Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 05/24/2021APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 24, 2021 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Rachel Markos, Carole Mette, William Gooding, Robert Taylor CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Rod Rue, City Engineer I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Absent was commission member Markos. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Farr to approve the minutes of May 10, 2021. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HOLIDAY CONVENIENCE STORE AND AUTO CARE WORLD SERVICE CENTER Request for:  Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.96 acres  Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 3.96 acres  Site Plan Review on 3.96 acres  Preliminary Plat of 2 lots on 3.96 acres Klima announced insufficient public notice had been given to residents within 500 feet of the development and recommended the commission members continue the public hearing to the June 14, 2021 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 24, 2021 Page 2 MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by DeSanctis to continue the public hearing to June 14, 2021. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. B. MORIMOTO CITY HOMES Request for:  Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.84 acres  Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.84 acres  Zoning Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 2.84 acres  Site Plan Review on 2.84 acres  Preliminary Plat to divide one lot into 16 lots and 3 outlots on 2.84 acres Steve Furlong, of Hennepin CityHomes LLC presented a PowerPoint and detailed the application. The site was currently zoned Rural and was guided in the Comprehensive Plan as Medium Density Residential, hence the rezoning request. This allowed a maximum of 6.7 units per acre. The request was for 16 units on a 2.85-acre site. The proposal would include two-story attached townhomes in groups of three, four and five units. The buildings were situated parallel to the south and north property lines between the two wetlands on the property. The two-car garages would face inward with a private drive providing access to the driveways. The front of the townhomes would face the south and north property lines. The only vehicular access to the site would be from Hennepin Town Road with the access drive coming into the site with a turnaround at the end of the drive. Each unit would have two-car garages, and there would be seven guest parking stalls. No lots would have street frontage, and lots would vary between 2,200 and 1,920 square feet. The lot depth would be 50 feet. The main drive would have a width of 24 feet instead of the required 25 feet and the parking stalls would have a depth of 18 feet instead of 19 (hence the waivers). There would be group usable open space with a woodchip trail around the wetland to the west with seating areas. The waivers were needed to facilitate affordable housing. Infiltration basins would capture rainwater. A Zoom neighborhood meeting was held on April 1 and there were fewer than 10 attendees. In addition, notifications were sent out by mail to a 500-foot radius from the development. Generally comments were supportive. Preservation of trees was the main concern of residents, and Matt Bourne visited the site. The applicant would maximize screening of the development. Another concern was the proximity of the units to the western property line. Furlong displayed the landscape plan with plantings, and several visuals of the completed development with elevations and revised garage facades. The floorplans of the units showed the first and second level living arrangements. A PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 24, 2021 Page 3 restrictive covenant was proposed to be placed on the affordable units so that if the initial or any subsequent buyer sold within the first ten years, the unit must be sold as affordable to a household earning 115 percent or less of the American median income (AMI), which was $118,220.00. The developer had partnered with Housing and Community Services, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, and the state Housing Finance Agency to create this affordable housing opportunity. DeSanctis asked if the clause “115 percent or less of the American median income (AMI)” actually restricted very low-income residents from coming into this development. Furlong replied the developer had limited ability to target which residents would live in the development. The qualification criteria for the mortgage could preclude some low-income residents at any rate. Mette commended the placement of the front door near the garage but asked if there was a patio or stoop at the exits. Furlong replied the owner stepping out back patio door had a choice of a patio or other impervious surface, but this would be determined by individual taste. Mette also asked if there would be an overhang over the front door as with the garage. Furlong stated the plan was changed to create an overhang over the front door. Farr noted the property line for each unit was 5 feet from the base of the home and did not extend to the boundary but to the common area. The “owner’s choice” of a patio, deck, or other in the backyard could become a “slippery slope” with encroachment on other lots. The owner could use the “backyard” but did not own it, and he asked Furlong to explain this. Furlong replied he had not worked with his architect to specify what the patios or decks would look like, but each owner would not be allowed to encroach on the common area or each other’s lots. Farr reiterated he found the non-ownerships of backyards to be a problem. Klima presented the staff report. The application was asking for a rezoning in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. These would be owner-occupied townhomes with waivers. As Commission member Farr noted, the ownership was confined to a narrow strip of land near the units’ foundations. The parking is consistent with City standards. The applicant voluntary is providing affordable units and staff continued to work with the developer on this. Staff recommended some changes: that the tree replacement and grading plan be reviewed and revised as needed to preserve the appropriate roots of existing trees, and that the lighting and sidewalk plans make minor changes. Staff recommended approval of the application. DeSanctis asked Bourne if the site visit revealed the number of trees on the property and which where pines that could be saved. Also, he wanted to know if there had been a study of species or plants or birds whose habitats might be encroached upon by this development. Bourne replied there were a