Loading...
Planning Commission - 02/08/1999 APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,FEBRUARY 8, 1999 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Beverly Alexander, Kenneth E. Clinton,Laurence Dorn,Jr.,Randy Foote, Bill Habicht,Rebecca Lewis, Douglas Sandstad STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Kyle Halvorson STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, City Planner, Scott Kipp, Senior Planner,Ric Rosow, City Attorney,Al Gray, City Engineer, and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -ROLL CALL Chair Foote called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. U. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Alexander,to approve the Minutes of the January 25, 1999 Planning Commission as submitted. Motion carried 6-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. FLINT RIDGE by Trek Development, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 34.83 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 6 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 6 acres, Site Plan Review on 6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 34.83 acres into 20 lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Riverview Road at Parker Drive. Beth Simenstad, Trek Development,representing Wallace Hustad, stated she had worked with the Hustad's for the past fifteen years. She reviewed the project site plan and described the location of the proposed units. They are proposing to construct 20 luxury townhomes on the northern part of the site. At this time the Hustad's are not proposing to develop the southern portion of the site, as they intend to build a home there for themselves. She noted that Riverview Road is and always has been a beautiful country road,but Eden Prairie is no longer a rural community. She discussed the history of the area and the development which has occurred on the land along Riverview Road. There have PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 8, 1999 Page 2 been approximately fifteen single family subdivisions along the road over the past twenty years. The road is in dire need of improvement and upgrading. She discussed the history of the realignment of the roadway and the different stages it has gone through. She discussed the assessments which would be placed against the directly benefitting properties if the roadway were to be upgraded and realigned as the City proposed. If this road can be realigned so the Hustad's can develop their property it will offset these assessment costs against other homeowners and that portion of the costs for the road which goes through the subject property would be borne by the Hustads. The existing roadway is an easement but not dedicated right-of-way. If this easement is vacated it would be divided in half with the northern 33 feet reverting to the properties to the north and the southern half to the subject property. This would widen the separation between the proposed development and the existing homes to the north. She discussed the landscaping plan and noted the tree loss was minimal with this project. They held a neighborhood meeting and concern was expressed because these are townhomes which will be adjacent to single family homes but they are proposing a very nice buffer between their development and Bell Oaks to the north. She described the units they are proposing to construct, which will range in price from $300,000 to $500,000 depending on the unit. Foote asked if the alignment they are proposing was similar to the one proposed by the neighbors and Simenstad responded it was not. She showed the elevations between the proposed development and the existing single family housing to the north. They will be planting trees on top of the berm to provide buffering between the development and the adjacent properties. Kipp reviewed the staff report and described three options which staff has presented to the Planning Commission for their review,noting stipulations contained in Item#4. Staff is recommending Alternative H which would allow room for additional berming and landscaping with the stipulations listed in the staff report. This alternative would shift three units to the southern portion of the site. Foote asked if the Hustads were aware of this and Kipp responded they had been sent a letter regarding this but staff had not heard from them regarding this. Habicht asked if they realign the road what would they be saving in assessments. Gray responded by describing the alignment noting about 20% of the area would be reconstructed. The costs would go down as the result of this project but the exact amounts have not been determined. This is an area where the City has to acquire additional right-of-way, which would be non-existent through the Hustad property. Alexander asked about the dimensions of the roadway right-of-way which she understood would be 60 feet wide and Gray responded that was correct. Dorn commented land acquisition costs and construction costs would be about a trade off, and Gray responded staff had looked at the entire project which would include right-of-way acquisition from the Hustad property which is the only place they need it. Then they need to determine how they would asses these costs back by the number of units along the corridor which would participate equally in the costs of the project. In this case the proponents are proposing to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 8, 1999 Page 3 construct the segment of roadway that goes through the Hustad property and will provide the right-of-way. Staff would prefer to work with the project as it is developed so they can acquire the right-of-way and obtain the alignment they want. Staff is recommending that the Planning commission look at the project as a whole,but if the project is not done then the City will have to acquire the right-of-way. Dorn commented he was concerned about the cost to the City if they have to buy the right- of-way from the Hustads when they could save an estimated$100,000 if the proponents construct this segment of the roadway. Discussion ensued regarding how the costs would be assessed or who would have what responsibility for these construction costs for the roadway. It