7, 2020
CITY COUNCIL CONSENT – APRIL 7, 2020
1. TARGET REMODEL (2019-19) by Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc. (SARAH)
Proposal for façade improvement and site improvements Location: 8225 Flying Cloud Drive Contact: Ryan Hyllested, 612-568-0698
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.6 acres
• Planned Unit Development Amendment with waivers on 10.6 acres
• Site Plan Review on 10.6 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 10/10/19 Date Complete 10/28/19 120 Day Deadline 04/25/20
Initial DRC review 10/17/19
Notice to Paper Date 10/30/19 Resident Notice Date 10/31/19 Meeting Date 11/18/19
Notice to Paper Date 12/17/19 Resident Notice Date 12/18/19 1st Meeting Date 01/07/20
2nd Meeting Date 04/07/20
IN BUT NOT SCHEDULED 1. TILLER CORPORATION PLANT 912 (2019-24) by Tiller Corporation (JULIE) Proposal to relocate the plant processing and stockpile areas within the site Location: 6401 Industrial Drive
Contact: Michael Caron; 763-425-4191 Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from Public to Industrial on 4.49 acres
• Zoning District Change from Public to Industrial on 5.58 acres
• Site Plan Review on 13.21 acres
4
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 11/08/19
Date Complete 00/00/20
120 Day Deadline 00/00/20
Initial DRC review 11/14/19
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20
Resident Notice Date 00/00/20
Meeting Date 00/00/20
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20
Resident Notice Date 00/00/20
1st Meeting Date 00/00/20
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
2. FLYING CLOUD COMMONS (CASTLE RIDGE RETAIL) (2019-21) by Oppidan Investment
Company (JULIE)
Proposal for retail area as Phase 3 of the Castle Ridge redevelopment project Location: 615-635 Prairie Center Drive Contact: Oppidan Investment Company, 952-294-1259
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.27 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.27 acres
• Site Plan Review on 5.479 acres
• Preliminary Plat of one outlot into 3 lots and 2 outlots on 7.27 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 10/14/19
Date Complete 00/00/19
120 Day Deadline 00/00/20
Initial DRC review 10/17/19
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20
Resident Notice Date 00/00/20
Meeting Date 00/00/20
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20
Resident Notice Date 00/00/20
1st Meeting Date 00/00/20
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
3. SOUTHWEST STATION PUD AMENDMENT (2015-23) by SW Metro Transit Commission
(JULIE)
Proposal for additional parking structure at southwest station Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 11.38 acres
• Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 11.38 acres
• Site Plan Review on 11.38 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 00/00/15 Date Complete 00/00/15
120 Day Deadline 00/00/15
Initial DRC review 00/00/15
Notice to Paper Date 11/19/15 Resident Notice Date 11/20/15
Meeting Date 12/07/15
Notice to Paper Date 12/17/15 Resident Notice Date 12/18/15
1st Meeting Date 01/05/16
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
4. HUELER PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (2019-18) by Greg & Kelli Hueler (JULIE) Proposal for amendment to the Development Agreement to relocate driveway location Location: 12300 Riverview Drive Contact: Greg & Kelli Hueler, 612-221-4172
5
Request for:
• Development Agreement Amendment 4.45 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 09/03/19
Date Complete 10/07/19
120 Day Deadline 04/03/20
Initial DRC review 09/05/19
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20
Resident Notice Date 00/00/20
Meeting Date 00/00/20
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20
Resident Notice Date 00/00/20
1st Meeting Date 00/00/20
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
VARIANCES
TELECOMMUNICATION