Loading...
Planning Commission - 05/22/2023APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 22, 2023 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Frank Sherwood, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Carole Mette, Robert Taylor, Dan Grote, Charles Weber; Phou Sivilay CITY STAFF: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Carter Schulze, Assistant City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Parks & Natural Resources Manager; 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 All commission members were present. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the agenda as amended to consider Item VB first, then Item VA and Item VC. MOTION CARRIED 9-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Weber to approve the minutes of May 8, 2022. MOTION CARRIED 9-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BAKER ROAD ASSISTED LIVING (2023-02) Request for: • Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium High Density Residential on 3.79 acres • PUD Concept Plan Review on 3.79 acres • PUD District Review with waivers on 3.79 acres • Zoning Change from Office to RM-2.5 on 3.79 acres • Site Plan Review on 3.79 acres PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 22, 2023 Page 2 Eric Reiners, Principal at SRA, displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. This was a unique reuse of the southwest quadrant of Highway 62 and Baker Road, with industrial uses to the west, Lifetime Fitness to the east, and a townhouse association to the south. This 1990s building had been built as an office, and was underutilized. The site had great potential so the parcel would be repositioned as an assisted living facility. It was wooded and well screened from the highway. There was a wetland on the east boundary and all setbacks were met. A low-lying area to the northwest and the hills to the west and south contributed to the natural, wooded atmosphere. Phase One would be the renovation and remodeling of the existing structure for 31 assisted living residents. A commercial kitchen, dining and group activity spaces, leisure activity spaces, and occupancy rooms would be added. In the future the owner would wish to expand this building. Reiners displayed the addition with extended west and south of the existing building. It would contribute an additional 81 units along with the requisite parking. Reiners displayed the elevations and materials, which were similar to the original materials of the current building. He explained the grading and drainage improvements as well as the access changes. The landscape plan met all tree replacement requirements. Where the perimeter hills dipped allowed for a pleasant view but the development would be scantly visible to neighbors, as well as a low-noise, low-traffic development. Farr asked if the shared access could handle increased traffic during holidays, and suggested a parking agreement with the 6200 building to accommodate this. Reiners agreed to suggest this to the property owner. Farr asked if the receiving dock was for maintenance purposes and Reiners replied it was for kitchen deliveries, whereas residents would be brought to the main entrance. Mette asked if the residents would share bathrooms. Reiners replied they did, but did not have to go through a public corridor to access it. The residents would all have private suites with a shared bathroom. Barnhart presented the staff report. Four waivers were being requested among the five actions. Covered parking was not required for this development, since most traffic would come from relatives and visitors. The barrel roof was added at staff’s suggestion to mimic the original design, and the parking island at the southwest corner of the building would be partly paved to accommodate a sidewalk and ADA ramp. The project met the landscaping requirements with tree replacement as part of Phase Two. Most of the vegetation along the south side would be kept to provide screening. A neighborhood meeting held in March and other outreach yielded no comments. Staff recommended approval. Mette asked what zoning allowed such density, and Barnhart replied there were none; TOD and Mixed Use allowed for higher density, with 17.04 being the highest. Mette replied she was surprised there was not a higher maximum density PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 22, 2023 Page 3 requirement for a multifamily zoning district. She asked for and received confirmation the development entitlement extended into perpetuity. Barnhart explained any rules changes could trigger a PUD amendment. Mette asked if previous similar developments required covered parking. Barnhart replied he did not believe there had been a formal waiver for covered parking but the plan was approved without it. Mette noted there were different levels of assisted living, and asked if memory care would depart from other requirements of other kinds of assisted living. Barnhart replied the City was drafting requirements for the different levels of assistance (independent living, assisted living, memory care, et cetera). Kirk stated these three categories were familiar to him, and in other developments these could be mixed, complicating the requirements. He stated he supported the waivers. Mette replied this dedicated property was easier to address, but other developments could have different care levels that changed over time. Mette asked what the “elderly waiver” affordability category was. Barnhart replied it related to how this project was funded, how the tenant accessed the property, the tenant’s incomes, and what proportion of their rent was aided by the services they received. He offered to provide additional information to the City Council upon its review of this project. Farr asked if the landscaping required the removal of significant or heritage trees. Rue replied perhaps one heritage tree would be removed in Phase One, and the replacement requirement was being met for Phase Two (36 trees, nonheritage). Farr asked for and received clarification the size of the tree was determined at the time of the approval of the application. Farr asked why screening was required between residential districts. Barnhart replied it was due to the density of the neighboring developments to the west, south and north. Farr asked if the moving van would block the circular fire lane. Barnhart replied this had not been raised during project review. The existing parking lot would be retained during Phase One and changed in Phase Two. He offered to alert the Fire