Loading...
Planning Commission - 02/24/2020APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2020 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Christopher Villarreal, Carole Mette CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Commission members Weber and Villarreal were absent. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Higgins to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Mette to approve the minutes of February 10, 2020, amended to take out “far” from Item V on page three, third paragraph, and the substitution of “streetlight” for “street” in the next sentence. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS THE OVERLOOK (2019-23) Request for:  Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres  Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 27.51 acres  Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres  Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 59 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2020 Page 2 Rick Packer, Land Manager of Gonyea Homes displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. He noted development partners of Alliant Engineering and Braun InterTech and went through the history of the company. Gonyea Homes in the last seven years built 50 homes in Eden Prairie with a market average of one million dollars. Packer displayed a map of developments in the area and elevations of single-level HOA-maintained homes. This was an age-targeted development to attract a certain clientele, mainly older, not families but clients seeking low-maintenance homes who would perhaps be leaving the Cities in the winter. This was a “snow and mow” HOA-maintained development. There would be two-car garages and traditional three-car garages in a fifty-fifty split. The houses would be single-level. Prices would start around $550,000.00 and would abut the Hennepin Village development. When Gonyea Homes approached the City in 2018 it became clear the site could not handle high density development. 59 homes were planned, less than allowed by ordinance. Packer displayed the prior land use showing mixed land uses of zoning low density, medium density, and office. He detailed the many environmental constraints on site including the shoreline and the shoreline district. Packer displayed the slope analysis for this development showing 20 percent, steep slopes. He detailed the many environmental studies conducted. One third of the site would be preserved as open space and the endangered species in the site did not come close to the planned development, but stayed mainly on the top of the bluff. Originally, this development was planned to connect to Hennepin Village. This idea is still being explored, but in the meantime a trail would connect the two sites, and a cul-de-sac was proposed. If the egress/access did come through, it would be constructed in a second phase. Packer displayed historic overhead views from 1991 showing vacant land and the Christmas tree farm and empathized with the community’s concerns about the loss of trees. A view from 2003 showed mature trees and the Hennepin Village development which clear cut the entire site to the east. Packer assured the commission members his team tried to preserve trees among common property line. However, some were not planted on the property line and would need to be taken down for a retaining wall due to the grade change. Feedback from nearby residents was mixed, with some saying their view would be enhanced, and others expressing fear at seeing rooftops, which would be true. Packer said his team would replace the trees, and tried to save the trees near Spring Road, and also in the far southeast corner. However, all trees between this would be cut and then replanted after the construction of the retaining walls. Packer displayed cross sections of the north, central, south central, south areas across the boundary of Hennepin Village and the Overlook. He disagreed with the City on the parks and open space piece. Applicant was being asked to build, with PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2020 Page 3 no park credit, a trail on Spring Road from June Grass Lane north to property line, dedicate land and build a trail from Osprey Point to the existing trail system in the Conservation Area, and grade an area for a future trail in an area with very steep slopes. The central outlot contained environmentally sensitive features proposed to be public. This was, he asserted not a financial matter as stated in the staff report, but a statutory matter, and statute did not say cities could extract land and improvements without credit because it did not have value as a community playfield or park. DeSanctis noted the property description gave a topographic relief that varied 150 feet of grade from east to west, yet the topography and vegetation description gave a high point of 890 feet and a low point of 835 feet. Packer replied there was a typo and there was a 150 feet grade change on the site. DeSanctis asked him to explain the potential impact on the endangered species. Packer replied the DNR completed a study given to staff and included diagrams of where the species were. Klima added the DNR did a review of the endangered species provided by the City late on Friday. Staff completed a cursory review and would continue to analyze the results and would address this in more detail at the City Council meeting if Planning Commission took action on this item tonight. However, she could say the majority of species were located in conservancy area outside the development according to the soil types these species lived in. DeSanctis stated there was a public water spigot that was much lower than this parcel and asked for the impact on water quality of the Miller Spring. Packer replied there would be no impact on the spring. Bourne added the Miller Spring piping came from the west side of Spring Road, eliminating any impact. Klima presented the staff report. The applicant was requesting a rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 with several waivers and a preliminary plat into 59 single-family lots and outlots. There would be tree replacement on site. There was no landscaping requirement because this was a development of single-family but a tree replacement requirement was in effect. There were several waivers requested for the over-length cul-de-sac. The HOA would need to provide authorization for any access to Junegrass Lane for construction, grading and retaining walls. The property could be platted in two phases to allow additional time for the Developer and Hennepin Village to agree on the connection. