Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 05/11/1998 APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY MAY, 11, 1998 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Beverly Alexander, Kenneth E. Clinton, Laurence Dorn,Jr.,Randy Foote,Bill Habicht, Rebecca Lewis,Douglas Sandstad STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES: Kyle Halvorson,Adam Hupp STAFF LIAISON: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner; Scott Kipp, Senior Planner; and Dave Hix, City Recorder(for Barbara Anderson). MEMBERS ABSENT: Kyle Halvorson,Adam Hupp I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL Chairperson Foote called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Lewis to approve the minutes as published. Motion carried 7- 0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Clinton to approve the Minutes of April 27, 1998 as submitted. Motion carried 7- 0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairperson Foote opened the public hearings. A. WYNSTONE, continuation,by Jasper Development. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 6.95 acres,Rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5 and RM-6.5 on 9.01 acres,Preliminary Plat on 9.01 acres into 31 lots and Site Plan Review on 6.95 acres. Location: 7102, 7126 & 7128 Baker Road. PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 1998 Page 2 Planner Franzen introduced Jim Jasper, of Jasper Development, and asked him to give his report to the Commission. He requested that Jasper address how the developer has taken another look at the density,talk about the changes in the buffer zone, and how to resolve the off-site drainage. Larry Harris, Jasper Development's attorney, addressed the Commission with the following report: The developer has reduce the number of town home units from 26 to 24, this reduced the multi-family density from 3.95 to 3.64 units. In terms of increasing the buffer: Landscaping and plantings have been moved to the southeast of the development,which is the area that the screening issues were raised. At a previous Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission had asked the developer to consider adding sidewalks to back of the lots. Harris told the Commission there is a public safety issue in the fact that the grade of the area is over 40 percent,which would make the land unsuitable for public sidewalks. In terms of the stormwater drainage issue: Jasper Development has had meetings with Hennepin County and is proposing that Jasper Development will construct a new storm sewer line in the roadway right-of-way of Baker Road, the Hennepin County roadway right-of-way, discharging into the low area on the north end of St. Andrews. The issue of private easements will be resolved because the entire line will be on Hennepin County right-of-way. This solution will also alleviate the problem that the City currently has with a storm sewer line which is encroaching on private property in this area. Gene Ernst, landscape architect, gave a visual presentation of the revised landscape plans, both in plan view and in section view. Sandstad expressed concerns that the 6-and-8-foot-high retaining walls would need to have some type of safety fencing installed at their tops, along with the planned plantings. Planner Franzen stated staff is recommending approval according to the recommendations of the last two pages of the staff report. Foote opened the floor to the public for their comments. No public concerns were raised on the Wynstone application. Foote asked for comments from the Commission. Sandstad spoke in favor of the project; although,he, again, expressed his concern for safety issues at the tops of the retaining walls. He asked the developer to consider installing a split-rail fence in these areas. PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 1998 Page 3 Dorn, too, expressed his concern about the retaining wall height. He suggested that the retaining walls be built in stages: A four foot height, then step back to another height. This would give more eye appeal to the walls and also offer more green space. Alexander stated she would vote in favor of the project. Lewis thanked the developer for addressing the density issue and the drainage issues. She said she was in favor of the project. Habicht agreed with Ms.. Lewis' statement and said he was in favor of the project. Clinton gave the project his approval. Foote stated his original concern had been tree loss and these concerns have been addressed in the landscaping plan. He thanked the developer for addressing the density issue and the storm sewer issues. MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried. 7- 0. MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request by Jasper Development for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 6.95 acres,Rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5 and RM-6.5 on 9.01 acres,Preliminary Plat on 9.01 acres into 29 lots and Site Plan Review on 6.95 acres. Location 7102, 7126 &7128 Baker Road,based on plans dated May 5, 1998, and subject to the recommendation of the staff report dated May 8, 1998. Motion carried 7- 0. B. RIVERVIEW BLUFFS by Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 28.32 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 28.32 acres,Zoning District Amendment in the R1-13.5 District on 28.32 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 28.32 acres into 46 lots. Location: Riverview Bluffs. Planner Franzen told the Commission the