Loading...
Planning Commission - 08/28/2023APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 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, 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 Commission members Sherwood and Sivilay were absent. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Weber to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the minutes of July 10, 2023. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PULTE HOMES (2023-08) Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 6.13 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 6.13 acres • Zoning Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 6.13 acres • Preliminary Plat splitting two parcels into 43 lots and one outlot on 6.13 acres • Site Plan Review on 6.13 acres PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2023 Page 2 Dean Lotter, manager of land planning and entitlement of Pulte Homes, displayed a PowerPoint and explained the application. The development, Kinsley Homes, consisted of two story townhomes in an infill neighborhood which was bounded by Pioneer Trail at the north, Dell Road at the west, and Valley Road to the south. It had access off of Dell Road. The development would meet the Comprehensive Plan requirement which guided it residential with densities five to 14 units per acre. The development would also maintain existing vegetation as much as possible. The development proposed 42 townhomes which were two-story homes, with a price range in the low $400,000s to mid $500,000s and HOA maintained. There would be a trail/sidewalk connecting the development to Dell Road along Valley Road, and a trail connecting the neighborhood to an existing trail along Pioneer Trail. The usable open space requirement would be met. City Code required 150 square feet of open space per unit, for a total of 6,300 square feet, and the actual square footage was 6,338 square feet. There would be a fire pit area with seating and green space. Lotter explained the development review process included a wetland delineation tree inventory and tree preservation planning, and an endangered and threatened species impact. The NHIS request had been submitted to the DNR. No further study was necessary. Lotter displayed renderings of Valley Road to private Larimar Trail, a view from the south of Kinsley, and the plan for trees and a fence to screen headlights. He displayed a view from the northeast corner where an existing single family home looked west at Kinsley, and explained the planned buffers between this and other developments. The townhomes would be single family open concept construction meant for first time home buyers, singles of all ages, young couples, young families, and seniors. He displayed and explained the color pallet and materials. He expected the development to go before the City Council on September 19 and October 17, with construction in the spring of 2024. Kirk asked if there was a similar example of this development with similar density in the Twin cities area, and Lotter gave examples of Pembley in Brooklyn Center, Aster Mill in Rogers and Rush Hollow in Maple Grove, as well as Canterbury in Shakopee. Barnhart presented the staff report. The density was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of land use, density, and street connection. There were a number of waivers requested involving density (6.8 units per acre), minimum lot size (smallest proposed was 1,943 square feet), minimum lot depth (shortest proposed was 81.12 feet), lots without frontage on a public street (all PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2023 Page 3 individual lots along a private road), and setback along Valley Road (20 foot setback). Staff recommended approval. Schulze provided additional comment on the connection and traffic analysis completed for the project. The Valley Road connections was a recommended connection as a part of this development as a part of the Comprehensive Plan. He went briefly through the history of planned travel connections at the site and the proposed access points. Staff supported the development. Farr asked if there was improvement scheduled for Pioneer Trail. Schulze replied there was not in the near future; the latest note from the county showed an overlay in 2025, but it would be 2040 before substantial improvements would be scheduled. Farr noted there were 24-foot wide private driveways and the development due south allowed parking on one side on its streets whereas this development did not allow parking on either side on the street. Schultz replied this was the preference of the developer, and the development was also limited due to the number of driveways. The proposed development exceeded parking requirements so on street parking was not necessary. Farr asked for and received confirmation the dead end satisfied fire department access requirements. Weber asked for and received clarification that the parking configuration on Valley Road, if opened, would be allowed on both sides of the road. Pieper opened the public hearing. Don Patterson, resident at 17244 Valley Road, displayed a PowerPoint and spoke against the opening of Valley Road and against the development as currently proposed. He cited concerns regarding the increased traffic and safety concerns, and requested greater green space, less density, greater space between driveways which did not allow for vehicles to park on the street, and investment in needed barrier/transition such as sidewalks and trails. He stated he and 70 neighbors on whose behalf he was also speaking were asking for more than the minimal amenities provided at present by this development. Wolfgang Greiner, resident at 17356 Hanson Court, south of the proposed development, gave the commission a petition signed by 51 residents and displayed a PowerPoint, He spoke against the proposed development and the extension of Valley Road, outlining the number of accidents in the area in the past year, and citing traffic and safety concerns at the addition of this level of density proposed by the development. He also urged the creation of a real buffer zone and more green space by moving the private road to the north and reducing some of the development along the south of