Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 06/28/2004 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY,JUNE 28, 2004 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Kacher, Kathy Nelson, Fred Seymour, Jon Stoltz, Ray Stoelting, Ken Brooks, Vicki Koenig, Peter Rocheford, William Sutherland STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, City Planner Alan Gray, City Engineer Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Kathy Fischer, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Ken Brooks, Kathy Nelson, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz. Absent: Larry Kacher, Vicki Koenig, Peter Rocheford, William Sutherland. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Brooks to amend the agenda to move Item D Variance#2004-13 to the end of the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Brooks to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried 5-0. III. MINUTES A. COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 2004 MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Stoelting to approve the minutes. Motion carried 5-0. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. PUBLIC HEARING A. HILLTOP TOWN OFFICES by Arima, L.L.C. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review 6.89 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 6.89 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Office Community Planning Board Minutes June 28, 2004 Page 2 Zoning District on 6.89 acres, Site Plan Review on 6.89 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.89 acres into 16 lots. Location: 7480 Flying Cloud Drive. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Seymour to continue the request of Hilltop Town Offices to the July 12, 2004 Planning Board meeting. Motion carried 5-0. B. VARIANCE#2004-11 Petition of Alan Hansen for property at 6923 Rosemary Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. A side yard setback variance from 10 feet to 5 feet for an accessory structure. Alan Hansen, 6923 Rosemary Road, Eden Prairie, said he is proposing to build an accessory garage in the back yard and is requesting the variance so that the structure is located out of the way of the trees and the useable yard area. Hansen indicated that most of his backyard is on a steep slope; therefore,he would prefer to build it where there are no slopes and this would require a variance. Hansen said that the proposed structure would be placed where nothing grows and no trees would have to be removed. Hansen said it is possible to build the structure within a ten-foot setback,but he would have to take down two trees and it would interrupt his garden space. Hansen said there would be no driveway to the structure and it would mainly be used for storage. Franzen said that within the R1-22 zoning district, a homeowner is allowed to build an accessory structure within a 10-foot side yard setback. Franzen said that there are alternatives that would meet the required side yard setback: (1) add onto the existing garage, (2) change the shape of the structure, (3)reduce the size of the structure, (4) find another location on the lot that meets the 10-foot setback. Nelson said that there would be oak trees next to the structure and if you dig through the roots, the oak trees would probably not survive. Fox said that he met with Hanson on the property and the trees are healthy. Fox said that putting the structure where he would like to would probably damage the trees. Also, a neighbor's tree could be affected. Nelson asked if the homeowner could add onto the existing garage. Hanson said that there is room to add another stall,but it would not accomplish his goal of adding a workshop. Hanson said there would not be enough room to add a workshop and park the cars in the garage. Nelson expressed her concern about the possible loss of the homeowner's and neighbor's trees. Brooks said he did not see enough hardship and the homeowner has other choices. Brooks indicated he would have a difficult time approving the variances. Community Planning Board Minutes June 28, 2004 Page 3 Stoelting asked Hanson what the hardship would be. Hansen said he was going to carefully build the structure so that the trees would not be affected. Hansen said that the grade of the lot, preserving the garden and useable yard space is his hardship. Stoelting asked if reducing or changing the size of the structure is an option. Hanson said he could reduce it somewhat,but did not want to reduce it too much because it was not practical. Stoelting asked if Hanson could have the power line pole moved and use some of the garden area. Hanson said that he could,but then it would be in the middle of the yard and take up useable yard space. Hanson said the reason he wanted to put it where he is proposing it is because it would be out of the way and it would not be visible to the neighbors. Hanson said that he preferred the proposed location of the structure because it is on unusable land, it is hidden, it would be out of the way and it would not be on a slope. Hanson said he did not want to put it in the garden and waste his yard space. Stoltz and Seymour indicated that they did not see a hardship in order to grant the variance. Brooks said that he did not see a hardship, there were options for the applicant, and the ordinance should be adhered to. MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Nelson to deny Variance#2004-11 Petition of Alan Hansen for property at 6923 Rosemary Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota for a side yard setback variance from 10 feet to 5 feet for an accessory structure because hardship could not be substantiated. Motion carried 5-0. C. VARIANCE#2004-12 Petition of Tom Foster