Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 06/24/1991 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 24, 1991 7:30 p.m. COMNIISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Charles Ruebling, Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, Karen Norman, Doug Sandstad, James Hawkins and Katherine Kardell STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA H. MEMBERS REPORTS M. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. CARPENTER NORTH PUD (91-11-PUD) by Donald G. Brauer. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Regional Commercial on 6.2 acres, and from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential on 11 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.2 acres for future development of commercial and multiple residential land uses to be known as Carpenter North PUD. Location: North of the intersection of Valley View Road and Prairie.Center Drive. A continued public hearing B. JAMESTOWN VILLAS (91-15-Z-P-PUD-SPR) by the Rottlund Company, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 60.8 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 8.5 acres with waivers, Zoning District Amendment within the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 8.5 acres, Site Plan Review on 8.5 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 8.5 acres into 12 lots for construction of 96 townhouse units to be known as Jamestown Villas. Location: South of Highway 5, north of George Moran Drive. A public hearing C. TECHNOLOGY PARK 7TH ADDITION (91-17-PUD-SPR) by Hoyt Development Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 45 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review within the I-2 Zoning District with waivers on 5.6 acres, Site Plan Review on 5.6 acres for approval of additional parking spaces on the Technology Park 7th Addition site. Location: southwest comer of West 74th Street and Golden Triangle Drive. A public hearing V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS VIE[. ADJOURNMENT EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 24, 1991 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL- CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, James Hawkins, Katherine Kardell, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad. STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: Bauer absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: • Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to approve the. Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0-0. H. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES MOTION: Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to approve the Minutes of the June 10, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 5-0-1. Hawkins abstained. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. CARPENTER NORTH PUD (91-11-PUD) by Donald G. Brauer. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Regional Commercial on 6.2 acres, and from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential on 11 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.2 acres for future development of commercial and multiple residential land uses to be known as Carpenter North PUD. Location: North of the intersection of Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing. t Planning Commission June 24, 1991 Page Two Franzen reported that the proponent held a meeting with residents of the neighborhood. Based on concerns raised at that meeting, he is asking for a further continuance to the July 8, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Walter Carpenter, proponent, stated that a neighborhood meeting was held last week with approximately 35 to 40 residents in attendance. Carpenter asked the neighbors to meet with him again this evening to address some of their concerns raised at the last meeting. Carpenter formally requested a continuance to the July 8, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Several residents in the audience raised objection to only a two week continuance due to the holiday weekend. The residents were concerned that the plan would still be the same tonight as they had seen previously. Carpenter assured the residents that changes had been made. Residents asked why they could not voice their opinions to the Planning Commission this evening. Chairman Ruebling explained that a specific plan was not before the Planning Commission for review and a continuance had been requested by the proponent to make further changes to the plan; therefore, it would be inappropriate to take any comments this evening. Ruebling encouraged the residents to meet with the proponent to see what changes were being proposed. MOTION: Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to continue the public hearing to the July 8, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. B. JAMESTOWN VILLAS (91-15-Z-P-PUD-SPR)by the Rottlund Company, Inc. • Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 60.8 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 8.5 acres with waivers, Zoning District Amendment within the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 8.5 acres, Site Plan Review on 8.5 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 8.5 acres into 12 'lots for construction of 96 townhouse units to be known as Jamestown Villas. Location: South of Highway 5, north of George Moran Drive. A public hearing. Franzen reported that this project was located on previously approved Centex Homes site. Rottlund Company was proposing a different type of product to be constructed and the project would be 8 units higher in density than previously approved with Centex. Planning Commission • June 24, 1991 Page Three Bud Rotter, representing the proponent, stated that the product proposed for this site had been well accepted in several other cities. The price range of the units would be between$50,000 and$80,000. Full curb and gutter would be installed. Two driveway cuts would be made into the site. The setback distances as approved in the Centex proposal would be maintained. The landscaping as proposed would be short of City Ordinance; however, a large stand of trees at the eastern border of the project would remain, which had been proposed for removal in the Centex proposal. A maximum height berm would be constructed along the roadway. The size of the units had been increased