Chief. Farr stated the two-story addition was disproportionate with the existing four-story building. Also, the materials did not match since the addition had a cornice but the original building did not. He suggested an addition more in keeping with the original design. MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Taylor to close the public hearing. Motion carried 9-0. Mette stated the architecture was her main concern, but was not able to get specific as to why this was not what she expected. She supported the waivers. Kirk stated his support for the project. He added he was surprised Eden Prairie has a lot of assisted living but there was high demand. This was a good location, yet the architecture was a difficult question, as Farr and Mette had stated. In PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 22, 2023 Page 4 general the rules produced good results and he proposed going ahead with this development despite its incongruities. Grote stated the residents would be looking out at a wonderful view, which overruled the concerns about the exterior architecture. Farr agreed, and stated he trusted staff to work with the applicant on a development that had so many good points in addition to the building design. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Sherwood to recommend approval of the Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium High Density Residential on 3.79 acres; a PUD Concept Plan Review on 3.79 acres; a PUD District Review with waivers on 3.79 acres; a Zoning Change from Office to RM-2.5 on 3.79 acres; and a Site Plan Review on 3.79 acres, as represented in the staff report dated May 22, 2023 and the plans stamp dated April 28, 2023. Motion carried 9-0. B. BUSH LAKE PET HOSPITAL (2023-04) Request for: • Zoning Change from Office (OFC) to neighborhood Commercial (N- COM) on 1.19 acres • PUD Concept Review on 1.19 acres • PUD Review with waivers on 1.19 acres • Site Plan Review on 1.19 acres Michael Kohne of Highland Ventures, LTD, detailed the application. The proposed development was a 5,074 square foot, single-story building, which would divide 3,958 square feet for the hospital and 1,015 square feet for other commercial space. This was a vet relocation from Bloomington. There would be no overnight boarding of pets with the exception of surgical patients. The zoning was currently office, and the proposed change was to PUD guided commercial. The site had an unusual lot shape bounded by Hennepin Town Road and Highway 169 which resulted in design challenges that required waivers. The landscape material, water and sewer met requirements. There were a number of sustainable elements, including one conduit with a pole wire for EV charging in the parking lot. The anticipated start date was July 1, 2023 with a projected completion date of January 1, 2024. There was no shoreline and the site did not abut any water, so the flood plan Ordinance did not apply. Kohne displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the stormwater management plan with the stormwater retention tank beneath the building. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 22, 2023 Page 5 Dr. Douglas Gates of Bush Lake gave a brief history and overview of the pet hospital. Kohne displayed some renderings showing the elevation and materials. Residents attending the neighborhood meeting had concerns about traffic but were in general supportive of the project. Sivilay asked for and received confirmation there was space between this site with its fence and the access to the Kinderbury Hill PUD development. There would be some vegetative screening with trees. He offered to return with an answer as to how far the fence extended. Mette noted the retail parking was 5 per 1,000 and asked if the remaining vacant space would be sufficient for the neighboring tenant. She asked what kind of tenant the applicant was considering. Kohne did not have a specific answer but stated the intent was to avoid filling the retail space with a high-traffic tenant (a coffee shop, et cetera), but perhaps with light retail use. Mette suggested the main landscaping island in front of hospital entrance have plantings that would survive dogs’ uses of that area. Plant selection would be significant. Kohne replied the rear left corner had a 10- by 15-foot fenced in area for animals to use the restroom while on leash. Farr suggested the EV ready accommodation have panel boards and transformers of sufficient size that could handle the load. He also suggested the trash enclosure be rotated 90 degrees so that the gate would open to the right (south) and keep the doors out of public sight. He was an opportunity for signage on the site alongside the northbound Highway 169 frontage road and stated the tenant might request that, so the parapet should be kept at a consistent height to facilitated this. Taylor stated he had met with staff at the neighboring daycare center who were concerned about sharing the parking lot. Kohne replied there was the intention to include speed bumps but this plan was not that granular. Barnhart presented the staff report. The site was currently vacant and the applicant was seeking four actions: a zoning change from Office to Neighborhood Commercial; a PUD Concept Review; a PUD Development District Review with waivers; and a Site Plan Review. The zoning change required a waiver, and this change was the best fit for the neighborhood and was supported by staff. Nothing about the lot was changing. The setback and materials requirement were met and exceeded in this application. The access was through a shared parking easement and staff thought this connection was effective in reducing trips on Hennepin Town Road. Four parking spaces would be provided for the neighboring childcare service providing the connection. Staff recommended approval. Mette asked if the connection had previously gone through the PUD process and wondered why it was not going through this process now. Barnhart stated this site PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 22, 2023 Page 6 had intended to be an office, but since it had never gone through the PUD process to be rezoned as office, it was not required for this application. Alicia Reeves, resident at 9673 Belmont Lane, stated she was speaking on behalf of a group that fully supported the hospital development but was concerned about the traffic on Hennepin Town Road. She requested the speed limit be reduced from 45 miles per hour on the approach to the site and 40 miles per hour around the corner along it. She also wished