was noted that if this project moves ahead the roadway would be almost 25% completed. Gray noted that from an engineering perspective this alignment has more merit and it is a better road for safety reasons. Clinton asked which units staff would recommend moving to the south portion of the site and Kipp responded two units on the triangle should be moved and one other from the interior of the project. The Public Hearing was opened. John Meiners, 10520 Grant Drive,representing a title company, stated he had received a letter from City Attorney Ric Rosow regarding a special assessment agreement for Bell Oaks. He asked if this development would result in special assessments against other lots in Bell Oaks abutting Riverview Road. Rosow responded that without a feasibility study he could not tell him if they would be assessed or not but there is an assessment agreement where the property owner agreed to an assessment and waived their right to object. It is a potential and it is not determined if one would be levied by the City Council. Richard Schultek, 3415 Lake Johanna Boulevard,Arden Hills, representing Wooddale Realty which is a subsidy of Wooddale Builders. He has been involved in selling townhomes in Eden Prairie and this project will be one of the best. He noted the price range would be between$425,000 and$500,000 and the people who will be purchasing these units will be excellent citizens. He showed photos of townhomes they have built in Bearpath, Bluffs East, and Shelter Grove which illustrate the type of units they are proposing. Joe Floyd, 10569 Purdey Road in the Bell Oaks Subdivision,noted that people want to preserve the road as much as possible. He discussed the use of density transfer to developing properties. He asked the Planning Commission to consider having a portion of this development face existing Riverview Road by flipping it upside down. Pete Cesare, 10599 Parker Drive,noted his home is on the corner of Riverview Road and Parker Drive, and when he purchased his home he expected the road to stay in its present location. If the roadway is realigned,he will no longer have the separation of the roadway PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 8, 1999 Page 4 between his home and the new development. His view will become the rear of the townhome units, and he felt this was unfair and he asked the Planning Commission not to realign the road. He believed the roadway should be maintained in its present location to keep the character of the area intact as much as possible. Jerry Brill 4827 Queen Avenue South, stated he was an attorney representing Anita and Tony Philipi who live across the street from this proposed development. The Comprehensive Guide Plan calls for a density of 2.5 units per acre and to construct this project it will call for a change to the zoning ordinance. If they change the zoning it will be inconsistent with the Guide Plan which does not make sense. It would be "spot zoning" which is not something that is wanted. There is no agreement on the part of the Hustads to build a single family home on the southern portion of the site. On bluff areas the City has had a policy of maintaining two units per acre and this development would be inconsistent with City policy. Franzen noted the question was what guarantee there is for how the property to the south might develop in the future. He described a project which was done in 1986 and noted the City had a Developers Agreement which put stipulations on that development of the remaining area and set design standards for the rest of the area. He explained how the density transfer works and how it has helped out other developments and staff was not concerned about the land to the south and how it might develop in the future because it will have to adhere to the zoning ordinance requirements. Chris Dietzin, an attorney with Larkin Hoffman, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, stated he represented Michael Clark. His client opposes this development because it is inconsistent with the Guide Plan, and is opposed to the roadway realignment and the economics are more important to the City than the concerns of the residents. The Comprehensive Plan supports compatible development between adjacent developments and this parcel should be developed as low density. It would be inconsistent with the development in the surrounding area if it is developed as proposed. He was concerned about losing the character of the roadway which has existed since the 1930s. They believe there could be less density in the development without changing the alignment of the roadway. Lack of buffering between this development and the adjacent residential properties could create problems such as erosion along the bluffs and impact the archeological study,which has yet to be completed. He requested the City to require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet to address these concerns prior to approving the project. Nick Kemp, 9451 Riverview Road, stated he bought his home there because the entire area was unique and he was concerned that the roadway realignment would ruin the aesthetics of the area. There were alternatives which could include the wishes of the residents as well as those of the developer. He described the view from the roadway and noted there may be another solution which would give them an improved which met safety standards and preserves the aesthetics of the area. Sandstad noted he appreciated the view down the Purgatory Creek corridor and asked if there could be an overlook on the northeast corner to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 8, 1999 Page 5 preserve this view. Simestead responded the proponents propose to gift 14 acres to the City but they have not thought about creating an overlook because this area is heavily wooded and the trees leaf out in the summer obscuring that view. Mark Ebel, 10903 Purdey Road, stated they saw the road about 2.5 years ago and moved from California to live here and plan to stay for the next 35 years. He believed the plan was focused on maximizing the value of the land being considered while reducing the value of adjacent properties. He felt this was being done to the benefit of a