Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 06/08/1998 APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,JUNE 8, 1998 7:00 PM, 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: Scott Kipp, Senior Planner, and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Habicht I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL Chair Foote called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Sandstad, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Sandstad noted changes on pages 7, last paragraph, which should be changed to reflect his intent that the fans not discharge towards the apartment windows, and on page 8, third paragraph from the bottom, to add the sentence, "Our parking standards for elderly housing are much tougher than they need to be and they could be reduced.". MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Lewis to approve the Minutes of May 11, 1998 as amended. Motion carried 6-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS John Mallo read a letter which he had submitted to the City regarding the Public Hearing reviewal process and how it was the responsibility of the City to inform the residents of all public meetings and when the Wynstone proposal was continued for 30 days without any further notices being sent to the residents, he felt it was unfair that the Planning Commission approved it at a meeting which was held 28 days from the date of the meeting during which the item was continued. He was concerned about the fairness of the process because the Planning Commission had already voted to approve the project. Foote stated that from this point on the Planning Commission will set specific review dates for all items which are continued by that body, instead of just stating 30 days. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 1998 Page 2 A. WYNSTONE by Jasper Development. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Changes 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. Larry Harris, representing Jasper Development reviewed the proposed plans. He noted the number of twinhome units has been reduced from the previous plan from 26 units to 24 units. The sidewalk connection to Candice Lane has been reviewed, but the proponent felt the grades were too steep for the sidewalk which would be over 30% slope. The storm sewer extension will be constructed within the right-of-way of Baker Road and the easement issue will be resolved. A new storm sewer system will be constructed within the right-of-way of Baker Road. The landscaping plan has been revised to meet the requirements of the Planning Commission. Dorn requested a full presentation for the benefit of the citizens who were not present at the last meeting. Gene Earnst reviewed the proposal beginning with the plat and layout of the development. He reviewed the landscape plan and the signage that is proposed. They have met the tree preservation requirements as established by the City and will make additional plantings as required by the ordinance. He reviewed the sight sections which were done at the request of the Planning commission which illustrate the existing contours and the proposed contours. These views illustrate what it will be like after the project is constructed. He described the screening and buffering which will be done to reduce visibility from adjacent properties. Sandstad asked about the split rail fence along the top of the retaining wall he had requested and Earnst responded they intended to construct that and were prepared to add plantings to provide further barriers. Kipp reviewed the staff report and noted that two twin homes have been eliminated from the project and the drainage issues have been resolved. Staff recommended approval of the project. The Public Hearing was opened. Terry Willmsen, 7265 Vervort Lane, stated he was opposed to the project because he was told that this property was zoned for single family homes. He was concerned that if this project was approved it will set a precedent and open the door for more higher density residential developments. He was opposed to the density and believed it was too high. He was concerned about how the lot behind his property would be developed if this project was approved. Cheryl Larson, 14000 Forest Hill Road, stated she cannot see how the trail or sidewalk connects this development with any other neighborhood. Earnst illustrated it's location on the plan, and noted they have not proposed a trail connection because of the grade and the topography in this location it would be too hazardous. A trail connection in this location does not meet handicapped requirements. A 30% slope is about a 3:1 slope and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 1998 Page 3 the City does not typically allow them to be built. There is a retaining wall in this area with no access provided. Larson stated she wanted to see a connection made between the neighborhoods to allow people to gain access without having to go out to Baker Road. The plan was creating a physical barrier between these neighborhoods. Scott Ringhand, 7270 Vervort Lane, read a letter from his neighbor Tim Brandser, stating his opposition to the proposed development, and requesting the Planning Commission to deny the project. Mr. Ringhand's objections were based on the density being too high and he felt it would obstruct their view. He was not opposed to senior housing being built in Eden Prairie but felt this project would be precedent setting. It was not consistent with existing development in the area and will have a negative impact on their property values. He requested the Planning Commission to deny the project. Ron Harris, 7262 Vervort Lane, stated he built his home there and the surrounding land was zoned for single family homes. With this proposal the walkway is keeping this development separate from his neighborhood. He felt it would be it's own community and he would not know his neighbors. He felt the walkway should be connected because they were building the grade up which in turn made the connection difficult. He was opposed to the density, and felt the .trees proposed in the landscape plan would be inadequate to provide much screening for years. He did not want to look at the town houses for years until the trees grew enough to hide them. He felt larger trees should be installed initially to reduce the time they would need to grow before they would provide adequate screening. He stated he was opposed to this project and the Planning Commission has a responsibility to watch out for the rest of the citizens of Eden Prairie. The project was not consistent with existing development in the area. Wayne Zeien, 7246 Vervort Lane, stated he did not feel the screening proposed would be adequate for 15 years. The walkway would be a trail in his back yard that people he did not know would walk on. He was opposed to the density and the guide plan change, and felt it was not consistent with the existing neighborhoods. While there was a need for senior housing in Eden Prairie he did not believe that this development