on behalf of Hampton Inn for property at 7740 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Variance to permit a temporary banner not used in conjunction with a grand opening or the initial commencement of a business. City code permits banners only with the initial commencement of business. Variance to permit a temporary banner for a 90-day period. City code permits banners up for the week (7 days) of initial commencement of a business. Tom Foster, 5795 Shannon Trail SE, Prior Lake, Minnesota, representing Hampton Inn explained that Hampton Inn has lost customers because they were unable to supply high-speed internet access. Foster said that Hampton Inn now Community Planning Board Minutes June 28, 2004 Page 4 offers high speed internet access and would like to advertise this new product by displaying a 2 foot by 6 foot banner(12 square feet) for a 90 day time period. Franzen said that to permit temporary banners for any size beyond the initial commencement of business or grand opening is inconsistent with City Code. No variances have been previously granted. There are several alternatives that would meet City code such as: (1) modify the existing wall sign with a reference for high speed internet access, (2) add additional wall signs with a reference for high speed internet access, (3) modify the existing monument sign with a reference for high speed internet access, (4) add additional monument signs with a reference for high speed internet access, (5) advertise in the phone book or corporate brochures. Stoelting asked Foster how he felt about the options to the temporary sign. Foster said that there is a marquee sign in front of the building,but there is not enough square footage on the sign to add to it. Foster said he would like a sign adjacent to the marquee that would advertise Hampton Inn's high-speed internet access. Brooks asked if Hampton Inn could add signage to their building. Franzen said that Hampton Inn could add wall signage because they have not reached their maximum square footage limit. Foster said it was most beneficial and visible to customers to place a banner in the front of the building by the marquee sign. Nelson felt that a permanent sign would serve the hotel better over a longer period of time. Foster said that he is familiar with signage and visibility and having a banner in the area of the primary marquee during a minimal amount of time would get out the message to the customers. Stoelting suggested adding a second marquee sign. Foster said that he would not be interested in erecting a second marquee sign. Brooks indicated he was concerned about setting a negative precedence. Seymour agreed with Brooks and pointed out that staff has presented several options. Seymour felt that the sign ordinance worked well and there was not a hardship to justify the banner sign. Nelson expressed her concern that businesses were hanging banner signs without approval. Community Planning Board Minutes June 28, 2004 Page 5 MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Stoltz to deny Variance#2004-12 Petition of Tom Foster on behalf of Hampton Inn for property at 7740 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Variance to permit a temporary banner not used in conjunction with a grand opening or the initial commencement of a business. City code permits banners only with the initial commencement of business. Variance to permit a temporary banner for a 90-day period. City code permits banners up for the week (7 days) of initial commencement of a business. Motion carried 5-0. D. HARTFORD COMMONS PUD AMENDMENT 2004 by David Bernard Homes. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 17.8 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment in the RM6.5 District on 6.74 acres, Site Plan Review on 6.74 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.74 acres into 11 lots. Location: Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Lakes Drive. Tim Whitman, Executive Vice President of David Bernard, Division of the Rottlund Company said that Phase I is complete. Whitman said he was here to request changes to Phase 11 of the development because of what they have learned from the market while building Phase L Whitman said that the approved plan for Phase II are 131 multiple family townhouses at a gross density of 17.84 units per acre with three building types: Urban townhouses (52 units), Urban Flat townhouses (32 units), Urban Row townhouses (47 units). Whitman explained that the revised plan has a different mix of the same product and one new product: Urban townhouses (61 units), Urban Flat townhouses (0 units), Urban Row townhouses (17 units), Vista townhouses (52 units). Whitman said that they would be introducing the Vista townhouses and eliminating the Urban Flat townhouses in Phase IL Whitman said that the proposed plan is very similar to the approved plan. Whitman said that they are proposing the same number of units,but are adding more parking spaces for guests. The new product type allows for more guest parking. Whitman said they have met with the neighbors and the neighbors asked that this type of project be advanced. Staff asked that more sidewalks be introduced and that has been incorporated into the proposed plan. Whitman said that in the center of the project there is a fountain and gazebo. Whitman said that there is no change in density, there is an increase in parking, the development will develop at a faster pace, and the neighbors are in support of the project. Nelson noted that the urban flat townhouse would be eliminated and asked what is the urban flat townhouse style. Whitman said that the urban flat townhouse is the one-level townhome. Community Planning Board Minutes June 28, 2004 