Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 03/25/1996 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 25, 1996 7:00 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp,Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, City Planner Scott Kipp, Planner I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE --ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES by Pulte Master Builders. Request For Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 and RM-2.5-on 44 acres, Planned Unit . Concept Review on 88.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 44 acres, Site Plan Review on 44 acres, Preliminary Plat of 44 acres into 394 lots, and EAW review. Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway and HWY 169. B. BEST BUY PARKING by Best Buy Company. Request for PUD District Review on 28.5 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 and Site Plan Review on 0.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 28.5 acres into one lot. Location: 10555 Northgate Parkway. C. WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION by City of Eden Prairie. Request for PUD Concept Review and PUD District Review on 18.9 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the I-5 District and Site Plan Review on 18.9 acres. Location: Southeast comer of Highway 5 and Mitchell Road. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT APPROVED MINUTES • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION March 25, 1996 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Katherine Kardell, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Ismail Ismail, Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, City Planner and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL Chair Kardell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION:Wissner moved,Foote seconded,to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Wissner moved, Sandstad seconded, to approve the Minutes of the March 11, 1996 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Motion carried 7-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES by Pulte Master Builders. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 acres, Zoning District change from Rural to RM-6.5 and RM-2.5 on 44 acres,Planned Unit Concept Review on 88.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 44 acres, Site plan Review on 44 acres, Preliminary Plat of 44 acres into 394 lots, and EAW review. Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway and HWY.. 169. Franzen introduced Tom Stanke of Pulte Master Builders. Stanke reviewed the project and noted they have targeted three different types of needs within this development. One type is the Village Home which is a 12-unit building in the shape of an"L". There are four different floor plans within this housing type, and all units will have garages located underneath which are accessed from the rear. The second type is the Court Home which has 8 units per building. Two units will have single car garages and six will have double car garages. The third type is the Club Home which has been most successful with retired persons or empty-nesters, and meets a need for single level living, which is in high demand in this age group. Stanke reviewed the demographic information on prospective buyers for homes in this project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 2 • Stanke described the overall site plan with the Club Homes being located closest to the existing residential property to the west. They have increased the density as the project expands to the east toward Highway 169. They have created color packages for each unit and laid them out so that the development will be less monotonous with similarly colored buildings immediately adjacent to each other. They believe they are providing a community which will keep people in Eden Prairie and give them the lifestyle they are looking for. Clinton inquired about the options available and Stanke responded there are only two structural options available with the porch addition,but there are other options which can be selected such as fireplaces, cabinets,etc. Foote asked if the developers had considered including some affordable single family housing in the project and Stanke responded that the project had been developed with a different market in mind, similar to that at Hartford Place and they have 155 people on a waiting list who want to purchase housing of this type. Franzen gave the staff report and noted that staff recommended approval of the requests subject to the requirements listed in the staff report. Clinton inquired if the • traffic figures included the traffic from surrounding areas, and Franzen responded it did,but they had not included school bus traffic in the figures. Sandstad inquired if the office development were to be constructed if it would require construction of a parking ramp. Franzen responded it would if it were all one-story. He noted that staff believed this development was less intense and would generate approximately 50%less traffic than the previously proposed office use. The development standards for this project are similar to other developments of similar intensity. Kardell requested density figures on a product by product basis and Franzen responded that the four-unit buildings had a density ratio of 5 units per acre,the 8- unit buildings had a density of 10 units per acre,the 12-unit buildings had a density of 16 units per acre, and the overall density of the project averaged out to 8.9 units per acre. Kardell inquired about the timing for the project and the southern access point. Stanke