would resolve that problem. He felt the Guide Plan should be adhered to. John Mallo, 14000 Forest Hill Road, stated he attended a neighborhood meeting and was told that the Mom home was being moved to Forest Hills Road, but this issue has not been resolved yet. Harris stated the Pflom home is being moved to Lot 4 along Forest Hill Road, and this will be reviewed by the City prior to that occurring. Mallo was concerned regarding the sidewalks which should be connected throughout the neighborhoods. If no connection is made between these walkways people will have to walk along major roadways. There is no connection to Forest Hills School for access for neighborhood children. He felt it was a safety issue and should be addressed. Forest Hills School is also considered a park, and this was another reason to make this connection. The grade is not steeper than one which exists at Staring Lake Park. Clinton commented the grade on that particular segment of walkway was about a 20% grade because he could ride his bicycle up it, but he could not do that if it were steeper than that. Mallo requested that the grade be changed to see if the connection could not be made. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 1998 Page 4 Foote asked what the grade of the sidewalk was and Jasper responded that the walkway or trail was not intended to be a public trail or walkway, but was included in the plan to bring a sense of community to the town house residents only. It was to be constructed on private property, there were no dedicated easements to the City or maintenance agreements with the City and it was intended as a private internal trail and would not be connected to the public trail. They have not been required to make this connection by the City and do not want the public trespassing on private property. He noted they are not proposing any amenities that would make this a development attractive to people with children,but were designing it for people 55 and older. Dorn asked if Mallo had no objection to having the developer propose a project for residents 55 years of age or older and Mallo responded that he has no objection to that, but would prefer to see a restrictive covenant required for the development requiring this. He had checked with the City Attorney who said it could be done because there is no restriction based on an age requirement. Kipp noted that such a restriction could be placed on a development if it were determined that it was in the best interests of the City and there was other housing available. Mallo commented that if no restriction was placed on the development, there would be people with children living there. Discussion ensued regarding connection of the trail and the potential for children living in the development. Mallo stated he was opposed to having closed and separate communities and believed neighborhoods should be brought together. Chuck Wallach, 13784 Candice Lane, stated the sidewalk by his property has connected neighborhoods and this should be continued throughout the area. He noted this project keeps coming back with no significant changes and he was opposed to the project. It was not a senior housing project for any other reason than to get approval by the City. Rob Ronglien, 13725 Jennifer Lane, stated he was concerned that the Planning Commission was not going to change it's position and the citizen's objections are the same as they have been for the last several public hearings. As residents and taxpayers they feel frustrated and do not understand why the City would approve this project. The zoning does not mean that land will be developed as it is supposed to be. They now have townhomes a few lots away from his home and they will be looking at the roofs of this proposed on if it is approved. He asked if his taxes would go down because of the change in his view. He is looking at the Planning Commission to be the buffer on the density issue and if they approve this plan it is not according to what the City Council said the last time this project was reviewed. He appealed to the integrity of the Planning Commission and asked that they consider their position carefully. Dot Wallach, 13784 Candice Lane, stated she has met more people because of the sidewalk in her neighborhood and asked how keeping a trail private added to a feeling of community. If this was going to be a retirement community it should be connected to the surrounding neighborhoods, because people don't want to be isolated, but would rather feel connected to their surroundings. Deb Ronglien, 13725 Jennifer Court, stated this land was zoned for single family residential development when they moved into their present home. She did not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 1998 Page 5 understand why the City did not follow the Guide Plan and zoning for this area. She was opposed to the project and saw no compelling reason to change the zoning. Roger Gaetz, 7171 Prairie View Drive, stated he was opposed to the project, and felt the slope was too steep for townhouses and he will have to see them from his home. Randy Malquist, 13772 Candice Lane, noted this was the fourth time this project had been before the Planning Commission with few changes between proposals and he has not seen much improvement. If the sellers would price the land reasonably it would develop as single family residential. He was opposed to changing the Guide Plan or the zoning and there was no substantive reason to do so. He was opposed to the project and requested it remain single family. Clinton stated the purpose of a public hearing is to get citizens input in order to make better decisions. He heard much conflicting information regarding this input, such as some residents supported senior housing, while others did not; some supported the trail connection while others did not want people walking in their back yards. He noted that single family housing generates more traffic, and there would be more roofs and higher buildings which would also impact these views. Lewis stated the trail was not stated as being a private trail, and she felt it should be a public trail or not be constructed at all. Harris stated that one of the issues was that a private trail would give this development more of a sense of community and that was why it was proposed. It will be constructed in the common areas within the development and this is not unique to this project. Dorn commented the proponent has redesigned the trail and the grades were not advantageous for making a connection to the public trail. Discussion ensued regarding the trails,the zoning and density issues, and the views and sight lines. Foote commented that if single family housing was constructed there would be 12 roofs with 2-3 stories in height rather than 16 roofs for the residents to look at. He stated he would support the project if the trails can be connected. Alexander stated she heard and understood the concerns of the residents as well as those of the developer. The proponent has changed the density, resolved the storm sewer problem