small group of people but not the entire area as a whole. He asked the Planning Commission to continue the project to allow a better plan to be presented. Jim Snyder, 10437 Purdey Road, stated he lives adjacent to the area where the townhomes would be located and he shared the concerns of the other residents regarding the environment and strategic concerns. However, he firmly believed the roadway needs to be upgraded for safety reasons. He was concerned about the numbers of single family homes that were being built and felt there may be too many for the future,when residents want to downsize and live in something other than a single family home. Dan Patterson, 8680 Great Waters Alcove, a former Bell Oaks resident,noted he had funds tied up in an escrow account towards the assessment agreement. This area has developed and he learned that once something is built, it is there to stay, at least for our lifetimes. He requested this plan be continued to allow other plans to be developed. He asked if this developer does end up constructing part of the roadway, if that would release him from the assessment agreement. Rosow responded when the special assessment agreement was done it was done in the vacuum of a lack of understanding of what would be built on the adjacent land. He did not know the answer to that question until the City Council received a feasibility study which determines which properties benefit. The purpose of any special assessment agreement is to ensure that the assessments will be paid and it runs with the land,not with the property owner. Helen Fowler, 10315 Riverview Road, asked about the tree loss and noted they have roots which hold the bluff area. When these trees are gone the bluff will become unstable. There will be storm sewers but this will not be adequate to handle a large storm event. She was opposed to the lot size and the density. She stated trees take a long time to grow to a substantial size, and should be preserved. She asked who would bear the cost of constructing the road through the Hustad property and Foote responded that they would pay for the road between both their property lines. Fowler noted her property would not be developed and it would stay the way it is today. Sandstad commented the project has a very low tree loss on this site and they are not cutting any trees along the bluff area. Elliott Cobb, 10509 Purdey Road, stated the proponent had the right to develop their land but the existing homeowners also have the right to a continuance and continuity to what already exists in the area. He asked that the plan be continued to allow a better plan to be devised and requested the City not to rush into anything. The road is a unique road but it is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 8, 1999 Page 6 not a dangerous road. If the road is changed it will change the neighborhood. Doug Faust, 10504 Purdey Road, stated he was involved with the neighborhood group to get information regarding special assessments. He was opposed to the project because the Guide Plan is not being adhered to and he felt the roadway should not be realigned but left in its original position. There was a plan put together for the roadway upgrading in 1997. The road alignment did not change significantly and he understood this would be done as soon as the upgrading of Pioneer Trail was completed. He did not see the density as adding any value to the neighborhood. Wolfgang Schreder, 10584 Boss Circle, showed the roadway plan developed by the residents of Bell Oaks who worked with the City for over four years to address all the issues and concerns regarding Riverview Road. They had endeavored to come up with the best plan possible to make the needed improvements while still maintaining the character of the area. They dealt with issues such as floodplain,retaining walls,trees, etc. to come up with this plan. They addressed safety issues and environmental issues. He reviewed the factors which entered into the designing of the roadway. He had spent more than four years working on this plan and wanted to be sure the Planning Commission was aware of the time and effort that went into this plan. They deliberately avoided straightening out the curves in the roadway to limit the speed, and they wish to keep the speeds reduced on the road. Their plan allows the vistas to be enjoyed by everyone,not just the developer and the future owners of the townhomes. He asked the Planning Commission to adopt the layout of the roadway plan developed by the residents working with the City so everyone can see what is intended. Joseph Swanson, 10425 Purdey Road, stated he has the worst case of erosion in his back yard right now in the Bell Oaks subdivision, and he felt compelled to notify the Planning Commission that review and approval by the City does not guarantee a buildable lot. They have lost thousands of feet of their lot because of improper drainage planning by the developer and the City. The lot was sold without storm sewer provisions after the dam was removed. The water which drains across his lot comes from the Hustad property. He urged the Planning Commission to carefully review the drainage of the entire area which could impact not only this development but other areas in the vicinity. He has been working with the City to resolve these problems. He wanted assurance from the City that this development will not exacerbate his situation. If the roadway is moved there will be no way to access his back yard to allow heavy equipment in to repair his yard. Lori Swanson, 10425 Purdey Road, stated they have part of their yard in a conservation easement. She supported the idea of having a scenic overlook on the roadway. This development was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. She was opposed to moving Riverview Road because it will give definition to the Hustad development. She was part of the citizens group that worked on the roadway design. She reviewed the development history of the Hustad property. She believed the density of the proposed project was too high, and would have negative impacts on the adjacent properties. She PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 8, 1999 Page 7 requested the Planning