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mette asked what impact any fertilizer or other chemical runoff would have on the unique resource of the Miller Spring as well as Riley Creek. She also asked to what extent did the City know how the creek geologically attached to the aquifer and the potential impacts there as well. Bourne repeated the water for Miller Spring came from the west and added the City and Watershed look at the connection to the aquifer and while Riley Creek drained from Riley Lake, they were actually connected higher up. The infiltration basins’ pre-treatment would alleviate impacts. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2020 Page 4 Farr asked if there would be an emergency access connection regardless of the negotiations, resulting in a grade change for the entire development. Klima replied the plans did show an emergency access planned in future, but the exact details were not yet defined. Since Junegrass was a private street conversations could continue through phase one. Any agreement would address triggers for when and how the connection would be designed. If the HOA and developer were slow to come to terms the City would turn to contingency planning, but staff was not at the point of those details that yet. Kirk asked for the traffic report summary. Klima replied the traffic analysis completed typically was reviewed at a staff level and not attached to staff report. Rue added this was really a traffic memo, not a full-fledged study. There were 560 trips daily out of this development from an analysis done in November envisioning different scenarios, including a Junegrass connection, and no connection. There was a three-quarter access at Spring Road currently. These 560 trips would all access Spring Road if there was no connection and there would be no significant impact; current traffic was light. The only issue at the intersection was sightlines, and grading for the future trail would address this. Higgins noted another portion of Hennepin Village on the west side of Spring Road which would also be impacted. There was a controlled walkway across from Summit Oaks, and she was concerned about the construction process. People who come into the City via Flying Cloud Drive had to change their behavior due to construction. Perhaps this had lessened, but she urged caution on this old road and suggested the City look into the temporary traffic impact on residents during construction. DeSanctis noted there were no culture resources needing protection under Encumbrances and asked if there was a pending archeological reconnaissance study. Klima replied an archeological study done had been resubmitted to the State Archeologist for review and staff was awaiting comment. The initial study did not show any likelihood of there being cultural resources at the site. Resident Ken Dedeker, of 10064 Indigo Drive in Hennepin Village, introduced himself as the new President of the Master Board and the longtime President of Prairie View Townhomes. He stated he was concerned about tree coverage and the reason for removing trees, which would have a significant effect on views and property values today and possibly down the road. He was unable to determine the height of the proposed retaining walls, and tonight was his first view of the homes’ elevations. He was concerned about having to look at rooflines versus the tree cover seen over the past 15-20 years, and asked if the sightlines could lots be lowered. The conifer trees replanted along retaining walls would be relatively small and make a nice barrier in 20-30 years, but not immediately. He was also concerned about over-planting; Hennepin Village had damage to sidewalks and foundations due to this. The traffic study seemed to assume there would be an PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2020 Page 5 open connection between this development and Hennepin Village and he was concerned about trucks coming in on the lower end of Spring Road and exiting via Hennepin Village. He also had safety concerns, and asked if there would be a railing on top of the retaining walls, for without it children could be injured. There was not enough detail provided to the residents. There was the potential for significantly increased traffic through Hennepin Village, which had children and school buses. The connection of this development to Junegrass involved two different owners or corporations involved with the sale of land, the grade of the roadway itself, and a temporary hydrant not in its proper location, and he asked who would pay for the access and these improvements. He asked for a complete traffic study along Flying Cloud Drive addressing how the C.H. Robinson property would impact this as a whole. His wife had counted the number of cars having difficulty leaving the east side of Hennepin Village. He added he was not opposed to the project itself but wished to mitigate these potential impacts. He asked for more time for residents and his boards to review this plan in more detail, as the applicant, working