Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 04/08/2024UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2024 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Frank Sherwood, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Trisha Duncan, Robert Taylor, Dan Grote, Charles Weber; Phou Sivilay CITY STAFF: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Carter Schulze, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Chuck Weber was absent. Chair Pieper welcomed new commission member Trisha Duncan. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Taylor to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Sherwood moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the minutes of March 25, 2024 with the change from “used access agreement” to “shared access agreement” on Item V, page 2, paragraph four. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENCLAVE AT MANOR ROAD (2023-14) Request for • PUD Concept Review of 6.43 acres • PUD District Review with waivers on 6.43 acres • Zoning Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 6.43 acres PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 2 • Preliminary Plat to divide one parcel into 17 lots and one outlot on 6.43 acres Chris Contreras, President of Brandl Anderson Homes displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. He introduced his company and described the setback waiver to conserve more of the trees. The development would create 17 lots and one outlot. The landscape plan utilized a tree replacement formula replacing as many as possible, and also to fill in with plantings as many as possible. The timeframe anticipated completion in June 2024, with sales in August-September and the last home and escrow completed by April 2026. The houses would range from 2,400 to 4,000 square feet and be priced in the Low 700s. They would have stone accents, increased roof pitches, smart siding instead of vinyl and would be EV and solar ready. The developer could offer one-level homes but the target buyer was two-story homes. Barnhart presented the staff report. This was a subdivision with a right-of-way and an outlot for stormwater management on the northwest corner of the site. The lots were orientated on the extension of South Manor Road. This was a redevelopment of an existing farm which was not historic, but would nevertheless be documented by the Heritage Preservation Commission. A waiver requested a front yard setback reduction from 30 to 25, and the front yard along 168th would be reduced to 20 feet. Along the north side of the road the lot width would be reduced from 70 feet to 65 feet. Staff supported these waivers to manage and maintain existing vegetation. They allowed more space in backyards away from grading and vegetation. The project would try to design around existing vegetation and stormwater treatment, and it was a challenge because of the soils and slope. The corner outlot was best case scenario of the available option. The developer had a tree replacement plan and screening plan. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions in the staff report. Ted Mellby of 11881 Germaine Terrace questioned why no commission members had any questions of the developer. He asked if they had visited the site and stated he would circulate a photograph of the tree removal at Pioneer Trail and Dell Road. He hoped the photograph would move the commissioners to leave as many trees as possible. He stated could not understand the tree replacement formula and would be meeting with City staff regarding his concerns. Adam Driscoll of 6411 Mere Drive stated he respected the rights of the building and property owners but urged the commission members to consider noise and traffic during the construction phase. He asked for hours of operation and contacts to limit noise and disturbance. He stated there had been numerous near-misses in the neighborhood and requested that construction related traffic use the west side of the development. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 3 Patty Farris stated she lived on 168th adjacent to the outlot and this development would ruin the salability of her house along with the views she enjoyed. It would create an island with just her house on the side. A pipe would be put through her yard tearing up her driveway and she had no assurances of repair. Many of the trees saved would be buckthorn and box elder junk trees. She pleaded for a pause on the development for this month so she could ask the developers for an alternative plan with the outlot in the subdivision itself. She invited the commission members to visit her and visit the site. There was also conflicting messaging about the plan submitted by the Watershed District. She outlined an alternate design with an outlot that would be more attractive with a U-shaped roadway through it and lots based on smaller houses. Marie Jackson, Patty Farris’s daughter, raised concerns about traffic on 168th as she had children and the street was already dangerous with no apparent speed limit. Natalie Martin of 1657 South Manor Road stated there were along 168th no stop signs, and she was concerned about traffic control with children and pets. The traffic study did not address the 17 additional houses with two drivers each and she asked how only 15 additional trips were the result. She requested there be traffic control at Mere Drive or some other alternative. Paul Bloom of Manor Road echoed the traffic concerns with pets and children. Kate Olson of Manor Road raised issues related to the water management issue. She stated the developer in her area did not respect the water plan in the past and she has had water issues in their yard for years. She asked how the City would enforce this. Also she did not understand the zoning change, as the houses in the development seemed closer together than the zoning around it. MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Taylor to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. Sherwood asked for the speed limit for Eden Prairie on unmarked streets. Schulze replied it was 30 miles/hour. There was always a speed limit in Eden Prairie, whether posted or not. Taylor asked what plans were there in place the ensure the outlot was suitable and would not cause the