commented they met with the Hennepin Technical College people and talked about the road alignment into their property which will help with the traffic on Columbine Road when it is fully constructed. They propose to create a model home complex which will include one of each type of product, and they will commence selling all three types at once. Sandstad inquired about a statement on page 8 in the EAW which sounded like it was minimizig the quality of the lake. He commented he had seen a large number of fish come out of the lake which would contradict the statement that it was not a quality fishing resource. Franzen stated that the EAW was required to be submitted to a number of agencies and they have to submit comments regarding its accuracy. The Metropolitan Council did not have a problem with the EAW but were looking at the traffic impacts from the proposed development. Sandstad commented that Item#13 stated that there would be no abandoned wells,but then they describe how they would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 3 cap a well if it were discovered. Page 12 discusses the total phosphorus inflow into Staring Lake and he was concerned if the NURP pond would be adequate to handle this. Franzen commented that the pond was sized according to the amount of water which will drain into the site and this includes water from adjacent areas. The DNR or Corps of Engineers would tell staff if more ponds are needed. Schlampp commented that phosphorus will not be stopped by the NURP pond but will continue into Staring Lake. He assumed the phosphorus would be less than it was when the land was being used for agricultural purposes and large amounts of fertilizer were used. Wissner inquired who would be responsible for maintenance of the NURP pond and Franzen responded that it would be an outlot dedicated to the City,which would be responsible for its maintenance. Wissner inquired why the school bus traffic was not included in the traffic projections. Franzen responded that it included people who had the school as their destination by dropping off or picking up children. Wissner commented she did not like the access onto Staring Lake Parkway and felt it should be eliminated. Franzen discussed the traffic flow on the site and noted there would be about 10%of the traffic exiting onto this roadway during the morning rush hour. • The Public Hearing was opened. Paul Olson, 8899 Flesher Circle, was concerned about the impact of putting a development with this density into this neighborhood and its effect on the quality of life for those residents already there. There is a traffic problem on Staring Lake Parkway now and he was concerned about what the impact on the park will be as this development contains no open space or land for park purposes. He was concerned about the impact of phosphorus on the wildlife and vegetation and he inquired what the total value of the project would be when it was completed. Stanke responded that he could not address the phosphorus issue but he would ask the landscape architect. He was not at liberty to discuss what they paid for the property but the approximate value of the completed development could be calculated by applying the sale prices to the number of units. Chester Baker, 8918 Pine Bluff Court, inquired why the proponents had requested such a high density development when Pinebrook has been built by Centex Homes and there are numerous quads and duplexes on Mitchell Road. He felt that the development was in opposition to the things that have been prized by those who live in this neighborhood. He had lived in a townhouse development by the high school and it had many units for sale all the time. Gene Kopyar, 8937 Hilloway Road, stated he represented the Boulder Pointe Townhome Association, and submitted a petition in opposition to the proposed development containing 58 signatures. He believed this area was saturated with high density residential units presently. As this development will have an association which PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 4 • will be responsible for the roadways and the enforcement of the restrictive covenants, he was concerned about the development having adequate funding to maintain the development adequately. Many similar developments have experienced problems in finding funds for maintenance and he was concerned about the development falling into disrepair and adversely impacting property values for adjacent properties in the area. Stanke responded that the FHA and VA reviews and comments on the covenants prior to closing for prospective home buyers. They also leave the projects they develop with a large reserve fund for maintenance purposes when it is completed. Kopyar inquired what criteria staff used when making a recommendation to the Commission and Council. Franzen responded that staff adhered to the criteria contained in the City Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan when making recommendations to the boards and commissions, as well as the City Council. Sight lines and peak period trip generation figures must meet requirements set forth in these documents. The access point is about halfway between the school access points and meets City standards for intersection location. The safety issue is reviewed by both the Police and Fire departments and they have not had a problem with this project. Gary Bongard, 8946 Garland Court,was concerned about the safety issue and felt the project would be an eyesore because there was no area allocated for a playground or open space or significant buffering from adjacent properties. Locating the highest density units