and met the requests of the Planning Commission. He has designed a trail system within the development for the benefit of the people who will live there. She would support a trail connection to the public trail if it could be done safely. She stated she supported the project as proposed. Sandstad noted that improvements have been made which were encouraged by the Planning Commission, and if this land were developed as single family it would be very expensive. The Park and Recreation Commission has not recommended that the trail be either a public trail or that it be connected to the public trail, nor have they requested any easements to have the City maintain it. The Planning Commission has to respond to proposals and they felt there were reasons to change the Guide Plan at the last review PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 1998 Page 6 because of the property's location along Baker Road and it was a good location for this density. Foote did not like the idea of segregating communities and while the senior housing was a product which was greatly needed by the City, there would be objections to a single family housing development also. He noted he has had experience similar to that of these residents when a town home development was constructed next to his neighborhood, and after it was built he appreciated that it was only one story in height. Discussion ensued regarding the reasons to change the Guide Plan and Clinton stated that after hearing input from the residents he did not see a compelling reason to change the Guide Plan and did not support the project. Lewis stated that as the City grows and changes we will need to have other types of housing and it does not presently exist in Eden Prairie. She strongly urged the developer to look at connecting the trail or eliminating it. She noted the City Attorney had not recommended that restrictive covenants be placed on the project because it would only create many more problems than it would solve. These units are two bedrooms which is not conducive to families with children, and it was unlikely that anyone with more than one child would even consider living there. Discussion ensued regarding the trail and what direction the Planning Commission should take on the connection issue. Foote felt the trail should be connected, and noted he would not support the project unless the connection to the public trail system was made. Sandstad commented perhaps they should refer the project back to the Park and Recreation Commission to resolve the issue of the trail connection. Harris noted that the project has been reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission and they did not make any requirements regarding connecting the trail. He requested action from the Planning Commission because further delays will only lengthen this process. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Alexander to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Alexander to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Jasper Development 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 29 lots based on plans dated May 1, 1998 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 8, 1998. Motion carried 4-2. Commissioners Clinton and Dorn voted no. Dorn commented he voted no because he could not see pushing this development through before the trail connection issue was resolved. B. CAMP EDENWOOD by Friendship Ventures. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 52.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Public District on 2 acres and Site Plan Review on 2 acres for construction of a new dining hall addition. Location 6350 Indian Chief road. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 1998 Page 7 Kipp reviewed the background of this project when a 15,000 sq. ft. building was approved and included demolition of the existing building. Friendship Ventures could not construct that building due to funding shortfalls and have returned to have a new small building approved which saves the existing dining hall. The existing structure has been found eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Kipp reviewed the Staff Report and indicated since the report was written, Friendship Ventures has been told by the railroad company that they will not be selling them any right of way as shown on the plans. An alternate plan is attached which shifts the building out of the railroad right of way. Kipp stated staff is comfortable with this shift and recommends that the Planning Commission approve the plans to incorporate the building shift and forward it on to the City Council. Ed Stracke, President of Friendship Ventures, stated they were present to answer questions. He noted they were comfortable with the staff recommendations as proposed. Dorn asked about the waiver for the use of wood on the exterior of the addition, and whether it would blend in with the existing building. Stracke responded that it would be finished to match the historic structure as closely as possible. Alexander stated she supported the project; Clinton and Foote concurred. The Public Hearing was opened. No one present wished to speak. MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Clinton, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Friendship Ventures for Planed Unit Development concept Review on 52.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Public District on 2 acres and Site Plan Review on 2 acres based on plans dated June 5, 1998 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 5, 1998. Motion carried 6-0. C. HENNEPIN COUNTY REGISTERED LAND SURVEY by Hennepin county. Request for Registered Land Survey of 35.45 acres into five tracts. Location: North of Birch Island Road, south of Twin cities and Western Railroad. This item was withdrawn from review at the request of the proponent. V. PUBLIC MEETING VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS Sandstad asked if they would now have a specific date to refer to when any item was continued in the future, and Kipp responded that was the intent. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 1998 Page 8 Alexander inquired about requirements for pools in residential neighborhoods, and Kipp responded that permits are required, and fencing is also required for pools over a certain depth. VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS Foote stated he had received a letter from the Builders Association regarding a ten minute video they wished to show the Planning Commission, and he asked if other Commissioners were interested in viewing it. After discussion, it was decided to view it during a regular Planning Commission meeting when all Commissioners would be present. Foote requested staff to arrange this. IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS Kipp noted there were two items on the next agenda, a development on Gerard Drive and the new fire station, subject to available plans. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Dorn to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.