development is reducing the number of units and a change in the road system to allow a short cul-de-sac on the western end of a subdivision. By resubdividing the property, it will be built according to today's standards; that means different street section standards, different drainage standards,tree replacement standards, and sidewalk standards that would not have occurred if any developer over the last several years had decided to go directly to the building permit stage and build on the property. Franzen introduced Peter Jarvis and Joel Cooper to give their presentation to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 1998 Page 4 Joel Cooper gave a visual presentation of the revised subdivision explaining the road layouts, lot plating, stormwater drainage, and green space that would remain in the development stage. Laukka-Jarvis is acting as the developer and will be selling the individual lots to builders for further development. The revised subdivision meets all of the City's requirements. Planner Franzen stated staff is recommending approval according to the recommendations on Page 2 and Page 3 of the staff s report dated May 8, 1998. Darn asked Franzen if,by increasing the lot sizes in this subdivision, any mix of home sizes was being disturbed from the original subdivision that had been approved in the 1970's. Franzen told the Commission that the mix was still there. The main difference in this version of the plan and the old version is the larger lot needed for the three-car garage. Foote opened the floor for public comment. Greg Hueler, 12300 Riverview Road, voiced his approval for the revised subdivision. His main concern was that the trees that line the south side of the proposed property, the north side of his property,remain as a buffer. One other question was: Will the name of Riverview Road be changed when the road goes to the west as well as to the south? Franzen told the Commission Riverview Road, on the City's street location map, is listed as Riverview Road North and South, although the street signs do not depict it as that. This issue will be clarified with the City's Engineering Department and Mr. Hueler will be kept up to date on the information. Foote returned the floor to the Commission for their comments. Clinton spoke in favor of the project as long as the confusion in the road names can be addressed and rectified. Alexander spoke in favor of the project. Habicht stated his approval of the project as long as Mr. Hueler's tree buffering concerns were addressed. Foote spoke in favor of the project. Planner Franzen stated an easement would have to be put in place wherever the tree line is. When a home owner buys the lot adjacent to Mr. Hueler they will know that there is an easement to protect this tree line. PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 1998 Page 5 Sandstad stated he was not in favor of supporting the restriction that Franzen had spoken of. He said this action would be micro managing an area the City didn't need to manage. Foote agreed with Sandstad stating the people that move into the area could manage their own conservation effort. MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Dorn to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7- 0. MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Dorn to approve recommending to the City Council approval of the Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 28.32 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 28.32 acres, Zoning Amendment in the R1-13.5 District on 28.32 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 28.32 acres into 46 lots based on plans dated April 22, 1998, and subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated may 8, 1998 and its stated conditions. Motion carried 7-0. C. REALIFE VALLEY VIEW COOPERATIVE by Realife, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to high Density Residential on 3.6 acres,Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 3.6 acres with waivers, zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 3.6 acres, Site Plan Review on 3.6 acres,Preliminary Plat of 7.5 acres into 1 lot, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South side of Smetana Lake. Planner Kipp introduced Dick Hansen and David Hansen of Realife, Inc., and Bill Griffith,Realife's legal council. Mr. Griffith made his presentation as follows: Realife Valley View Cooperative is a cooperative housing project specifically for seniors. Realife Inc., currently has two similar projects in Burnsville, Edina and recently has been approved to develop in the City of Bloomington. The concept is one where the owner,the seniors,buy shares of the housing project. HUD becomes involved to insure that conventional financing at low rates is available. Also,by creating a master association to develop the project,there are no other investors other than the conventional financing backed by HUD. So that, again,reduces the cost of development. The project is composed of 94 units in four levels. The units are very much like condominium units or rental housing units. Ownership of the individual units allows the seniors to take advantage of the tax issues,mortgage issues,maintenance issues covered by the association. PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 1998 Page 6 The main building will be located on Valley View Road north of Lake Smetana. Access will be on Smetana Lane which will be completed and upgraded to the location of the housing facility. There will be 47 