the site. He also wanted a substantial sound fence along the Bear Path neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2023 Page 4 Marv Culver, resident at 9433 Libby Lane (Heritage Townhomes), stated he was a former member of the Planning Commission and spoke against the development as currently proposed because it would affect the neighborhood’s aesthetics and quality of life. Libby Lane was in a conservation easement with the City, and this proposed development was not in keeping with the neighborhood. He urged the commission to consider the community’s needs rather than return on investment (ROI). He also raised concerns about the increase in traffic due to this development. He commented that the proposed townhomes were much larger than the residences surrounding this site. Paul Bartone, resident at Hackberry Court (on Dell Road), stated small changes could have large impacts on this rural-designated neighborhood. There seemed to be incorrect information given to the neighborhood regarding this development, and asked why the first neighborhood meeting with the developer had been canceled. He asked if other neighborhoods were notified, and what the EPA requirements were if there was water in or wetlands on the development site. He found it ludicrous that extra traffic would not speed on his two-lane rural road. Automobiles regularly sped at 50 MPH on that road. He asked for a survey to be done for impact of this development and stated the number of children and buses in the area made the development as currently proposed incomprehensible. Becca Frederick, resident at 9236 Preston Place, spoke against the development as currently proposed. She objected to the density of this development in her backyard, and the loss of the large-caliper trees beyond those deemed adequate to screen the development. Rather than just a “resistance to change” issue she found this a “quality of life” issue and she had lost sleep over the fear for her children’s safety with the increased traffic in the neighborhood. MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Taylor to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. Mette asked staff if the extension of Valley Road was rejected, if the commission could do that with a motion for approval, or if the motion had to be voted down entirely. Barnhart stated the commission could vote to approve the development with the condition that Valley Road was not extended. The commission’s motion was a recommendation to the City Council, and there would be a public hearing at the City Council meeting as well. Mette asked for and received clarification that even if the commission voted to deny this proposal, it would still be brought to the City Council. Taylor asked for and received clarification Valley Road was not originally recommended to be opened or extended, and it was staff who had recommended the extension. Barnhart stated the initial concept only had a connection to Dell Road. Weber asked for the original planned connection between these roads. Barnhart replied there had been an east-west connector in the area in the 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2023 Page 5 Comprehensive Plan, but now Valley Road was the only option available. Taylor asked if there was a minimum number of homes required to create an extension for access/egress. Barnhart stated there was not. Kirk stated the road was “the elephant in the room” and density less of an issue. He reminded the audience commission members were volunteers who had no stake in the developments under their purview and could only make recommendations to the City Council, and he thanked the speakers for their insights. He was attempting to delineate between discomfort with change and crucial concerns that could adversely affect the surrounding environment, and the commission could give a recommendation or ask for a continuance, which would send the proposal back to staff for revision. Farr stated the commission members were citizens of Eden Prairie who attempted to look out for residents’ needs through difficult conversations. He stated he lived near the high school with a road marked “no shortcuts” and in monitoring this he found Eden Prairie did a good job with signage and enforcement of this. The commission relied on City engineers, et cetera, to do detailed engineering and technical work and as a commission member he was hard pressed to go against a recommendation for greater safety, but it was important that the trips though this neighborhood be distributed. Traffic could be controlled and this was a planned connection for a long time for a good reason. This extension was not a surprise, so he did support the connection, though wished to weigh it against the other factors. Regarding density, the commission dealt often with these transitions, between zones and between developments of different densities. He found the road to be exacerbating the issue. He supported the south side waiver, but was open to compromise, especially lowering the density and removing one or two waivers. The fence plan could be altered and plantings increased. He found the use to be consistent along Dell Road but wished for more green space. Improved buffers and transitions were his recommendations at this time. Mette stated Lot One brought up the issue of the proximity of this development to the road, and she wished to address the main concerns of the neighbors to the south. Removing Lot One would strike two waivers. This connection was always desired and planned, and it did make sense to her, but hearing from the community, she had to weigh staff recommendations against how she would respond in the shoes of those residents who had spoken tonight. She found she was not inclined to go against the staff recommendation for the road, since it had been planned and recommended, but was on the fence about it. Kirk stated he was inclined to side with the community’s overwhelming and unexpected response to the road, despite the City’s good work and planning on this. Weber agreed; generally he supported road connections such as this for practical reasons, but in the face of unanimous objections tonight from those PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2023 