Commission to deny the project and review the letter from the Department of Natural Resources. Chris Dahlquist, 10859 Purdey Road, stated they purchased their home in Eden Prairie because of the road and the beauty of the area. He was opposed to having multi-family housing across from his home. He likes his neighborhood the way it is. Laura Bluml, 10540 West Riverview Drive, stated she lives about a half mile from this development and she is concerned about this project. She reviewed the variety of housing types that exist along the river bluff and noted she believed the density was too high for bluff property. They believe the road should be improved but maintained in its existing location. She appreciated the efforts of the citizens to develop the plan to improve the roadway. The beautiful road would be changed forever and natural scenery would be lost if the roadway is realigned. The trail would be good to have if its possible to construct it. She would object to any realignment which would transfer the assessments to another property or increase the footage on which the assessments are based. She described the traffic, and suggested that a shoulder be made on which to park where people could see the view without endangering traffic on the roadway. Beth Simenstad clarified that the assessment agreement discussed by the residents of the Bell Oaks Subdivision had nothing to do with their project. They are only offering to construct the portion of the roadway which would go through their development site,which is about 25%. They are within the low density requirements of 2.5 units per acre in the Guide Plan. The roadway is dangerous now because there are 500 to 600 homes in this area and the traffic has increased significantly. They have gone through the process and have done what is required of them by City Ordinance. The additional access points have been added by other developments. They could leave the road where it is and they would still get the same density in their development. She noted they have paid for all the roadways in their developments, and not passed those costs on to the buyers. Wolf Schreder commented they were not objecting to the development but it has to be done with care and needs a second look to ensure it will not cause damage to adjacent properties. Clinton commented if the roadway committee's plans are the plan the residents want why was it not brought up from the beginning. Lewis commented that property will always be developed,but she felt the density in the proposed plan was too high, and did not enhance the pristine nature of the area. She felt moving the roadway was not in the best interest of the community. However,the road does need to be repaired and the City should take the recommendations of the citizens committee to heart. The scenic overlook has some merit, and care needs to be taken to preserve the character of this area. The developer needs to lower the density and redistribute it to make it more in keeping with the surrounding area. She noted that any bluff lots should have the lowest density. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 8, 1999 Page 8 Habicht did not think the housing units would detract from the area. He had a problem with the density transfer and realized it was to favor the bluffs. He did not feel that the road should be moved because it would make the density a bigger issue. He believed the highest density should be located in the center of the site with lower density surrounding it. He was not inclined to move the road. Sandstad felt the density transfer was reasonable from his point of view. We have a poor transition and buffer to the north which needs to be addressed. He asked if the proponent would consider a continuance to reevaluate keeping the roadway in place. He appreciated their generosity in offering to pay for the portion of the roadway which would be on their property. Dorn stated he has been on the site and was not sure that these units were right for this area even though they were beautiful homes. He did not feel the roadway alignment should be changed. He was concerned bout what would happen to the southern portion of the land when this area was sold and developed. He was concerned that the density transfer may not be adhered to in the future when most of the buildable land in Eden Prairie was gone. Alexander did not support the density as proposed and was not in favor of moving the road. She felt the character of the area should be preserved, and noted that no affordable housing was being built in Eden Prairie and these homes were too expensive. She noted erosion exists in the vicinity of this project and this issue should be addressed. She felt the plans should be revised. Clinton felt the roadway should be improved but not moved. He did not have a problem with the density as these townhomes will be used by people who no longer want to live in big single family houses. He believed this property was being developed with this in mind. Foote appreciated the comments from the residents, and concurred the road should be upgraded but left in its original location,with possible minor modifications for safety. If single family homes are constructed they will destroy a lot of the bluff area. He supported density transfer but would like to see the density spread out more. He noted townhomes are needed in Eden Prairie. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton,to continue Flint Ridge to the March 8, 1999 agenda with direction to the developer to improve transition and buffering to the north, leave Riverview Road in its original location but improve it,preserve the bluff area, and retain the density transfer to give incentive to keep the land to the north left over from the roadway as open space. Motion carried 7-0. V. PUBLIC MEETING VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 8, 1999 Page 9 VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen noted that eight projects have been submitted and there will be fourteen more coming in within the next 30 to 60 days, so the agendas will be heavy ones for the next few meetings. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Clinton,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.