issues brought up. Schulze replied neighborhood did not have a lot of storm sewers to begin with so water flowed into low yards, particularly across 168th . There would be a separate area dry space where water would be infiltrated per Watershed District requirements, running eventually into a pipe and into the rest of the system. This would be an improvement from both the stormwater treatment and flooding perspective. It was meant to be a pond like other ponds in Eden Prairie, and the City would maintain the site. It had not been PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 4 maintained because heretofore it had not been owned by the City. The water would be captured and treated, improving the situation. Pieper asked staff to address the traffic issues. Schulze replied this was not a highly recorded area for speed problems. At any rate, stop signs were not put in for speed control but to create right-of-way, and putting them in when not- warranted was less safe on a long road. People would speed, and this could be addressed by electric speed signs, more intersections condensed neighborhoods, parking on streets which naturally slowed traffic. More obstacles made streets safer and it was not common to have stop signs at every corner. Farr stated he approved of the development which had many positive points. Street connections offered more dispersion options rather than a funneling of traffic. It would conserve many trees. Eden Prairie had an aggressive tree conservation policy though the formula could be daunting. The City did a good job at allocating land for heritage trees in infill sites like this. The residents had a fair expectation of the rules and regulation regarding construction hours of operation and there would be phone numbers for residents to call. He added the applicant would have someone onsite every day. Farr added he supported the waivers. Kirk stated with 15 years’ experience he had learned how developments evolved. Eden Prairie had an established in-depth process for evaluating developers and all of this was looked at carefully. There were reasons for it. He wished to reemphasize what City Engineer Schulze said regarding the development which would improve traffic and water management and which provided sincere and well-researched answers to staff. He found this to be a pretty well thought out project, despite the challenges an infill project posed. He supported the development. Pieper echoed these sentiments and found the waivers to be minimal. Farr added the outlot natural area was an amenity and planting nine or ten trees between Farris’s house and the pond would help. He urged Patty Farris to work with the developer on their placement. Kirk asked staff to address the zoning. Barnhart replied R1 meant residential single family and 9.5 meant 9,500 square foot lot. The neighborhood to the east was zoned R1-9.5 and the neighborhood to the north and south were zoned R1- 13.5 (13,500 square foot lots), and to the west R1-22 (22,000 square foot lots). Duncan stated the residents’ comments were well-received and reiterated she heard major themes: traffic calming, water flow, zoning, and tree conservation. She did find the lots in the development appeared to be smaller than in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 5 surrounding area. Sivilay added that higher priced homes would raise present home values. Taylor asked for and received confirmation the noise during construction would be limited to set weekday times and no pile driving would be taking place. Farr noted backup beeping was required by OSHA. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to recommend PUD Concept Review of 6.43 acres, PUD District Review with waivers on 6.43 acres, Zoning Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 6.43 acres, Preliminary Plat to divide one parcel into 17 lots and one outlot of 6.43 acres as represented in the April 8, 2024 staff report. Motion carried 8-0. B. LOTUS VILLAS ON ANDERSON LAKES (2024-02) Request for • Guide Plan Change from Office to Low Density Residential on 5.0 acres • PUD Concept Plan Review on 5.0 acres • PUD District Review with waivers on 5.0 acres • Zoning District Change from Office to R1-9.5 on 5.0 acres • Preliminary Plan review on 5.0 acres Mike Waldo with Ron Clark Construction displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. He explained the hours of operation and that he had met with neighbors regarding noise and dust during construction. He displayed an area map with surrounding land use and explained it was previously zoned commercial. Tim Witten, Witten Associates displayed the site plan showing the existing townhomes to the north and single-family residents to the south. He explained this was a transition project of detached single family homes. They had originally considered a mix of single and twin homes but after meeting with neighbors decided on the villas. There would be 16 walkouts with full basements and three in center slab on grade. He displayed the elevations and explained the benefits of a single developer/builder. Waldo explained the HOA would maintain driveways and do the mowing. There would be a buffer easement instead of a drainage utility easement. The grading plan would tie into berms from existing neighborhoods. Duncan asked for the demolition process. Waldo replied they would empty the building which would take two weeks or 12 working days. The materials would be recycled and dust would be minimized with water. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 6 Barnhart presented the planning report. This was several requests to change the land use from office to low density residential, a zoning change with waivers, a PUD concept and district review with waivers, and Zoning Change and Preliminary Plat review, all on 5 acres. The project converted an existing office building into a 19-lot single family development. The villas were like a ‘detached’ townhome, with individual ownership of the unit, and HOA-maintained common grounds, streets, and driveways. Farr asked for and received confirmation the private drive at the north end terminated without a cul-de-sac and there were no concerns about firetruck access Terry Pearson of 10827 Leaping Deer Lane stated her community (Weston Woods) was very delighted about this project. She and President of the Board Joe Vorheck found the developer accessible and communicative. She asked Waldo to address the dirt, dust, and noise pollution and asked if the fence could be erected prior to construction. Ted Mellby of 11881 Germaine Terrace distributed his photograph and referenced the loss of trees in this development. He urged the commission members suggest the arborist Miss Commers examine the site and calculate the environmental harm. He asked how many significant trees would be removed from this site and noted the replacements would not come close to replacing the diameter of trees lost. He also asked if there was a difference between a variance and a waiver. MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Sherwood to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. Pieper asked staff to address the tree replacement. Barnhart replied the plan could be shared with Mellby and put on the City’s website. Staff did consider City Code and did consult with the Parks Department and the arborist in replacing these trees with smaller but better quality ones. Sivilay asked for and received confirmation this development would not disrupt the neighboring communities. Waldo also explained there were no short-term rentals allowed. Also the arborist had been contacted directly and there would be an excess of trees in the final result. He would also meet with the residents regarding the timing of the fencing. Taylor suggested a temporary fencing. Waldo agreed a silt fence was a possibility, but he did not want to order fencing before receiving an approval of his application by the City Council. Farr noted on the east side there were lots with decreasing frontage and asked if these could be standardized. Waldo replied emergency overflow of water prevented this in that section. Pieper asked for and received confirmation the City would repair any street damage. Farr commended the development. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 7 MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Duncan to recommend approval for the Guide Plan Change from Office to Low Density Residential on 5.0 acres, PUD Concept Plan Review on 5.0 acres, PUD District Review with waivers on 5.0 acres, Zoning District Change from Office to R1-9.5 on 5.0 acres, and Preliminary Plat review on 5.0 acres as represented in the April 8, 2024 staff report. Motion carried 8-0. C. ASIA MALL PARKING LOT EXPANSION (2024-01) Request for • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.69 acres • Planned Unit District Amendment with waivers on 4.69 acres • Site Plan Review on 4.69 acres Lance Eliot of Eliot Design displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. This mall was on the site of Gander Mountain. Parking stalls had been full and patrons had been forced to park across Technology Drive and cross that road to visit the site. Construction would start in summer by Amcon if approved. There were waivers to setback, impervious surface area, parking, and islands requested. The application included landscaping and tree replacement and stormwater improvements. He displayed the existing conditions and explained the area where the parking lot would be expanded. At present there was a 155-stall deficit. He displayed and explained the parking calculations. 445 were required, and 425 were being requested. There were 290 stalls currently. He displayed the tree replacement plan and the parking islands and explained the stormwater treatment plan. Sivilay agreed traffic was heavy especially on Sundays. He asked what vacancy was in the building and what industries were represented in the vacancies. Eliot replied to his understanding the building was at full capacity, which was what the traffic study was based on. There was a potential mezzanine that had not yet been constructed. Sivilay asked for and received confirmation this was the final parking plan. Taylor asked if the developer could exceed safety capacity for the building. Eliot replied the traffic study was based on a safe standard but more visitors to the building were beyond his control. Duncan asked for and received confirmation the new exit was exit only and there would be lighting throughout the parking lot. There would be a sidewalk along the length of the parking lot. Farr praised the popularity of this amenity. He found no visible signage directing drivers to the lower level parking. He disputed the applicant’s traffic counts, which did not actually count cars from current usage. He stated there were four or PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 8 five vacant storefronts when he visited the day before. Peak traffic movements would give more accurate results than the manual. He asked how square footage and restaurant seated contributed to the parking problem which already existed. Eliot replied he was not involved in the restaurant approval but the original proposal was based on the estimates at that time, and the difference was not significant. Farr stated the original application included a parking ramp. Eliot replied there were challenges to building a parking ramp such as overhead power lines and the expansion would not have adverse impacts. The stormwater pond would be difficult with a ramp. Farr suggested alternative stall striping to yield one-way instead of two-way aisles with 60-degree parking. Eliot replied this had been the first concept. The proposal was the best solution after several iterations. Farr suggested pervious pavement alternatives, and Eliot agreed these were originally part of his proposal but he was dissuaded by City staff who found the underground storage system a superior choice. Farr asked for a condition to restore the site to previous conditions should the parking need wane in the future. Eliot agreed to this condition upon talking with his clients. Kirk asked for and received confirmation employees parked elsewhere and were brought in by bus. Eliot added that need would go away with the expansion but that service would still be provided if needed. Eliot conceded the parking problems were ongoing. He added the parking study did not include an actual parking count but the peaks in the study closely matched the numbers onsite, which actually yielded a deficit