Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 01/12/1998 APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,JANUARY 12, 1998 7:00 P.M CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Beverly Alexander, Kenneth E. Clinton,Randy Foote,Bill Habicht,Ismail Ismail,Douglas Sandstad,Mary Jane Wissner STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES: Kyle Halvorson,Adam Hupp (absent) STAFF LIAISON: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner; Al Gray, City Engineer; Elinda Bahley,Recording Secretary MEMBERS ABSENT: None I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -ROLL CALL Chair Clinton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Foote, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Foote noted on page 4, fourth paragraph, the first sentence should read... Foote asked if there was anything attached to the noise abatement plan that should stop development in that area. He also noted on page 6, first paragraph, second sentence should read... would like to see something more in the affordable single family housing incorporated into the middle area. MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Alexander, to approve the minutes of the December 8, 1997 Eden Prairie Planning Commission meeting as amended. Motion carried 7-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MAPLE ADDITION by MSS Holdings. Request for Rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 3.64 acres and Preliminary Plat of 3.64 acres into 8 lots. Location: 9060 Staring Lane West. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1998 Page 2 Beth Andrews, representing MSS Holdings, explained their proposal is to subdivide 3.64 acres into eight lots and the average lot size will be slightly over 17,000 square feet. They will be custom grading all of the lots in keeping as much trees and natural terrain as possible and adding retaining walls where they need to be added in order to save trees. A landscaping plan has been submitted to the Parks and Recreation Department to replace any trees lost. The tree loss is approximately 37 percent which is mainly just for the building pads and the houses that are going in. She noted the plan is similar to the Boulder Pointe subdivision to the north. They have several people that are interested now in doing custom homes that are going to fit in with the more natural sloping. Most of the lots are going to be walkout lots that will be customized. She explained why there is a new location for the NURP pond and pointed it out on the map. Steve Kroiss, representing MSS Holdings, commented they would like to produce the same type of homes they did at the Sunnybrook Woods project, similar in character and looks. He reviewed the similarities between the two projects. Franzen reviewed the staff report with the Commission and explained why there are two different possible conclusions listed in the staff report. He noted the trees on the property were planted by the owner and the City still views those as significant trees as defined by ordinance. He also noted the tree loss isn't related to the number of lots on the property but it has to do with the grading in the cul-de-sac. The public hearing was opened. Bob Broich, 9105 West Staring Lane, noted they live directly west of this property. He and his wife have 2.9 acres there and came to the City a couple of years ago asking to subdivide four acres into two lots. They like the homes that are built by Kroiss Builders and understands he has the right to develop the property but he was opposed to the rezoning. With the current zoning, he could put six houses in there and he thinks it's too much. He would like to see bigger lots, not smaller lots next door to them. He was concerned about the tree loss being too high and would hate to see that many trees lost. This will also open the door for the other lots in that area to be rezoned, thus, putting more houses into that area which he was opposed to. He has a big lot with a high priced house and was afraid that more houses is going to effect the value of his property. He was also concerned about the retaining walls they are proposing that they will be directly looking at. It was his understanding each of those levels could be up to five feet high which is 20 feet added to the height of that lot. He would also rather see them replace the trees with the same amount of inches they cut down. He noted he was not aware the property was for sale, and if he knew,he would have bought it himself. Harold Shrenkel, 9090 West Staring Lane, commented he was opposed to the R1-13.5 and does not feel the smaller lots fit in with the neighborhood. The neighborhood has Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1998 Page 3 more larger lots and the neighbors like their elbow room and the surrounding trees that are on most of the properties. He would like to see the lots stay as big as the zoning allows. He was also concerned that the smaller lots would depreciate the surrounding properties. Bob Hebrink, 8990 West Staring Lane, commented he was not against the zoning fundamentally as it stands, but he was opposed to the amount of homes. He likes the trees and was opposed to the amount of tree loss. He was concerned about where the NURP pond was going to be located because he was concerned about the drainage pattern. He was also opposed to the retaining walls and was concerned about the double drainage of that property. Larry Link, 9160 West Staring Lane, noted his property is three lots down from where the proposed development is going to be. His biggest concern was the change in the lot size. There are very few places left in Eden Prairie to have lots of this size and he enjoys the wildlife that comes with having that. He had no problem with the development but would like to see them maintain the lot size. He was also concerned with the traffic eight new families are going to add on West Staring Lane and Ridge Road. He commented they have so few neighborhoods like this in Eden Prairie and asked the City not to give them all away. Donna Hart, 9061 East Sunrise Circle, noted their property is northwest of this development and have lived there for 20 years. She said she was opposed to having smaller lots and the retaining walls because they will be looking up at them. She was concerned this would depreciate the value of their home. She was opposed to the tree loss percentage because they are not replacing with the same size trees that they take out. She would like to see more of the trees left because they will be looking up at retaining walls in the back of their house. She was also opposed to having so many homes out there. They need to go from large lots to medium lots to small lots because there is no buffer zone. Paul