above-ground-parking stalls to serve guests of the unit owners. The rest of the parking is located below the building in a garage that is accessible directly to the units. Again, this provides climate controlled parking for the residents, 94 stalls for the 94 units. The project will be served by a minibus that comes in and out of the sight twice daily. The project is very much consistent in keeping up with the report of the Senior's Issues Task Force that has recently been completed by the City. The Task force identified, among a number of issues,the provision of senior housing that is affordable, convenient, and is in locations with high serviceability. The project abides by the 150' shoreland setback requirement. Within the setback is a 75' shore impact zone where nothing can occur, no major grading operations or activities can occur in that setback. There is a walkway from the resident building down to the lake. This walkway is intersected by a public walkway which has been approved to be constructed around the lake. Griffith gave a visual description of the property using a plan view that showed the building foot print,parking location,property location in respect to Lake Smetana and Valley View Road. He also reviewed the demographics that support the development of a senior building. Sandstad questioned the Realife representatives in regards to elevator location, and trash handling. They were told there will be two elevators servicing the building. Trash is collected by the building management on each floor and then taken to a central staging area in the basement where it is picked up daily. Cost of the units was broken down by the size of the unit and the income that the share holder has. The minimum income was stated as $15, 521. As the size of the units increase the minimum income goes up to $20,000 with the highest minimum income for the largest unit being$23, 000. The share price, or the cost of buying into the cooperative, at this point is $32,000,very affordable compared to a single family home or even a town home, Griffith said. The majority of the share holders pay cash for their shares. Foote asked Griffith if the monthly charge, above and beyond the share cost, for living in the building, is fixed or if it will change over the years. Griffith deferred the question to Dave Hansen of Realife, Inc. Mr. Hansen told the Commission once the building's construction is finished,the building is turned over to the residents, the share holders,who elect a board of directors to help run the building's day-to-day operations. If this group determines that an increase in the monthly fee is necessary,then the fee will be increased. In order to serve on the board of PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 1998 Page 7 directors of the cooperative,the person has to be a shareholder. The monthly fees are broken down as follows: 67 percent goes to pay the buildings mortgage,with the balance going to pay for real estate taxes and building maintenance,which includes appliance maintenance. Foote turned the floor over to the Senior Planner for his report. Kipp told the Commission staff is recommending approval of the project based on the recommendations in the staff report. Sandstad offered the following design suggestions: First, change the layout of the elevators to accommodate a shorter walking distance for the occupants of the residents. Second, do not have the garage exhaust fan discharge towards the apartment windows. Foote opened the floor for public comment. Patricia Kostecka, fee owner of the property, stated her approval of the development. John Kotke, 7665 Smetana Lane, asked if there were going to be any other infrastructure improvements at the corner of Valley View and Smetana Lane. Kipp told Mr. Kotke the roadway intersection would be improved based on the original Lake Smetana improvement that took place a year ago. The intersection will be built with turn lanes as called out for in the traffic study that was done at the time the project was approved. Mr. Kotke asked if there would be any grading at the intersection. Kipp told Mr. Kotke the intersection would be developed to City standards. This will most likely involve some grading. Foote returned the floor to the Commission for their comments. Dorn asked if there would be heavy maintenance on the Outlot that will be dedicated to the City. Kipp told the Commission the only improvement that is to be done on the Outlot would be the construction of the walking trail around the lake. Dorn recommended spelling out those responsibilities in the development agreement. Habicht expressed concerns that the proposed parking was not adequate. Franzen told the Commission there are two senior projects in Eden Prairie that were granted parking waivers; Edendale and Elim Shores. PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 1998 Page 8 Sandstad suggested updating the City's parking requirements relating to this issue. He offered his full support for the project. Our parking standards for elderly housing are much tougher than they need to be and they could be reduced. Dorn offered his support for the project. Alexander offered her support for the project,but asked the developer to consider improving on the elevator location and the number of handicap parking stalls that are shown on the plans. Lewis stated it was a well thought out project and it meets the multi-family housing needs of the community that Eden Prairie must prepare for. One concern she did express is the entrance to the facility from Valley View Road, a very heavily traveled road. Foote offered his support for the project. MOTION: Dorn moved, seconded by Habicht to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7- 0. MOTION: Dorn moved, seconded by Habicht to approve recommending to the City Council approval of the change form Low Density Residential to High Density Residential on 3.6 acres,PUD Concept Review on 7.5 acres, PUD District Review on 3.6 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 3.6 acres with waivers, Site Plan review on 3.