to hear the details about the connection with the childcare center, and suggested speed bumps and “child at play” signs. Jerry Maher, resident at 9778 Belmont Lane, stated at the exit on Belmont Lane the next car in sight would be 112 feet to the north (three seconds at 45 miles an hour), placing the onus upon the driver leaving Belmont Lane to change lanes or stop in time due to oncoming traffic. That was the reason for the request to lower the speed limit; however, increasing the sightline from Belmont Lane to Linden by cutting foliage would restore the street to how it looked 20 years ago at the formation of the association which owned the land on the west side of Belmont Lane. This was a protected wetland, so there were limitations on what could be cut. Concerned neighbors were meeting with the Traffic Engineer to brainstorm ideas. If the sightline could not be increased, the speed limit needed to be reduced and/or flashing signs need to be installed. MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Taylor to close the public hearing. Motion carried 9-0. Kirk noted this was a difficult property for any design and found the plan to be a good use of it. Traffic movement inside and outside of the property were the main issues. Rue stated there were a few roads in Eden Prairie that were being reviewed for speed limits, and Hennepin Town Road was one of them. A traffic study would be required to reduce the speed limit. Enforcement was always an issue, and expansion of the sightlines was a viable option. Kirk noted there were already meetings with the Traffic Engineer on this issue. Mette agreed this was an important issue and wished the City Council to hear these concerns. Overall she found this site appropriate for the zoning change to Neighborhood Commercial and found the internal connection a good solution. Farr also expressed support for the development and hoped the issue of traffic on Hennepin Town Road would be resolved in a broader discussion. He stated he could make a motion that included the condition of rotating the trash enclosure 90 degrees and raise the parapet wall on the east elevation to accommodate signage. Barnhart replied the section of the building over 20 feet tall would be considered a second floor, which would require the applicant to come back and process a waiver at that time. Mette stated she would not support a future possible waiver that was part of a motion. She found that overly restrictive. Rather, the property PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 22, 2023 Page 7 owner could consult with the trash provider to provide a flexible solution. Farr offered to make recommendations instead. Kirk concurred. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to recommend approval for a Zoning Change from Office (OFC) to neighborhood Commercial (N-COM) on 1.19 acres; a PUD Concept Review on 1.19 acres; a PUD Review with waivers on 1.19 acres; and a Site Plan Review on 1.19 acres as represented in the staff report dated May 22, 2023 and based plans stamp dated May 20, 2023 with the further recommendation for staff to study the orientation of the trash enclosure and the height of the east building wall in relation to the highway. Motion carried 9-0. C. KIWATCHI (2022-11) Request for: • Zoning Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 2.11 acres • Preliminary Plan of four lots and three outlots on 2.11 acres Craig Schmidt, resident of Eden Prairie, introduced Todd McWealth, project engineer. Schmidt displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. The site would be converted to four lots, one retained by Schmidt for his family. He had invested in this site in 2008 with the intention of developing it. He displayed arial photographs and explained the site plan. Neighbors to the north would be sold 10- foot outlots and Outlot A would be deed to the City, since it bordered a wetland. The current house would be demolished and replaced, and the other three lots would be sold. The proposal was consistent with the neighborhood. The project would be completed by 2024. Sivilay asked if Schmidt had estimates for remediation of the contamination from the environmental study. Schmidt replied he had not, but would receiving bidding estimates once he did. Taylor remarked this project would be an upgrade to the community. Farr also commended the project, and received clarification the northern neighbors had always expressed interest in acquiring more land, which Schmidt had given them as a neighborly gesture. Pieper asked for and received clarification this was for additions. Mette noted to the east there was another property almost as large, and asked if there was consideration of continuation with this neighboring lot. Schmidt replied that land was deeded to the City of Eden Prairie as wetland. Barnhart presented the staff report. All of the lots met minimum size and depth requirements. The lot deeded to the City would have stormwater management. Staff had received no comments from the public on this proposal. Payment would cover the deficit of trees added to the development (92 instead of 109 trees). Staff recommended approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 22, 2023 Page 8 Farr asked for and received clarification the sidewalk was on the east side of the development (Duck Lake Road). Mette asked if a new homeowner wishing to building a home would not need to go through the Planning Commission again, and Barnhart replied that was true. She asked how the City determined who installed the trees. Barnhart replied that would either be completed before construction, or it would be written into the development agreement(s) for each owner. MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Taylor to close the public hearing. Motion carried 9-0. Kirk commended the addition as a good use of the land. Weber agreed this would be a marked improvement. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Taylor/Grote to recommend approval of the Zoning Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 2.1 acres; and a Preliminary Plan of four lots and three outlots on 2.11 acres as represented in the staff report May 22, 2023 and on the plans stamp dated May 5, 2023. Motion carried 9-0. PLANNERS’ REPORT MEMBERS’ REPORTS Pieper announced this was Rod Rue’s last meeting, and congratulated him for 43 years of service at Eden Prairie. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Sherwood moved, seconded by Grote to adjourn. Motion carried 8- 0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m.