for this project and dormers had been added to the architectural plans. The proponent wanted to maintain continuity in the project by having all the building be of the same color rather that change the color of each building as recommended by Staff. The exterior of the buildings would be aluminum siding with brick accent. A sprinkler system would be installed using water sensitive valves to conserve water. Franzen reported that the first plan was for all 8-unit buildings. Staff and the proponent had worked together to maintain the original setbacks and landscaping plan as proposed by Centex. Staff was concerned about the transition to the east • due to the size of the buildings and the location of existing homes and, therefore, recommended addition landscaping to the east. Franzen noted that the stand of trees referred to by the proponent consisted mainly of non significant trees, and no credit could be given. Franzen believed that it was important to at least vary the brick and trim colors for each building if the base color were to remain the same to offer variety. Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the project based on recommendations outlined in the Staff Report dated June 21, 1991. Hawkins questioned if the transition item could be addressed as a separate item in the Staff recommendations. Franzen replied that it was addressed under Item 1.A in the Staff Report but agreed that transition should be separate and would change the report before going to the City Council. Norman questioned the rationale for a higher density project than what was previously approved. Rotter believed 96 units to be the minimum amount of units to make this type of home work on this site. Franzen replied that the issue is not the number of units but, rather the impact on the property and the surrounding areas. He added that Staff believed this proposal to be comparable to the previously approved plan. Planning Commission • June 24, 1991 Page Four Hawkins asked staff to explain how the project met City code for parking spaces based on the number of units proposed. Franzen replied that credit was given for a space in front of each garage unit, an additional 45 free standing parking spaces, and a garage for each unit. Hallett believed that Staff s request for additional screening to the east was reasonable and necessary to provide transition to the single. Kardell noted that multiple complimentary colors had been used by Rottlund Company in other developments and asked why the objection for this project. Rotter replied that the developer preferred continuity whenever possible. He added that the proponent had more difficulty with the request for the variation in elevations than in colors. Uram noted that the request by Staff was to do whatever would work out the best and added that Staff would continue to work with the proponent. Franzen stated that when looking at the overall view of the project, all the buildings looked that same and appeared to blend into one another. Uram stated that if architectural elevations were acceptable to the Planning Commission, Item E could be removed from the Staff Report. Hawkins believed that the overall view would be more pleasing if a variation in elevations were used. Uram noted that the variation in elevations was to be between the 8 and 12 unit buildings. Sandstad stated that he liked the addition of the dormers and was not overly concerned about the color issue. Sandstad asked if Rottlund's last 4 or 5 projects approved were all of the same color and elevations. Rotter replied yes. Rotter added that the proponent did not have a problem with the variation in elevations between the 8 and 12 unit buildings. Ruebling stated that the Planning Commission had gone to great lengths in the approval process of the Centex proposal to get smaller buildings along the transition area to the east. Ruebling did not believe this plan to be of the same as previously approved. Ruebling questioned if the Planning Commission would have voted to change the Guide Plan from low density to a higher density if this proposal had been reviewed first. Ruebling believed that this project has more building and asphalt than the original plan proposed by Centex and added that this changed the entire character of the project. Rotter replied that the setbacks were being maintained in the transition area to the east and the landscaping was being increased. Rotter noted that this was the highest priced piece of property purchased by the proponent and believed that the proposal as presented would still make available affordable housing in Eden Prairie. Ruebling believed that the • buildings would appear larger no matter what was being done to the site plan. Planning Commission June 24, 1991 Page Five Wayne Tower, representing the proponent, stated that the original plan proposed by Centex had 4 buildings abutting the eastern border approximately 50 feet off the property line. He added that the new proposal had the buildings located approximately 85 feet from the property line in order to save the existing stand of trees. The area would be screened well during the summer months and if necessary the proponent would increase the landscaping. Tower noted that only 3 buildings would face the east rather than 4 and they were positioned to decrease the mass appearance. Ruebling stated that the Planning Commission had tried to give a single-family residential appearance to the 4 buildings facing the east and to provide greenspace between the buildings to reduce the mass so that the transition to the single-family homes would blend better. Sandstad noted.that the roof lines were lower in this proposal and the best views of the buildings faced the east and the south. Ruebling believed that the large mass would be hard to hide. Sandstad believed that the building architecture proposed is better than those of the previous plan. Dick Putnam, representing Centex Homes, stated that initially when this was approved, the issues were land use and traffic and the type of building to be constructed was not an issue. Putnam stated that unfortunately it was discovered that the Centex units were not marketable at this time. Putnam noted that Centex still owned the property to the south of this proposal and was therefore very interested in what was being constructed. Putnam believed that the screening