with staff, has not filtered down enough information to the residents. Resident Rebecca Prochaska, of 15781 Porchlight Lane, stated her initial concerns were traffic. She urged the commission members to visit Charleston Road and Spring Road during peak hours and try to make a left- or right-hand turn. She also called for a complete traffic study, and added 59 homes seemed a lot. She had moved in 10 years ago and lived in Hennepin Village since 2014. There was a lot of wildlife and the protection of their habitat seemed vague. She asked how the impact would be measured. There were 2.9 billion birds lost in the USA and Canada over last 10 years, though she understood Eden Prairie was attracting residents and commercial development. She also said she requested the trucks to turn down beeping, and the workers cooperated. She was talking with neighbors and wanted to be cooperative, and understood it was early in the development. Resident Gary Masche, of 1004 Indigo Drive, introduced himself as the treasurer of the Prairie View Townhomes Homeowners Association. He added he was the college roommate of Mr. Packer. His January 5, 2020 letter was in the packet. He was not opposed to the development and appreciated the design, but had aesthetic concerns regarding the rooflines and sightlines, particularly in the south cross section. There was a substantial elevation problem from west to east and it seemed the top row of the development would have a grand view versus the impacted views of the current residents of Hennepin Village. He asked the Planning Commission to take these concerns into consideration. In addition he asked the commission to require more favorable setbacks to 75 feet and require as many mature trees be conserved as possible. He also asked the commission to reexamine the placement of the homes on the slope to ensure the present residents’ horizontal sightlines would be preserved. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2020 Page 6 Resident Jeff Davison, of 15579 Lilac Drive, agreed with the previous points. He agreed a traffic study should be done and added the view from Hennepin Village was not just the nice view—it was the only view, and the major selling point for moving to Hennepin Village in the first place. Resident Venkata Dendukuri, of 15611 Lilac Drive, stated he was concerned about the extension into the Junegrass Lane impacting his property value and adding traffic to his neighborhood. Resident Alpesh Doshi, of 15605 Lilac Drive, stated he had the same concerns about the Junegrass Lane extension. He bought his property because the existing road was private, and he was also concerned the road would have to be widened if it was connected to this development. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by DeSanctis to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Pieper asked if more mature trees could be planted than proposed. Packer replied the issue with the property line included grading issues. Not connecting the two roads in favor of an emergency access would not solve the problem. Lowering the site was possible, but would make the retaining walls higher and impact the same trees. Everywhere along the property line the developer could save a tree, they did. He was happy to look at 10-12 foot trees instead and happy to work with the Association on this. Kirk asked for and received clarification from Klima that the emergency access was desired by the Fire Department. Pieper asked Packer to address the height of the retaining walls. Packer replied they would have a height of four feet, and any over that would have a three-and-a-half to four-foot wrought iron railing. The walls would be of engineer block, not boulders, which tended to cave in, with waterproofing. Pieper asked him to expand upon the trucks exiting the site. Packer replied the developer could easily keep construction traffic from going through Junegrass Lane. Higgins lamented the removal of very large trees on the west side close to Hennepin Village that had held that soil for a long time. She asked Packer to comment. She also asked if it had occurred to him this would present challenges to how homes are placed in that west area due to the instability of the grade. Taking those trees out would not be a simple task. Packer replied mass grading always took forethought and consideration and his partnership followed best management practices following two or three lines of defense. The soil was sand, and the grass would be removed, which also held soil. Farr noted the sightlines on the west side of Hennepin Village residents were an issue because people gravitated toward edges naturally. Sometimes residents PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2020 Page 7 controlled these views, but in this case they did not. The developer had options in how it could respond. The elevations were compelling, but the rooflines were very steep and had not only continuous gables but also cross gables in the opposite direction parallel to the street. He wondered if through guidance and selection of home buyers home elevations could be scattered for variety yet strategically preserve those views at key locations. Packer replied he would be happy to look at that; it would not be a matter of influencing buyers but of designing the home. He would work with staff and adjacent residents on this. Farr stated he had read the neighbors’ emails and letters in addition to hearing them tonight. Opinions on trees and views were a mixed response, and a uniformed approach to planting was not the solution. He recommended planned conversations with the association and the homeowners. Packer replied he had offered that, but his regular neighborhood contact lost his seat after nine months of conversation. He would continue the conversations and intended to treat all people