Loading...
Planning Commission - 08/09/2021APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 9, 2021 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Rachel Markos, Carole Mette, William Gooding, Robert Taylor CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Rod Rue, City Engineer; Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Absent were commission members Taylor and Mette. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the amended agenda with the public hearing for Item VA being moved after the public hearing for Item VB. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Gooding moved, seconded by DeSanctis to approve the minutes of June 28, 2021. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. JOHNSON RIDGE (2021-05) Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.1 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.1 acres • Zoning Change from R1-22 to R1-9.5 on 2.1 acres • Preliminary Plat on 2.1 acres Harold Worrell displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. This was an L-shaped property on which the applicant proposed to create six single family lots PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 9, 2021 Page 2 on 2.1 acres. Water retention ponds and swales at the property lines would redirect the water. Sustainable features included EV-ready garages, and there was a tree replacement plan. A new cul-de-sac would be constructed on Outlot C which was owned by the City and had been deeded to the City of Eden Prairie for this reason. The cul-de-sac would extend east from Bennett Place to allow accessibility to the new lots. The community would be named “Johnson Ridge” in honor of the original owners of the land, Harold and Viola Johnson. Farr thanked the applicant for attempting to save many of the mature trees, but he noted the tree survey plan showed many trees were clustered along the southwest area where the new drain tile would go in and asked how these trees would be saved. Worrell replied the drain tile would be shallow and would not affect the existing trees. Farr objected the silt fence was up against the trunks of the trees, not their drip line, thus disturbing the trees. Worrell replied his understanding was the silt fence only went up to the drip line of the trees. Klima gave the staff report. As part of the PUD, the applicant was requesting waivers for minimum lot depth, minimum lot width, and maximum street grade. The property was currently zoned R1-22 and would be rezoned to R1-9.5, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There were portions of the lot that did meet the 100-foot lot requirement, and a few portions that fell below. The grade waiver would exceed Code by 1.11 percent. The development agreement would address the home designs, which were varied. Staff recommended approval. Farr reiterated his question about the risk to the saved trees being lost to the silt fence and drain tile installation. Bourne replied there was some grading work that approached these trees. Most of them were resilient for root damage, whereas the large heritage oaks merited some concern. City staff would observe and adjust the grading work as needed. The drain line had been added to the landscape plan later, and staff would take a closer look at that. Farr asked if there were alternative methods to control draining along the property lines. Bourne replied all options would include similar grading work. City staff would visit the site to inspect the work. William Habicht, of 9955 Bennett Place, a former Eden Prairie Planning Commissioner, stated he could not recall a situation in which a property completely encircled by R1-22 zoning being changed to R1-9.5 and asked for a compromise of R1-13.5 or some similar zoning, and three or four houses instead of six. Joe Houterman, of 9977 Bennett Place, asked who was looking out for the heritage trees on his property which abutted the north side of the new development. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 9, 2021 Page 3 John Kellogg, of 11180 Jackson, stated he was immediately behind Lot One where the dry pond would go in. He expressed support for the development. Maureen Moorhead, of 9969 Bennett Place, who lived north of the proposed cul- de-sac, also expressed concern for trees adjoining this proposed development. She stated homeowners did not want to be responsible for their removal should the trees die. She also stated the retaining wall could affect her driveway. Also Outlot C had an existing fire hydrant and asked if City utilities would be affected. MOTION: Markos moved, seconded by Gooding to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Bourne stated the trees in Outlot C would be lost due to construction, but staff would ensure the security of other trees on other properties adjacent to the development. Farr stated there were trees noted for retention within Outlot C that the residents were concerned about. Bourne added there was nothing north of the development on private property that would involve the removal of trees. Rue stated the easement along the north property line of this development was permanent. Worrell stated he had discussed the grading plan with the Moorheads, and there was the potential for the developer to do some work on their driveway. Farr asked for and received confirmation these two parties would work out an agreement. DeSanctis asked if the existing homestead on the southeast corner had any historic value, and Worrell stated he was not aware of any significant historical value to this property. At one time, that slope was far steeper and the area was denser at the time this house was put in. DeSanctis asked what would be the process if the developer came across artifacts from the original household, and Worrell replied he would contact the State for advice in that case. Klima added the City had a list of historically designated and potentially significant properties, and photo- documentation and sampling of potentially significant properties were done in the case of development. The Johnson home was not on this list as a historically significant property. Farr stated the staff report listed precedence for this change in zoning. Klima displayed a map and explained the surrounding properties were actually zoned R1-13.5, and the change R1-9.5 zoning was being utilized much more frequently in the past few years than perhaps ten years ago. It supported the type of housing of the Comprehensive Plan and was often used in such infill developments. Farr commended the natural boulder retaining wall around the retaining pond to the northeast but asked for the reason for the prefabricated rectangular retaining wall for the other pond. Worrell stated this would be an engineered keystone wall system designed by the engineers. Rue replied the City did not allow boulder PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 9, 2021 Page 4 walls within a City right-of-way. Keystone modular block are allowed and big block were preferred. Rue added the existing fire hydrant would be abandoned and a new one constructed. Kirk stated sometimes development is sometimes perceived as less than ideal but this project was consistent with City’ s long term plans, and this developer had done a good job of making this plan work. He stated this was a reasonable infill development that balanced consistency with economic realities. Farr agreed, and added he supported the waivers as staff had done a good job weighing the pros and cons. DeSanctis agreed with Kirk that this development conformed to the requirement in architecture but had misgivings how so many developments mimicked the aesthetic of high-end homes. He wished to see more affordable homes but kept seeing homes starting at $800,000.00 and up. Higgins also stated she had mixed feelings about carving out land for a cul-de-sac and the lack of affordable housing but found this development to be a thoughtful compromise and not the appropriate project to incorporate affordability. Markos added she agreed with Farr and Kirk, and added she hoped this developer would continue to meet and talk with the current residents and hear their concerns. Gooding also expressed his support and noted that most of the comments tonight were in favor of the development alongside their concerns, which was rare. Pieper also urged the developer to continue to listen to the surrounding residents. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Markos to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.1 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.1 acres, Zoning Change from R1-22 to R1-9.5 on 2.1 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 2.1 acres based on plans stamp dated July 30, 2021 and the staff report dated August 9, 2021. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. B. 6245 DUCK LAKE RD BUILDING MOVE (2021-10) Request for: • Building Move of an existing garage from 17117 62nd St W to 6245 Duck Lake Rd The applicant, Josh Hohn, of 6245 Duck Lake Road, displayed a PowerPoint and detailed his application. Due to the death of his neighbor, the Hohn family purchased his property and wished to move the existing garage from that property to his. This was a move of about 75 feet and there were no trees or other impediments in the way of the move. The professional moving company being used, utility companies and City staff had inspected the site, and a survey had been completed. He displayed a view of how the garage would look on his site. A single-family garage would then be provided for the house at 17117 62nd Street West. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 9, 2021 Page 5 Farr noted there was already a three-car garage attached to this house, so the garage would be an accessory building and asked if there would be a driveway. Hohn replied there would be a driveway constructed off the existing driveway. Klima presented the planner’s report. This was a request for a moving permit. This application met all four criteria for the permit. Staff recommended approval. Farr noted the property to the north was served by two driveways and asked staff to comment on the loss and rebuilding of the garage. Klima replied a new garage would be provided which would not impact the two driveways into the site. Farr asked if a property could have a six-car garage, and Klima replied this application met the City standard for accessory structures. MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by DeSanctis to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Markos commended the applicant for reusing a structure. MOTION: Gooding moved, seconded by DeSanctis to authorize the issuance of a building moving permit based on plans stamp dated July 12, 2021 and information and conditions of authorization provided in the staff report dated August 9, 2021. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. C. 775 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE (BOA 2021-02) Request for: • Monument sign height of 10 feet, 2 inches. City Code maximum is 8 feet. • Monument sign area of 56 square feet. City Code maximum is 50 square feet. Rick Ferraro, of Spectrum Science Systems, displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. An elevated sign would replace the existing low-profile sign to aid in visibility. The setback would remain the same. DeSanctis asked where the light pole was in relation to the sign. Rue replied there were two light poles, one north and one south of the sign. DeSanctis noted the existing sign was more stylized than the proposed sign, which looked like a “monolith.” Ferraro stated the applicant was looking for an updated and professional look, consistent with the building. Gooding stated the sign was higher but did not stand out to drivers and asked how this design was more visible. Ferraro stated this was a reasonable sign size that enhanced the site, and the designers produced this result. For complete visibility PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 9, 2021 Page 6 an even larger sign would be needed. DeSanctis asked what the font size was. Ferraro replied the characters were between five and six inches, and each inch yielded 30 feet of visibility. He was satisfied with the color contrast. Farr stated this sign was going from a four-tenant sign to a six-tenant sign, which was more text with a decrease in font size would be a disadvantage to drivers, though not necessarily a safety hazard. He had no objection to the square footage, but the legibility of the sign was in question. DeSanctis added seasonal factors could affect the sign as well as the time of day. Ferraro replied daytime and nighttime viewing had been taken into consideration, and there was nothing better than a black-and-white sign for contrast. Higgins stated this sign was the right approach. Kirk stated the commission needed to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt, since the Southwest LRT construction made the visibility of this building more difficult. He preferred this design to the existing one, and it could be changed if drivers find this building difficult to find. Klima presented the planner’s report. The sign height would be 10 feet 2 inches, above the 8 feet allowed by Code, and the sign area would increase from 50 to 56 square feet. This design met the requirements and staff recommended approval. DeSanctis asked if a variance was required for LED lights to surround the sign, and Klima replied one was not required for lighting. Gooding clarified he did not question the need for a change; he was questioning whether or not the sign would be effective. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Higgins to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. DeSanctis asked if LED lights could surround the sign. Ferraro replied the sign was internally illuminated so that the letters illuminated. Farr commended the sign expansion since the main intent was not only visibility but to add more messaging due to more clients. He stated the speed of drivers passing and the amount of messaging on signs could perhaps be included in the City’s Code and consideration along with the dimensions of signs. Pieper also commended the sign’s design. Farr noted these parking lots were connected for emergency vehicle access which sometimes residents also used and asked if the City would continue to promote such cross-connectivity. Bourne replied the City did not promote it since two driveways were private and one was public but it was possible to use the emergency vehicle access. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 9, 2021 Page 7 MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to approve Variance Request 2021-02 based on the staff report dated August 9, 2021 and findings of the Final Order 2021-02. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. PLANNERS’ REPORT MEMBERS’ REPORTS VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Markos moved, seconded by DeSantis to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 7- 0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.