Edwardson, 9037 West Staring Lane, was concerned about the density proposed but was not against developing these lots. He likes the area, its quietness and spaciousness, and there's not a lot of traffic. He had a concern about the City plan description that talks about the average lot size of 17,000 square feet being consistent with the abutting Boulder Pointe single family lots. He said this is going to be part of the Staring Lane neighborhood, not the Boulder Pointe neighborhood, and believes these homes should be consistent with what's in the Staring Lane neighborhood which is larger lots and less homes. He was not against homes being put in there but he would like to see the number of homes drop a little. He was also concerned about the increase in traffic as a result of this development. Janet Rearing, 8997 West Hill Point, said they have about an acre in the back which is a natural basin. She has four children and doesn't want the retaining walls on the project. When they bought the property they were told it would stay natural. The project engineer Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1998 Page 4 did say there was a possibility of a waiver so they didn't have these retaining walls. When the Mississippi overflowed there was a natural pond and there was no overflow. She thinks there's plenty of area for drainage. They had no problem with natural drainage. ,If they could file a waiver, it would save these people the problem of a retaining wall. Kroiss stated he only really needs the retaining walls on one particular lot, the lot that abuts the NURP pond. He's only doing that because of the NURP pond otherwise he would not needs walls there at all. There was a proposal that talked about the possibility of looking at a cash situation with the City on the NURP pond. He said he can go either way on that. It's not a problem for them. He would only need retaining walls on one lot. Foote asked if staff preferred the NURP pond or the cash instead. Gray explained why staff would prefer a long term solution and would feel comfortable with a later retro-fit solution. Ismail asked if the economy would enable them to lower the development down to six lots instead of eight. Kroiss replied seven is doable and six is pretty tough economically. It's all an economic situation. He said their goal is to bring affordable housing into the City. He's trying to market the lots in the $60,000 to $80,000 price range instead of $100,000. They can do six homes but the price will just go up. Habicht was not comfortable changing the zoning to R1-13.5 in this instance and part of the argument raised for changing the zoning was the fact that this property abuts Boulder Pointe to the north. He thinks, in reality, less than 20 percent of this property actually abuts that area, and probably 80 percent is Staring Lane. He feels they are going to have the same tree loss with six or seven houses. There is no density transfer here and nothing to really justify smaller lots other than the economics. The property should stay at R1-22 because that's the character of the neighborhood. He was also concerned about setting a precedent. Foote said he was concerned about the NURP pond and the retaining walls but those issues have been addressed already. He appreciated Mr. Kroiss' attempt at keeping the lot price down but he also does not want to see six half million dollar homes go up either. Habicht asked what waivers would be required for the average lot size if this were kept R1-22 assuming the lot size meets the R1-22 standard. Franzen explained the waivers that would be needed. Habicht recommended staying with the R1-22 zoning because that's what was there before and that's what the other people built on and they have the larger lot size. It just does not seem right to change one piece of that property to R1-13.5 zoning when everything else in the area is R1-22. Wissner commented she has driven by this area and it has a certain charm to it. She was concerned about setting a precedent for other people starting to develop there in the Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1998 Page 5 future. She would be more comfortable supporting the project with the removal of one lot making it seven lots. Sandstad commented with the likely removal of the retaining walls and the different solution for the ponding, he was more comfortable with the project and supported the eight lots. Bob Broich said keeping it at eight lots is setting a rezoning precedent. This could mean 15 to 20 additional houses for that area if all the lots get to be rezoned. He said the Commission should listen to the residents and the people that live around the property. This is not what they are looking for. Clinton stated he would be more inclined to keep it at R1-22 as opposed to R1-13.5. Foote said he would support either R1-22 or R1-13.5 because he was not that concerned about it. He would like to eliminate one lot which makes the lots larger if they don't comply with R1-22. His biggest concern is the NURP pond and eliminating the retaining walls. MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION 2: Foote moved, seconded by Wissner, to remove the motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION 3: Foote moved, seconded by Wissner, to continue the public hearing for 30 days and to direct the developer to come back with a plan for seven lots with R1-22 zoning, with variances, and the removal of the retaining wall and the NURP pond. Motion carried 5-2 with the no votes by Alexander and Sandstad. Franzen noted because this isn't a Planned Unit Development, the Planning Commission will not be able to take action on a variance from any of the requirements of the R1-22 District. That will be left up to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to make that recommendation. B. SETTLERS RIDGE by Pemtom Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 58.95 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 58.95 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 on 58.95 acres and Preliminary Plat on 58.95 acres into 117 lots and 4 outlots. Location: South of Pioneer Trail and west of Riley Creek. Dan Herbst, Pemtom Land Company, noted their partnership is with Lundgren Builders. They have been working with the Peterson/Klein property for a year and a half and the history of the property goes back long before the City was incorporated. They have been working with staff and the neighbors prior to coming in with any concept plan. They met with most of the neighbors and also conducted a neighborhood meeting on December 15. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1998 Page 6 The plan is to create three distinct neighborhoods, one being a lifestyle type home on the northern part of the site. The central portion of the site will be traditional housing and along the creek on the Minnesota Bluffs will be all custom homes. Each neighborhood will have a distinct product and a distinct landscaping theme to it. He showed illustrations of a typical entrance monument that will be used. Dwight Jelle, engineer, reviewed the site plan and the slope analysis done, and noted they have done visual surveys for tree removal. There are approximately 4000 diameter inches of significant trees on the site and they are proposing to remove less than two percent of those trees for roadway construction and utility construction. There are two wetlands on the site and they will have no impact from this project. They are only developing in the plateau area where it's being farmed. They are staying completely out of the trees, staying within the bluff setbacks according to the Eden Prairie ordinances. He also reviewed the pedestrian and trail system within this project. Peter Perkey, Lundgren Builders, explained there will be three distinct neighborhoods and three distinct products linked in this development. He noted they went to the museum and picked up a book called, "Eden Prairie, The First 100 Years", and it depicted a lot of history right around this area. They tied many of the concept plans into some of the historical elements of the area. The first housing area is called a lifestyle product which was derived from market studies done and it's geared toward the active adult. It's not a retirement type product but a maintenance free product. This product will have the use of stucco and the use of stone, hip roofs, dormers in the garage, and front porches. They are trying to tie some of these elements in each one of these units. They are also proposing architectural diversity with different elevations. The next product line is the traditional four or five bedroom. It's primarily a "move up" type product. The bluff lots will be custom type homes. They believe in flexibility for their customers to design their elevation and that would be the same for the traditional homes also. The main thing they want to do is create these different neighborhoods so they will also tie into one another through the use of some of the materials. The lifestyle houses would be between 1,700 and 2,100 square feet. The traditional housing would be between 2,300 and 3,800 square feet. The custom houses will be starting at 2,800 square feet and up. Ismail was concerned about the transition between each development. Perkey reviewed the transition plan which included entrance monuments, buffering the areas with trees, and the proposal of street trees. Wissner asked if there would be a homeowners association. Mark Anderson, Lundgren Builders, explained the responsibilities of the homeowners association for the lifestyle homes. The remainder of the project would have a more traditional association and explained what it would be responsible for. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1998 Page 7 Franzen reviewed the staff report with the Commission. He explained this project uses a density transfer preservation of Outlot E, 4000 inches of trees,being exchanged for going to the small lot size, one level walkout type of product. The overall density is less than the guide plan density of 2.5 units per acre and the preservation of the Riley Creek Valley provides transition to the R1-22 lot size on the east side of the creek. Staff recommended approval of the plan in its current form. There is an alternate plan for the southeast corner until they get a final approval from the archeologist. This would be subject to any findings. Sandstad was concerned whether there would be any physical decorative markers for the conservation easement of the creek area. Franzen said that's standard practice. Ismail was concerned about extending the sewer and water system. Gray said he would be recommending to the City Council that they formalize the feasibility study in the next several weeks that would outline the sewer, water, and street improvements. He said having the City Council authorize that type of project, they would be proceeding in designing construction along this season. Sandstad was concerned that there would be a large number of units that have only one way out to a public roadway. He was not comfortable with only one access point. Wissner was also concerned about one way out and asked if there are any other developments in Eden Prairie similar to this with one way out. Gray said they have an area over by Howard Lane, and Bearpath would be another example. Wissner asked if they would be doing this project in phases or all at one time. Herbst replied they are planning three phases over approximately three to four years. Ismail asked about the price range of the homes. Anderson said the lifestyle homes are going to start at about $225,000 to $250,000. The traditional homes will start at $275,000 to $300,00. The custom homes will start at$400,00 and up. Sandstad noted that Bearpath has a second access point a quarter of a mile away from the other access. He was very uncomfortable with only one way out. Clinton asked if the Parks Commission's concerns have been addressed as stated in their memo. Herbs showed them on the map the wetland discussed in the memo. The question is who is best to protect that; the covenants, the wetland ordinance, or should the City take ownership of that. He said they are opposed to having the City take ownership of that because they have homes very close to that wetland. There's going to be a conflict between the private and public because there's going to be a park through there. He said the homeowners are extremely effective in protecting the area keeping trespassers out. He noted they make their original homeowners read a six or seven page disclosure document telling them what they can or can not do. Their association and neighbors can Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1998 Page 8 police that area better than the City of Eden Prairie and they are going to be more vocal about it and the City isn't even going to be aware of it. They are very concerned about this and do not want any trespassing or trails going up behind these homes. There will be a well defined trail system through the lots and they will be paying park fees for every lot which comes to $163,000. They feel it's important to leave that as private ownership. The public hearing was opened. Ismail commented there will be about 300 cars coming from this development in a couple of years and asked if there has been any traffic study done to foresee any problem in that area or if it would be a problem. Gray said they don't see it as a problem. They anticipate in the long run that County Road 1 will be