the same way. DeSanctis stated the issue of trees was not just aesthetics, but the question of the impact of nesting sites and the “feel” of the woodland area. DeSanctis asked him to consider the impact of wildlife with the loss of mature trees, which could never truly be replaced. Kirk asked for and received confirmation from Rue that what he heard on the traffic analysis was the net impact on Hennepin Village from this development if there was a connection was basically zero. Rue commented traffic analysis was not an exact science, yet both neighborhoods would benefit from this connection. Kirk said he heard several people combine this issue of traffic with the C.H. Robinson development in 2018, and it sounded like two separate issues. He wished to emphasize the commission appreciated the concern with traffic in both developments, but one was not analogous to the other. Kirk asked if Rue saw this the same way. Rue replied he did; this development took all access off Spring Road and the C.H. Robinson traffic, while heavy in morning and evening, came from the north or east, some from Flying Cloud Drive and when that was closed, down Pioneer Trail or Spring Road. Now they were likely to take Flying Cloud Drive again and avoid Spring Road altogether. The majority of traffic at the C.H. Robinson site went through Charleston/Flying Cloud. Kirk concluded the traffic around this development would not have a significant impact on the traffic in Hennepin Village. Higgins asked if staff had information from Hennepin County as to what the next stage of development along Flying Cloud Drive would be that could affect this development. Rue replied the Flying Cloud Drive project was due to be completed last year but was delayed due to the rains. Blacktop and retaining walls remained to be completed, and the target date was June, 2020. There was an overlay plan on Flying Cloud Road and also Spring Road after the culvert replacement, and the City was also responsible for a landscaping plan along Flying Cloud within the next two years, with county funding provided. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2020 Page 8 Pieper asked staff to speak to the management of the access road if developed, if the streets would be wide enough. Kirk restated the question for Rue. Rue replied with any change in traffic patterns there were “winners” and “losers,” with those farthest away having the least amount of traffic and those closest having the most. Kirk asked if there would be any need to expand the right-of-way in Hennepin Village. Rue replied that section of Junegrass was private, so the HOA as well as the sub-associations would have to agree to the connection, but the City will not take action to purse the right-of-way. Kirk asked for and received confirmation that both associations and sub-associations would have to agree to the connection. DeSanctis asked Klima where the review process for Riley Creek was. Klima replied the Watershed District review was a separate review from the City’s. Though similar there were some different regulations and this review process ran simultaneous with the City’s review. There would be no land alteration permit to the developer until the review process was completed. She presumed the review was underway. Farr shared his findings: overall the developer had put forth a creative plan. Low density benefited the neighbors. The single-family homes were proportionate to this site. The land was two thirds disturbed and one-third preserved. This was the site of a tree harvesting business so there was no actual commitment to it being a forest. The residents would reap the benefit of Norway Red Pines being abandoned. He found the developer could address the unique situation with each neighbor, but he also found the stormwater was being treated sensibly and he was comfortable with that. Mette agreed with Farr’s comments, and added if this development had been built first and Hennepin Village second, there would be no controversy. This site had always been slated for development. The trees on another’s property were not really an amenity. The developer did a very good job in addressing the neighborhood’s concerns. To have the entire development shift downward was too much to expect, as it abutted another. She concluded new homeowners could also plant trees on the properties as well. Kirk concurred with Farr’s and Mette’s conclusions. He stated he was sorry to see the drive along Spring Road down to Lion’s Tap change, but the reality was this developer had done as much as could be done. Eden Prairie was indeed changing, and the Planning Commission’s charge was to help guide this change toward keeping Eden Prairie’s character as much as possible. Higgins expressed mixed feelings although Mr. Packer made very important statements. She still had some concerns about the loss of the very large trees along that western boundary, and added if there was some way to reduce the loss she would encourage that. She urged the applicant to ensure adequate access, which might have to be revisit not only in 2020 but three-five years from now. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2020 Page 9 DeSanctis agreed with Higgins; he also had mixed feelings about the loss of trees and the development of this area. He urged Packer to preserve as many mature trees as possible. Once again the Planning Commission was reviewing a project that was not affordable housing. He was concerned about the carbon footprint created by workers living at the edges and commuting into Eden Prairie. For him, it was not just the 2040 Plan’s goal of affordable housing, but environmental concerns. Pieper commended the applicant for bringing in 50 percent of the density it could have and considering rooflines. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to recommend approval for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 27.51 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres and Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 59 lots and four outlots on 27.51 acres based on plans stamp dated February 3, 2020 and the staff report dated February 19, 2020. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. GOLDEN TRIANGLE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (2019-26) Request for:  Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.258 acres  Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.258 acres  Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 10.258 acres  Site Plan Review on 10.258 acres  Preliminary Plat of one lot and one outlot on 10.258 acres Kit Bennett, of Opus Development Company, LLC, presented a PowerPoint and explained the application. The development would include 182 parking stalls, 19 dock doors, and two drive-in doors. There would be three access points, two on Valley View Road and one on the east side of the site. The materials would consist of precast concrete panels, glass and aggregate. There would be two stormwater basins on the northeast and northwest corners. Three sidewalks would connect to existing trails. Bennett displayed the site plan drawings showing a one- acre outlot on the west side of site, which would be placed in a conservation easement; this would reduce the size of the site to nine acres to protect and preserve wetlands. This was a speculative development, one of the last undeveloped parcels in the Golden Triangle. There was an alternate site plan available including erosion control, 142 parking stalls, and landscaping. There were sustainability features including LED lighting, native vegetation, insulated panel construction, and EV charging stations. There were four waivers requested for FARA ratio, height, driveway width, and front yard setback on Valley View Road. The developer would plant trees between sidewalk and the building. Mette asked with this height of more than 20 feet if the applicant foresaw building a second level, since this was not typically what was market-rate. Bennett replied he did not. DeSanctis asked if there was a possibility of having PVC cells on the roof for solar power. Bennett replied he could explore that possibility on the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2020 Page 10 western portion of the roof. Mette asked, given the proximity to the trail going through the site, if there was a provision for bike parking. Bennett replied he could study some areas for that. Mette strongly recommended that. DeSanctis noted there was a 12-15 foot differential between the wetland to the building base and asked what provisions are provided for flooding events. Pete Moreau of Sambatek, Inc. replied there was a 15-foot grade change and he could study how a 500-year flood could impact this, but the infiltration basin and stormwater management would protect the development from the standard 100- year event in the City Code. Klima presented the staff report. This was a vacant, never-developed property previously used as a gravel pit. It abutted City-owned property, thus the conservation area. The remainder had two development alternatives addressing how the building’s footprint could be used, and with two different parking needs. The Development Agreement would address both proposals, and at some point the developer would have to make a choice without coming back to the Planning Commission. Bike parking would be handled by the Development Agreement. As part of the PUD, the applicant was seeking waivers for landscaping requirements, front yard setback, driveway width, Base Area Ratio, and Floor Area Ratio. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Mette suggested looking at the City Code regarding the one story, 20-foot landscaping requirement, specifically with regard to industrial development. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by DeSanctis to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Mette asked for examples of the types of tenants who would use this building. Bennett stated they would be a variety: light distribution, some manufacturing, technology and production or warehousing, and some office space. Civil engineers or surveying companies were examples. Mette noted the applicant hoped to start construction in spring and asked at what point would the developer commit to one scenario or the other. Bennett replied he would not begin the alternate plan unless there was a tenant, in which case he understood he would have to come back to the City. Mette asked for and received clarification from Klima, who confirmed that the commission was voting on both alternatives, and the City Council would be asked to do the same, and the alternative requirement, if the alternative plan was pursued, would be reviewed administratively. Farr commended the project and stated he had no problem with the waivers. DeSanctis identified no threatened or endangered species and added the developer PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2020 Page 11 was being respectful of the adjacent wetland. He expressed confidence in Opus’s construction abilities. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Mette to recommend approval for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.258 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.258 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Industrial I-2 on 10.258 acres; Site Plan Review on 10.258 acres and Preliminary Plat of one lot and one outlot on 10.258 acres based on Plans stamp dated February 12, 2020 and the staff report dated February 24, 2020. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by DeSanctis to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 6- 0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.