number of perimeter pines that could be saved. These were updated in the preservation plan PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 24, 2021 Page 4 but not in the grading plan. The site itself was quite flat and grading would be adjusted. The wetlands were not studied, but they were being protected. The pines along Hennepin Town Road would probably be saved. Taylor asked if there would be an Environmental Phase I study on this property. Bourne replied he believed one had been done, and he offered to double-check this. Farr asked what was in the City’s interest to own Outlots A and C. Rue replied these were for the conservation of the wetlands, which were less expensive to maintain than water treatment areas. Farr asked how this compared to carriage homes built in the past with access to a small common driveway. Rue replied this was not a typical development, and this development with a private driveway would not be much different from a Homeowner’s Association except for the size of the lots. He found it adequate for the residents and for a fire truck/emergency vehicle turnaround. Farr asked the City’s perspective on no sidewalk. Klima replied a sidewalk did extend from the trail to the first visitor parking stall; staff recommended a change to extend this at least to the first unit. Klima was confident such a change would be included, and this was sufficient; the sidewalk did not need to parallel the private driveway. Garrett Pommeranz, of 9671 Clark Circle, stated he lived in a home adjacent to this proposed development and while not speaking for or against it he and his neighbors had some concerns. Preservation of a line of heritage trees, especially along the north side, was important for privacy and parking/interior light screening along the property line. He was also concerned about any utilities needing to go through the adjacent easements; this had come up during the public meeting and the developer had promised no utilities would come through, but Pommeranz had since learned a sewer line would in fact go through, and he wished clarification on this. The walking path on the west side near the wetland had also not been part of the original plan. Also, three parking stalls on the north end could be relocated to the south end to prevent light encroachment on neighboring homes from vehicles. MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Kirk to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. Furlong stated the initial plan was to clear-cut and replant, but after the neighborhood input he sought all opportunities to save existing trees. He would attempt to preserve the trees along the property line as possible. The north end parking stalls were created to accommodate the wetland and locating them along the south end would hamper the entrance and exit of emergency vehicles. He stated he could ensure greater screening along the north end. He added this application had changed over time and some items not presented to the neighborhood were added in collaboration with staff and with the necessity to work within the space and make it accessible. He wished all residents to be able to use the trail. Rue added the sewer connection was a gravity line that would go PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 24, 2021 Page 5 between the homes’ property lines to a lift station, and empty into a manhole in the street on Clark Circle. This would require an encroachment agreement, but the sewer line would be privately owned by the Homeowners’ Association. Farr remarked this was part of the last development proposal that came before the commission, and Rue agreed. This sewer line was not a new issue and was simply moved one lot line over. The developer would directly drill the sewer line, and if all went well, there would be no disturbance to the surrounding neighborhood. Farr suggested there was some communication that could have cleared up the confusion regarding the sewer line. DeSanctis asked for the developer’s sustainable features in this development. Furlong replied recycled materials would be used, such as were used in past developments. DeSanctis asked if there would be EV chargers in the garages. Furlong stated that garages would be wired for EV charging. Farr asked if there was a possibility of looping the C-shaped “dead end” trail without impact to the wetland. Klima replied the southern boundary of the wetland was owned by a different Homeowners’ Association. Farr suggested creating a loop that remained on the development property. Higgins replied a “dead-end” trail would still have interest. Gooding commended the plan and City staff had answered all this questions. Kirk concurred, stating this development was reasonable for the property that protected the wetlands and created affordable housing. DeSanctis found this a thoughtful proposal but remained sympathetic to the concerns of the neighbors. He wished this applicant more clearly addressed saving trees and planting screening bushes but found this development to have sensible parameters for the site. Farr stated this development solved a lot of issues and he liked the density. He was uncomfortable with the pedestrian flow and the lack of backyards, but he found the front yards would be used. He would prefer to have a narrower street for the cars and more of a “safe haven” for pedestrians. Mette stated she lived in a cul-de-sac of twin homes without a sidewalk and based on that she did not find the sidewalk necessary and preferred to have extra green space. Also she cited another development without a sidewalk the commission had approved in the past. However, she approved of the development. Higgins suggested allowing the sidewalk to stop at the parking stall, as the applicant had originally designed, and if this could be adjusted in the future. She also expressed concern about children walking to and from and waiting for school buses. She was not sure an agreement could be drawn up to address the sidewalk in the future. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by DeSanctis to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.84 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.84 acres, Zoning Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 2.84 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.84 acres and Preliminary Plat to divide one lot into 16 lots and three outlots on 2.84 acres based on plans PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 24, 2021 Page 6 stamp dated April 20, 2021 and the staff report dated May 20, 2021. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. PLANNERS’ REPORT MEMBERS’ REPORTS VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Mette to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m.