would work well to screen the property to the south. MOTION 1: Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Rottlund Company, Inc. for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the overall Jamestown Planned Unit Development on 60.8 acres for construction of 96 townhouse units to be known as Jamestown Villas, based on plans dated June 7, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report Planning Commission • June 24, 1991 Page Six dated June 21, 1991 with the split of Item I.A. into two items addressing the transition to the east as a separate item. Motion carried 5-1-0. Ruebling voted "NO". MOTION 3• Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Rottlund Company, Inc., for Planned Unit Development District Review,with waivers,and Zoning District Amendment within the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 8.5 acres for construction of 96 townhouse units to be known as Jamestown Villas, based on plans dated June 7, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 21, 1991 with the split of Item LA into two items addressing the transition to the east as a separate item. Motion carried 5-1-0. Ruebling voted "NO". MOTION 4• Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Rottlund Company, Inc., for Site Plan Review on 8.5 acres for • construction of 96 townhouse units to be known as Jamestown Villas, based on plans dated June 7, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 21, 1991 with the split of Item LA into two items addressing the transition to the east as a separate item. Motion carried 5-1-0. Ruebling voted "NO". MOTION 5• Hallett moved, seconded by Hawkins to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Rottlund Company, Inc., for Preliminary Plat of 8.5 acres into twelve(12) lots for construction of 96 townhouse units to be known as Jamestown Villas, based on plans dated June 7, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 21, 1991 with the split of Item LA into two items addressing the transition to the east as a separate item. Motion carried 5-1-0. Ruebling voted "NO". Ruebling stated that the reason for voting "NO".on this project was the amount of greenspace being maintained on the project and the transition to the east. Planning Commission June 24, 1991 Page Seven C. TECHNOLOGY PARK 7TH ADDITION (91-17-PUD-SPR) by Hoyt Development Company. ' Request for Planned Unit 'Development Concept Amendment on 45 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review within the I-2 Zoning District with waivers on 5.6 acres, Site Plan Review on 5.6 acres for approval of additional parking spaces on the Technology Park 7th Addition site. Location: southwest corner of West 74th Street and Golden Triangle Drive. A public hearing. Brad Hoyt, the proponent, stated that this facility had less proof of parking than the interpretation of the City Code. Hoyt noted that the property backs up to a drainage swale. The parcel was also divided. Technology Park 9 and 10 would share access. The reason for the request is that the property is being sold. Hoyt stated that if Lake Smetana were raised the drain swale would take up the proof of parking area. Hoyt proposed to place 26 additional proof of parking spaces in the front of the building in the existing green space area and 34 parking spaces along the southern property line. Hoyt noted that this proposal was actually not being planned for implementation but was rather a legal issue. The area to the west of the site was heavily wooded. Hoyt stated that they had planted over 100 trees in this area and did not want to disturb this area if at all possible. Uram asked Hot to address the letter from Hot Properties. Hot stated that Y Y P Y Technology Park 9 was jointly owned by himself, his father, and his brother. He added that the letter was stating objection to an easement agreement; however, Hoyt presented a signed statement authorizing the cross-easement agreement. Uram reported that Staff recommended approval of the project as proposed. The biggest concern was the cross-parking and access easements agreements. Uram noted that the building use needed to be restricted to a use not to exceed 193 parking spaces. Ruebling asked if the developer was comfortable with a restricted use. Hoyt replied yes. Hawkins asked if Hoyt was representing the investor and if they understood that the use would be restricted. Hoyt replied yes. MOTION 1: ' Norman moved, seconded by Hawkins to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. i Planning Commission • June 24, 1991 Page Eight MOTION 2: Norman moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hoyt Development for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 45 acres to the overall Technology Park Planned Unit Development for additional parking spaces for the Technology Park 7th Addition, based on plans dated June 10, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 21, 1991, with the additional wording to Item 1; prior to second reading. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 3: Norman moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hoyt Development for Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers, within the I-2 Zoning District on 5.6 acres, for additional parking spaces for Technology Park 7th Addition, based on plans dated June 10, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 21, 1991, with the additional wording to Item 1; prior to second reading. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 4: Norman moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hoyt Development for Site Plan Review on 5.6 acres for additional parking spaces for Technology Park 7th Addition, based on plans dated June 10, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 21, 1991, with the additional wording to Item 1; prior to second reading. Motion carried 6-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS Hallett asked if the inflatable golf ball and huge man used for local businesses were in violation of the City Ordinance. Hallett believed that Super America should be notified that these items were not appropriate. VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS Planning Commission • June 24, 1991 Page Nine VU. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Hawkins moved, seconded by Norman to adjourn the meeting at 9:18 PM. Motion carried 6-0-0.