Page 6 affected, he could not support the road extension. Kirk stated it was the commission’s job to air the issues, and the City Council would watch this video; he suggested to make a motion as usual and see how the votes fall out. Taylor stated that as a global motor vehicle program lead and safety manager, he found having multiple egresses out of a community led to greater safety than restricting the road connectivity. He was in favor of the road connection. Lotter stated his firm would look at whatever the commission recommended regarding the road connection. He suggested a motion to recommend approval with a study of the road, so the City Council could look at the application while his firm worked with staff. Unit count had already been decreased, so he asked this not be reduced further. This would be a narrower road, with berms and buffering. Mette echoed the idea of a motion to recommend approval with a study of the road. Farr agreed, and stated there were advantages to not having the road go through, but a road was a public utility, like water, sewer, and gas, and a public service in Eden Prairie which had many cul-de-sacs. He too was struggling with not backing this road connection. Pieper added he was also struggling with balancing the City’s recommendations against the community’s wishes. Discussion followed on the wording of a motion regarding the road connection and the waivers. MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Taylor to recommend approval of a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 6.13 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 6.13 acres; Zoning Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 6.13 acres; Preliminary Plat splitting two parcels into 43 lots and one outlot of 6.13 acres; Site Plan Review on 6.13 acres as represented in the August 28, 2023 staff report, as represented in the plans dated August 28, 2023 in the staff report. Motion carried 4-3 with nay votes from Weber, Kirk, and Pieper. B. THREE OAKS ESTATES (2023-05) Request for: • Zoning Amendment from Rural to R1-9.5 and Parks and Open Space on 5.06 acres • Preliminary Plat five lots and one outlot on 5.06 Nathan Haskin, owner and developer for the project, displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. He was proposing to develop five residential lots ranging from 0.51 to 0.91 acres with access directly to Crestwood Terrace. The site would be rezoned from Rural to R1-9.5, which would reduce lot sizes from 85 feet to 70 feet (with side yard setbacks reduced from 25 feet to 15 feet) and with 1.72 Outlot PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2023 Page 7 deeded to the City. A trail would be completed between 9618 Crestwood Terrace and 18653 Ponderosa Court. This development would conform with and complement neighboring parcels and protect Riley Creek. He displayed the preliminary plat and surrounding home styles. He displayed the preliminary tree replacement plan. Barnhart presented the staff report. Only one phone call and one letter objected to the rezoning, but staff had no objection to it, and the trail would not be provided by the developer, it was part of the City’s long term plan. There were no waivers. Staff recommended approval. Mette noted this was not a PUD, therefore no waivers. Farr observed the chosen zoning district was appropriate, however the lots lines across the street from this development only resulted in four lots, which with this five-lot development would change the rhythm of the driveways on the street. He suggested this be taken into account. Mette stated this did not concern her, and there was a diversity of lot configuration in the area. MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Kirk to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Grote to recommend approval of the Zoning Amendment from Rural to R1-9.5 and Parks and Open Space on 5.06 acres and Preliminary Plat five lots and one outlot on 5.06 acres as represented in the August 28, 2023 staff report based on plans listed in the August 28, 2023 staff report. Motion carried 7-0. C. 15201 BIRCH ISLAND RD. VARIANCE (2023-03BOA) Request for: • Approval for variance to permit the construction of an attached deck 0.1 feet from the rear property where a 25-foot setback is required. Michael Stroozas, owner of Norsemen Construction, displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. The applicant was requesting a variance for a small grill deck off the back of her home. The property was complicated by an extensive railroad variance, the house placement and design, and a trapezoid-shaped lot, making it difficult to build the deck off the kitchen. Stroozas displayed photographs of the yard, much of which the owner could not use. Barnhart presented the staff report. This was a simple variance that met the five conditions of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff found there were no adverse impacts either on the railroad property or neighboring properties. Due also to the unique circumstances of this property, staff recommended approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2023 Page 8 Grote asked for and received confirmation the two existing sheds were used by the current property owner, though Barnhart could not say who built them. Farr stated he had wished to ask this as well. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Mette to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. Mette stated the fact of the land use issues and encroachments did not have any legal repercussions she could find in her research. Hopefully the issue of the ownership of the sheds would be resolved in the future should a new owner arrive. The setback affected only to the deck, not the house itself. She supported the variance. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Weber to recommend approval of the Approval for variance to permit the construction of an attached deck 0.1 feet from the rear property where a 25-foot setback is required as represented in the August 28, 2023 staff report. Motion carried 7-0. PLANNERS’ REPORT MEMBERS’ REPORTS VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Taylor to adjourn. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m.