closest to Highway 169 presented a safety problem for residents with children. Stanke stated that there is a total area of 88.5 acres which contains 1.5 acres of wetland, 1.5 acres for the NURP pond, 3.1 acres of woodland and 3.5% will be green space. Franzen stated that the Park and Recreation staff had recommended a cash park fee instead of a land dedication because there were not that many families with children which would utilize a playground area. He noted the traffic levels on Highway 169 are expected to decrease when County Road 18 is completed. There will be a signal installed at the Fountain Place and Highway 169 intersection which will also help improve traffic conditions on Highway 169. Jan Pitzer, 8820 Flesher Circle, stated he felt that the numbers of children which would live in this development were not accurate, and the lots did not meet minimum standards for size and there were waivers required for all the dimensions. Franzen noted that this was standard in Planned Unit Developments. Pitzer commented that he believed staffrecommended approval because this was a better plan than the plan which had been previously approved, but he was not happy with the proponent's proposal. Franzen commented there were always changes in the market, but the Comprehensive Plan is not based on the market. The City does not change the Comprehensive Plan based on development requests but rather on the City's vision for how the City should be developed regarding its long range goals. This includes performance standards which are contained in the Ordinance. • Bob Bowes, 8636 Langley Court, was concerned about traffic and believed the density was too intense for Eden Prairie. He was opposed to the project, and commented the City should buy some of the land for a buffer or for parkland. Clinton responded that he was unwilling to raise taxes to purchase more land for park PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 5 • purposes. Bowes inquired why the Cash Park Fee money could not be used for this purpose. He thought the density should be distributed more evenly throughout Eden Prairie and not just located in this one spot. He requested that the developer build single family homes. Stanke commented that the majority of homes in Eden Prairie are single family homes, and this development will address a need for more affordable housing, for which their research has indicated there is both a need and a desire. Sandstad stated that this project will create a market for first-time homeowners in Eden Prairie,which has been difficult for first time homeowners to achieve because the cost of houses in Eden Prairie are too high. He believed more lower cost housing was needed in Eden Prairie. Ron Bastyr stated that there was a 75 foot setback from Highway 169 which would be both bermed and heavily planted, and there would be berms and plantings of both trees and shrubs along both Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway. There was a 35 foot setback from both Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway, and over 4800 caliper inches of trees would be planted overall. There are also berms and plantings between the various housing types within the development itself. • Franzen discussed the elevations and sight lines and indicated that the berms would not be as high or provide as much screening as some people might think there should be because of the elevation of Highway 169 and surrounding topography. Wissner commented she was surprised at how much high density residential housing there really was on Anderson Lakes Parkway because it is so well screened and buffered from the roadway, and she felt Eden Prairie had done an excellent job in designing it because the berming and landscaping create a feeling of open space. Paul Olson stated there was a significant traffic problem on Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway today, and this project would only exacerbate those problems. Karen Sell, 8796 Flesher Circle, stated she was concerned about traffic and believed the trip projections made by the developer were too low. She did not see how a traffic signal at Columbine Road would help traffic,but felt it would act as a giant roadblock. Franzen commented that signals will provide openings for traffic flow and let people get through safer. Signals are installed to provide safety and control but do not reduce traffic levels. Sell was concerned about the impact of the project on Staring Lake Park and how close the buildings would be to the outdoor center, wetlands and other facilities, and how it would affect park usage. She inquired if these units would have direct access to the park and Bastyr responded that the development would be connected to the two public trails along Columbine,but there will not be a direct connection from the project into the park. Sell stated she was opposed to the project. Marna Reilly, 8956 Garland Court, stated she did not believe this project was appropriate for this area and she believed that it was a threat to the wildlife and the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 6 environment. There are few places that have the peace and quiet that this neighborhood has and she felt that this project would be a disruption to that. She was concerned about safety,traffic, and noise pollution, and requested that the proposal be denied. Chris Henkenius, 8812 Flesher Circle, stated she was opposed to the project. Mary Valensky, 14359 Starwood, stated she was also opposed to the project. Mike and Dixie Quinn, 8900 Flesher Circle, stated they were opposed to the project. Stanke stated that concerning