of 60 parking stalls. The proposal would yield 90 extra parking stalls, making a traffic count irrelevant. Kirk replied actual data was always preferable to estimated. Pieper asked how many stalls were in the expansion, and Eliot replied there would be 80. He suggested no constructing the right expansion, and Eliot replied it did not meet City Code. The point was to maximize the number of parking stalls with the least amount of impact. Farr noted this was essentially a replacement proof-of- parking plan asking for a higher total and stated he still distrusted the numbers. Pieper commented on the signage that did not materialize. Kirk noted this was a unique problem the commission members did not anticipate. He stated the parking needed to be put in now, and the original estimates exacerbated the problem. He agreed the message seemed to be to build for the future need, not a present need that would become inadequate. Pieper asked if there would be designated employee parking spots and Eliot replied there would not be, nor compact parking, but he was open to discussing it. Sivilay commended the attempt to address the problem, but doubted this was a final plan. He asked if the original ramp had been looked into. Eliot replied cost was not always relevant but the cost for a ramp was prohibitive for the number of stalls it would yield, though he had not personally looked into it. He found the parking expansion as a whole was the permanent solution. He agreed with additional signage to direct people to the lower level. Sivilay asked why the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 9 original plans were not followed. Eliot stated he could not answer this. Sivilay asked how the present plans could be followed if the original ones weren’t. Eliot replied he was working with City staff to ensure this. Barnhart added staff could look into all conditions not followed. Pieper asked for and received clarification this was a “permanent solution” to meet the City cold rather than to actually meet peak demand. Eliot added the final number of parking stalls would substantively exceed the need so both were met. Taylor asked if there was a calculation for disabled spaces, and Barnhart replied he did not have a number but it would be ADA-conforming. Barnhart presented the staff report. He explained this was a unique site as there were not many food court malls in Eden Prairie with no real opportunity for offsite parking. Staff tried to maximize the parking on the site which triggered waivers. This proposal reflected a balance of the Zoning Code with the big picture. It did not meet a strict reading of the Code but met the expected parking demand and decreased the ratio parking from the original waiver. Staff recommended approval based on conditions outlined in the staff report. Farr noted the “ghosted in” truck circulation plan did not provide an exit for delivery or fire trucks. Barnhart replied trucks exited the main entrance. Farr added there were no landscape areas for snow storage with the additional parking stalls up against lot lines. Barnhart replied the original agreement included trucking out the snow. Farr commented on the difference between retail and office parking. He warned against the customer becoming frustrated with this parking plan. MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Taylor to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. Kirk stated the mall was a great addition to Eden Prairie and he wanted to see it work, but see it work within safe and reasonable standards. The commission had been behind the proof-of-parking plan from the beginning, which was apparently unrealistic. This had driven many waivers, which he was not enthusiastic about but found reasonable. He was frustrated about not using actual data, and he did not want to see the Planning Commission in this position again in the future. He wished this business to thrive and to adequately deal with the stormwater. Despite his reservations he supported this proposal. Farr stated he agreed with Kirk including the reservations, and found he could not support this proposal. The total impact of the waivers could not make up for the inability to provided adequate parking, which could require a reduction in demand. While he did not want that, it was the unspoken issue needing to be addressed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 10 Pieper stated this business was a tremendous asset but he felt this proposal was overbuilt while not using actual data. In this unique situation he was not sure the commission should allow a build-to-Code and he liked Farr’s suggestion of a return to the original parking if demand decreased. He felt trepidation about this proposal and could not support it. Grote asked if it was a reality that there was no more “build out” in Eden Prairie, only “build up.” Duncan asked for and received clarification the impervious pavement was between 87 and 97 percent. The maximum permissible was 30 percent. Barnhart would solidify the percentage before the application reached the City Council. Duncan expressed concern that a delay in approval would cause the problem to persist. Farr replied the mall would have to address its parking problems, such as closing certain shops or altering the hours of operation. Taylor asked for and received clarification the City Council would vote on this, whether or not the Planning Commission approved it. Kirk urged the commission members go on record for the City Council. Pieper asked for and received confirmation Barnhard was comfortable with the peak use estimates. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Grote to recommend approval for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.69 acres, Planned Unit District Amendment with waivers on 4.69 acres, and Site Plan Review on 4.69 acres as represented in the April 8, 2024 staff report. Motion carried 5-3 (with Sivilay, Pieper, and Farr voting nay). PLANNERS’ REPORT Barnhart stated he did not anticipate another meeting in April, and staff was working on a number of Ordinance Amendments the commission would see in 60-90 days. MEMBERS’ REPORTS VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Kirk to adjourn. Motion carried 8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m.