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 7.5 acres into one lot, one outlot, and road right-of-way based on plans dated April 22, 1998,the May 8, 1998 staff report, and the following conditions listed therein. Motion carried 7- 0. D. ANCOR COMMUNICATIONS by Hoyt Properties. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 3.76 acres of the overall Technology Park PUD, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from I-2 to Office on 3.76 acres, and Site Plan Review on 3.76 acres. Location: 7765 Golden Triangle Drive. Planner Kipp introduced Gary Lally,representing Hoyt Properties, and Miles Lindberg, of BRW. Gary Lally told the Commission that Hoyt Properties has been developing in Technology Park since 1984. The site in question is the last parcel that the company has left to develop in the park. Miles Lindberg gave an architectural presentation using visual aids and handouts. The site to be developed is very challenging because of the nearby wetlands,Nine Mile Creek, and the heavily wooded condition of the site. The proposed development is for a three-story, 50,000 square foot office building. The office building is located so that the impact of the building is softened by the land form behind it. There will be 153 parking spaces to meet Ancor's needs,these will also meet PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 1998 Page 9 the needs, of what is to be expected to be roughly 10,000 square feet of sublease space at ordinance level parking, 5 per 1000 square feet. It is expected that through Ancor's business life they will take over the sublease portion of the building. Grading and Landscaping will meet City requirements. Sandstad asked for details of the proposed retaining walls. Lindberg told the Commission the retaining walls were designed using wood so the system would blend in with the surrounding vegetation. Another reason for using wood was due to the major impact and grading that would have to be accomplished if the entire retaining wall was made out of cement. Maximum height of the wall at the parking ramp is 28'. The wall is 18'high behind the building itself. Clinton asked what Ancor's business entailed. Cal Nelson,representative of Amcor, told the Commission the company designs computer chips for companies such as Hewlett Packard and IBM. Currently the company has 80 employees whose average income is $80,000 per year. Sara Wiener, of Leonard Parker, gave a brief visual presentation of the proposed building material details; a darker brick that would ground the building on the site, architectural metal panels and nonreflective glass. Foote returned the floor to the Senior Planner for his report. Kipp told the Commission staff is recommending approval of the project based on the staff report and its recommendations. Sandstad asked if the wetland mitigation was being done on a one-to-one basis. Kipp told the Commission the mitigation was being done on a two-to-one ratio. The applicant and the City have not determined where that mitigation will take place. Foote opened the floor to the public for their comments on the project. No public comments were considered. Foote returned the floor to the Commission for their comments. Clinton told the Commission he liked the plan and would give it his support. Habicht concurred and gave his support to the project. MOTION: Habicht moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7- 0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 11, 1998 Page 10 MOTION: Habicht moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 3.76 acres of the overall Technology Park PUD,Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from I-2 to Office on 3.76 acres, and Site Plan Review on 3.76 acres,based on plans dated May 6, 1998, and subject to the recommendation of the staff report dated May 8, 1998. Location: 7765 Golden Triangle Drive. Motion 7- 0. V. PUBLIC MEETING No public issues were considered. VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS No Members'Reports were considered. VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS No continuing business was considered. VIII. NEW BUSINESS Foote told the Commission in accordance with the City's Vision 2001 process, the Planning Commission will discuss strategies and ways to put the information gathered at the Vision 2001 meetings into effect. He asked that this subject be included on the agenda for the next Planning Commission meeting. IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen told the Commission the May 25, 1998 Planning Commission meeting has been canceled due to Memorial Day. The June 8, 1998 meeting looks very light with only one project scheduled for discussion. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Alexander to adjourn the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 7- 0. There being no further business before the Eden Prairie Planning Commission, Chairperson Foote adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.