Page 6 Nelson asked what happened to the live-work unit type of townhome where the homeowners could set up a shop in their home. Whitman said that the live-work units were eliminated because they would have had to change the City ordinance to make them work. Whitman said that as the ordinance is set up today, homeowners could set up a business in their homes. Nelson was not supportive of the request because of the elimination of the urban flat townhomes and live-work units. Nelson said that they are eliminating some of the things that the Board originally discussed when the project was approved. Franzen said that staff is recommending approval because the density is the same, the architecture fits in with the architectural theme, the same streetscape is maintained, it maintains the walk ability, and there is more guest parking. The live-work units are confined to the definition of home occupation, which would include retail sales. The live-work units in Lincoln Park are zoned commercial. If a home is in the right zoning district and the right location, a person can live upstairs and have a business downstairs. Rezoning of Hartford Commons 2nd Addition to commercial goes against the sentiment of the neighborhood since they fought against commercial development in that area. Hartford Commons would have had to amend the zoning, which would be a problem with neighbors in the area. The City could amend the home occupation ordinance for Hartford Commons,but the City would then have to amend the home occupation ordinance citywide. Whitman then reviewed the guest parking. Michael Erickson, 9503 Marshall Road, Eden Prairie, adjacent to the Phase 11 development asked if there was going to be a fountain in the plan and if there is going to be a 30 foot variance adjacent to his existing home and along Rolling Hills Road. Whitman said the fountain would be retained as proposed and the variance is only external to the public roads (Prairie Lakes Drive and Rolling Hills Road) and that the setback variance is consistent with the approved plan. There are no changes in the variances as originally approved. The elimination of the urban flat townhomes was discussed. Whitman explained that there was not a demand for this type of product, so they changed the plans to include the vista style townhomes. Stoltz asked Franzen if there were any problems with Phase I of the project. Franzen said that they have had no problems with the development. Community Planning Board Minutes June 28, 2004 Page 7 MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Nelson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Brooks to approve Hartford Commons PUD Amendment 2004 by David Bernard Homes. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 17.8 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment in the RM6.5 District on 6.74 acres, Site Plan Review on 6.74 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.74 acres into 11 lots. Location: Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Lakes Drive. Motion carried 4-1. E. EDENVALE HIGHLANDS by BC Development, LLC. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.62 acres, Preliminary Plat of 10.62 acres into 9 lots and road right-of-way, Location: East terminus of Alpine Trail, south of the Twin Cities and Western Railroad. Floyd Calhoun, resident of Chaska, representing BC Development, LLC. Calhoun said that they have addressed traffic issues, impact on the neighborhood, trees, ponding questions, and other issues since the informational meeting. Calhoun said that they have had neighborhood meetings to discuss the concept and plan. Calhoun said that they are now proposing 8 single-family lots rather than the original 9 single-family lots. Franzen said that staff recommends approval with conditions as listed in the June 25, 2004 staff report. Stoelting asked about the retaining walls and the fencing around the retaining walls. Calhoun said that the City requires a fence around any retaining wall that is over 4 feet for safety purposes. Many of the retaining walls are over 4 feet. The fences will be an aluminum product that will be a minimum of 42 inches in height and they will be black so they will fit better in the natural surrounding. Steve Johnston with Landform, engineers, planners, surveyors, and landscape architects for the project reviewed where the retaining walls would be placed and how they would be engineered on the site. Johnston said that they anticipate a 35% tree loss,but the staff report indicates a 44% tree loss. Fox said his calculations were higher because he was concerned about the 20-foot cuts within the base of oak trees. Fox wondered if the soils would hold the 5-foot face without sloughing off and losing the trees. Fox said he did a worse case scenario for tree loss. Fox indicated that they have not seen any soil borings. Community Planning Board Minutes June 28, 2004 Page 8 Johnston said they have not provided the soil borings,because it would require them to remove trees just to get a rig in there. Johnston said they would do soil borings once the project had preliminary approval. Johnston said the neighbors were told that no trees would be removed until the project had preliminary approval. Paul Kozloski, 6863 Alpine Trail, spoke on behalf of the neighborhood. Kozloski thanked the Board for their interest and time on the project. Kozloski said that the Alpine neighborhood highly recommends the project, totally supports the project, and welcomes it with open arms. Kozloski said the key reason for that is that Floyd Calhoun and Steve Johnston have sold themselves to the neighborhood as great neighbors doing a great job. Kozloski said that Calhoun has gone out of his way to communicate with the neighborhood and hoped that he would move in the new development. Kosloski thank the Board again for doing a good job. Brooks asked Calhoun about house prices. Calhoun said the homes would be valued at$325,000+. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Seymour to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Brooks to recommend approval of Edenvale Highlands by BC Development, LLC. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.62 acres, Preliminary Plat of 10.62 acres into 9 lots and road right-of-way, Location: East terminus of Alpine Trail, south of the Twin Cities and Western Railroad based on plans dated June 23, 2004 subject to the following conditions: (1) Prior to City Council review, the developer shall revise the tree replacement plan to include an additional 405 caliper inches of tree replacement, (2) Prior to release of the final plat, the proponent shall: (a) submit detailed storm water runoff, utility, and erosion control plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and Watershed District, (b) submit for review a conservation easement to be recorded on the property for the protection of existing trees and shoreland bluff as identified on the plans, (c) submit for review Homeowner's Association documents to be recorded on the property that include, but are not limited to maintenance of the retaining walls, tree preservation, and conservation easements, (3) Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall: (a) notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading, (b) install erosion control on the property, as well as tree protection fencing at the grading limits in the wooded areas for trees to be preserved as part of the development. Said fencing shall be field inspected by the City Forester prior to any grading, (c) provide to and obtain approval from the Inspections Department detailed engineering design and specifications for all retaining walls to be constructed as part of the overall grading for the property, (4) Prior to building permit issuance for the property, the proponent shall: (a) provide a tree Community Planning Board Minutes June 28, 2004 Page 9 replacement surety equivalent to 150% of the cost of the tree replacement for 1,145 caliper inches, (b) pay the Cash Park Fee. Motion carried 5-0. F. VARIANCE#2004-13 Petition of Pemtom Land Company for property located south of Pioneer Trail and north of Vogel Farm Trail, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. 0 To permit a wetland buffer strip width and setback of less than 25 feet. Dan Herbst, Pemtom Land Company, 7597 Anagram, Eden Prairie said that the City wetland ordinance requires a 25-foot wetland buffer strip around each proposed wetland and wetland mitigation area. The variance is needed because the wetland on the north butts up to Pioneer Trail, to the west to the Hennepin County Light Railway, it approaches on a street that is proposed to run between two wetlands. Alison Frazer, Environmental Scientist, Westwood Professional Services, showed where the variance requests are needed on the site plan. Franzen said that reason for the variance is due to existing conditions. Settler's West Road was required by the City in order to provide two access points to the proposed development. Due to the number of proposed units, the dual access was requested by the City and County for safety purposes, such as to provide adequate emergency vehicle access. The property boundaries and Pioneer Trail are pre- existing conditions. Franzen said the Board may choose to approve the variance request, continue the variance request if additional information is needed or for plan changes, or deny the variance request based on lack of hardship. Gizelle Petway, 18947 Vogel Farm Trail, asked where he lives in relation to the map he was provided. Herbst showed Petway where his land was located in relation to the project. Petway asked if the wetland affects his property. Herbst said that the wetlands do not abut Mr. Petway's property. Herbst explained that there would be a home built and the back yard will abut Petway's west property line. MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Nelson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Stoltz to approve Variance#2004-13 Petition of Pemtom Land Company for property located south of Pioneer Trail and north of Vogel Farm Trail, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. 0 To permit a wetland buffer strip width and setback of less than 25 feet. Community Planning Board Minutes June 28, 2004 Page 10 Motion carried 5-0. VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS Fox said that he has followed up with Mr. Dale regarding mowing City property. Dale said that he would like to exchange some of his property for City property. Fox said that the City is not in a position to start dealing with land based on trespass issues. IX. NEW BUSINESS Nelson suggested that CSOs or the Inspections Department staff keep an eye out for businesses that are not following the rules and hanging banner signs. Franzen said that staff could do that. X. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen said that CIMA Labs have a need to add a storage area for their products in the cafeteria. These additions are meeting all City requirements and the City could process it as a building permit unless the board felt this was a significant enough change that it would require a public hearing and an amendment to the approved plan. The Board was comfortable with staff processing the request as a building permit. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Seymour to adjourn the Planning Board meeting of June 28, 2004 at 9:05 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.