upgraded from what it is today and with this development they will need to do improvements at the intersection of that road with County Road 1 which would include turning lanes and bypass lanes. Habicht liked the project and was comfortable with smaller lot size because of the density transfer to protect the slopes. Sandstad asked if the developer had any other alternative to add a second access point. Herbs explained why this is the only feasible access point and the best location for it at this time. He noted the project will be done in three stages and maybe by then they can get something worked out. Sandstad said he liked the rest of the project even though he was nervous about one access point. Ismail commented he was not comfortable with the one way access point. Clinton said he liked the project and was not concerned about the second entrance. Habicht said it's everybody's intent that there be at least two access points. He said he would be willing to continue the public hearing for 30 days to explore a second access point. He would like to go on record as saying if there is no further movement with the development with adjacent property owners, he would vote to approve the project because it's a City issue and not an issue with the adjacent property owners. The Commission continued discussion about what alternatives could be taken regarding the one way access point, other developments in the same situation, and what language should be included in the motion. MOTION 1: Habicht moved, seconded by Foote, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION 2: Habicht moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Pemtom Land Company for Planned Unit Development Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1998 Page 9 Concept Review on 58.95 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 58.95 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 on 58.95 acres and Preliminary Plat on 58.95 acres into 117 lots and 4 outlots based on plans dated January 9, 1998, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 9, 1998, and subject to a strong recommendation to the City Council that the City, the developer, and the adjacent neighbors, if at all possible,provide a second access. Motion carried 7-0. C. CROSSTOWN BUSINESS PLAZA by Opus Corporation. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from neighborhood Commercial to Office on 4 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 6.293 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 6.293 acres, Rezoning from Neighborhood Commercial to Office on 4 acres, Site Plan Review on 6.293 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.293 acres into one lot. Location: Southwest Corner of City West Parkway and Shady Oak Road. Dave Menke, representing Opus Corporation, gave an overview of the changes made to the site plan based on direction from the Commission a month ago. He noted the only change not made was shifting the parking lot to the east because this dimension was needed for additional right of way. Franzen said staff recommended approval according to the recommendations of the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Bruce Nelson, 6400 Old Shady Oak Road, noted his property is adjacent to this property on the west. He said he spoke before the Commission a month ago and was concerned about the nature of this particular project and it's scope. He said the plan didn't represent to him to provide for a significant transition between the commercial property on the east side of Shady Oak Road and the residential property on the west side of Old Shady Oak Road. He was also concerned about some specific feature to include a driveway that was exiting on to Old Shady Oak Road to the west of the project. It appears the developer addressed the issues as best they could by relocating the driveway and providing additional landscaping. He still remained concerned about the scope of the project and it's appearance on this particular site. This is going to be a 58,000 square foot building on a four acre site adjacent to residential homes. He was also concerned about the architectural appearance of how well it blends in with the rest of the residential development that may be forthcoming in the area. Sandstad said the plan looks good and the developer has done everything the Commission asked. He also appreciated the neighbors input on how to make the changes. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1998 Page 10 Ismail commented the developer really accommodated the Commission's input the last time they met and he liked they way they did it. He was very comfortable with the project and supported it. Alexander supported the project and appreciated the changes made and the neighbors' input. Clinton also supported the project. MOTION 1: Alexander moved, seconded by Ismail, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION 2: Alexander moved, seconded by Ismail, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Opus Corporation for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Office on 4 acres, Planned Unit development Concept Amendment on 6.293 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 6.293 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.293 acres into one lot based on plans dated January 9, 1998, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 9, 1998. Motion carried 7-0. V. PUBLIC MEETING None. VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS Foote reported that his first year on the Housing Transportation Board is expiring and his term on Human Services is also expiring. He indicated he was planning to go on a second term and if anyone wished to challenge him, they could put an application in tomorrow night. He also commented that people have asked him recently about what the plans look like for Highway 212 and he asked if staff could get something put together that would depict what the changes are going to look like. Wissner noted NhiDOT will have a public meeting in the Heritage Room on January 26 from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and they do have flyers which show the changes to be made to Highway 212. Alexander said tomorrow night is Open House from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and asked how many commissioners should be there to answer questions. Franzen noted it would be helpful to have more than one commissioner. VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS None. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1998 Page 11 VIII. NEW BUSINESS None. IX. PLANNER'S REPORT Franzen reviewed the agenda for the January 26 meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Ismail moved, seconded by Foote, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.