the issue of single family housing versus the proposed housing types, they are constructing housing which is intended to meet a specific market which has been unmet in Eden Prairie. Foote commented that if they constructed single family homes on the land they would be sold faster than they could be built. He believed that some single family housing could be incorporated into the project and the developer would still have a viable proposal to present to the City. • Franzen discussed the types of housing through the community and where they were located. He noted that the Metropolitan Council has asked that the metropolitan communities adopt the Livable Communities Act. Grant Warfield, 8991 Ferndale Lane, commented he felt that people who spoke looked at Staring Lake Park as if it were an extension of their back yards, and he believed the community was worth more than the project represented. Diana Johnson, 8788 Flesher Circle,inquired what the status of the project was at the present time. Stanke responded that they are under a contract to purchase the property subject to approval of the project by the City and closing will not occur until they have obtained that approval. Franzen reviewed the process by which a proposal is reviewed and approved by the City, and noted that upon approval a development contract is entered into between the City and the developer which sets forth the requirements of approval. Larry Berger, 8780 Flesher Circle, stated he was concerned about the density of the project and the impact it would have on the quality of life. He inquired what taxes would the City receive from the project. Deb Dow, 14382 Starwood Circle, stated she was concerned about the impact all the new residents with children would have on the schools,because the school district had just had referendums to construct additions to existing schools. She was concerned about current overcrowding in the schools, and inquired if the City intended to construct another school to educate the increased population from this development. Franzen responded that the school district reviews the demographic information every PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 7 year and makes the decisions regarding school capacities and staff has not heard anything from the school district regarding the impacts of this project. Mickey Gaylor, 8934 Columbine Road, stated they have a scenic easement across their property as do their neighbors, and she felt it was unfair that they were required to place a scenic easement on their property but none was being required of the developer. She was also concerned about the density and felt careful consideration should be given to how the project was going to be managed once it was completed. Franzen commented that scenic easements were usually required to protect wetlands or trees. Karen Tanner, 14366 Starwood Circle, stated that her planting and landscaping had to be kept out of the scenic easement across her property because it was Oak Savannah, and she inquired why this developer was being allowed to build right up to this area. She also commented that the school district was not always accurate in determining school needs, and she was tired of having referendums every few years. Michael Luvratovich, 8933 Hilloway Road, stated that there is a noise problem from Flying Cloud Airport and this development is going to be constructed less than 3/4 mile from the end of the runway. A light airplane crashed in this area last summer, and he was concerned about the safety of having a housing development located in this area. The Public Hearing was closed. Ismail commented he was not comfortable with the development as proposed and believed there were too many variables in the proposal. He felt the density was too high and should be reduced;the developer would still have a viable project. Stanke commented that when they designed the project they attempted to create a development that was aesthetically pleasing and did not know if the density could be reduced. Sandstad stated he had concerns about the effects of the density on the surrounding area. He believed there were several buildings that were placed too close to Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway and they cannot be adequately screened or buffered from the roadways. He believed greater separation distance was needed in these areas. He also believed there should be some sort of protection constructed between the development and the parkland in the southwest corner. Stanke commented they would consider doing this. Sandstad stated he was concerned about the traffic and strategies for traffic management within the development. Wissner stated she concurred with Sandstad, and requested that something in writing be obtained from the school district stating that this project will not adversely impact the schools in the area. She was not comfortable with the exit onto Staring Lake Parkway and believed some redesign was needed to manage the traffic internally so PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 8 that it did not exit at that point. She inquired about snow removal and storage on the site and Bastyr responded that there was ample room for snow storage at the ends of the private drives and other green space located throughout the project. Wissner commented she did not think families with children would be likely to buy these units, but believed there were significant issues that needed to be addressed before the project could move forward. Scblampp commented that he felt the project was nicely done and had good amenities. He believed the setbacks should be increased from Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway. Clinton stated that Eden Prairie will always have traffic problems because of the way in which it has been laid out, and he did not believe traffic from this project would have that significant an impact. He believed that the density should be reduced. He did not like the idea of Hennepin Tech viewing Columbine Road as another freeway when the connection is made, and he felt this should be reviewed. He thought the impact of this development should not be underestimated and he was uncomfortable with it as it was presently proposed. Kardell stated that she concurred with the comments made by her colleagues, and noted that she supported multi family housing on the site. However, greater setbacks and transition was needed between the project and Anderson Lakes Parkway and Staring Lake Parkway. She believed that the southwest property line should be fenced or protected in some way. A traffic study should be done which takes school traffic into account and the issue of traffic from Hennepin Technical College cutting through should be addressed. She did not have a problem with the private road access to Staring Lake Parkway,because the more access available the better internal traffic circulation would be. She believed that more affordable single family housing would be good, but there was also a need for the proposed type of housing. She requested staff to determine whether the NURP pond should be a single cell or a double cell. MOTION: Clinton moved, Sandstad seconded, to continue the Staring Lake Townhomes by Pulte Master Builders request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 acres,Zoning District change from Rural to RM-6.5 and RM-2.5 on 44 acres, Planned Unit Concept Review on 88.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 44 acres, Site plan Review on 44 acres, Preliminary Plat of 44 acres into 394 lots,and EAW review to allow the developer to address the concerns expressed by the Commission. Motion carried 7-0. B. BEST BUY PARKING by Best Buy Company. Request for PUD District Review on 28.5 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 and Site Plan Review on 0.1 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 28.5 acres into one lot. Location: 10555 Northgate Parkway. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 9 Franzen reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the parking lot expansion for Best Buy Company. MOTION: Sandstad moved,Foote seconded,to recommend approval of the PUD District Review on 28.5 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 and Site Plan Review on 0.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 28.5 acres into one lot for Best Buy Company based on plans dated March 22, 1996 and the stipulations contained in the March 22, 1996 staff report. Motion carried 7-0. C. WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION by City of Eden Prairie. Request for PUD Concept Review and PUD District Review on 18.9 acres,Zoning District Amendment within the I-5 District and Site Plan Review on 18.9 acres. Location: Southeast comer of Highway 5 and Mitchell Road. Director of Engineering Gene Dietz and Gary Tushie, Tushie-Montgomery Architects were present representing the City of Eden Prairie. Franzen reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the expansion of the Water Treatment Plant. Ismail inquired what the location would be for Highway 212 and Dietz responded that the portion from the highway which was funded would be from the interchange to Wallace Road, and had been scheduled for construction in the year 2000. He noted that the toll road issue will have to be resolved before any construction occurs. Tushie reviewed the plans for the expansion. Wissner commented that it would be a significant improvement and the area where the sludge ponds were located would appear to be almost park-like when completed. Dietz stated that when the facility becomes fully operational in 1998 they will need to have a place to put the residuals, which will be trucked out on a daily basis. The City is considering purchasing enough land to be able to store this without having to pay someone to handle it for them. He noted that the expansion was not coming from tax revenues,but rather from residual funds from water bills, from SAC charges, and new construction fees. Sandstad requested that the Planning Commissioners be given a tour of the facility when it is completed. MOTION: Sandstad moved,Wissner seconded,to recommend approval of the PUD Concept, PUD District Review, Zoning District Amendment in the I-5 Zoning District, and Site Plan Review, all on 19.8 acres, based on plans dated March 22, 1996 and stipulations contained in the staff report dated March 22, 1996. Motion carried 7-0. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS None. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 10 Ob Kardell noted that this was Ed Schlampp's last meeting as he was retiring from the Commission. Sandstad thanked Schlampp for his service to the City,noting there was no finer thing a citizen could to for his community than to serve on a public body. VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None. VII. NEW BUSINESS None. VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen noted that there were several items scheduled for the next agenda, including Lifetouch Headquarters facility,the Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church and the Staring Lake Townhome project. IX. ADJOURNMENT • MOTION: Sandstad moved, Wissner seconded,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.