Loading...
Planning Commission - 11/22/1999 APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,NOVEMBER 22, 1999 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Beverly Alexander,Kenneth Clinton,Randy Foote,Bill Habicht,Rebecca Lewis and Doug Sandstad STAFF: Michael Franzen, City Planner Krista Flemming,Planner I Deb Meuwissen,Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Foote called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Habicht joined the meeting at approximately 7:10 p.m. H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Franzen requested the public hearing for Liberty Place be placed as the first item of business under Item IV,Public Hearings. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton, to approve the Agenda as amended. Motion carried 4-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Alexander, to approve the Minutes of the September 27, 1999 Planning Commission. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Commissioner Lewis abstaining due to absence. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton, to approve the Minutes of the November 8, 1999 Planning Commission. Motion carried 3-0-2 with Commissioners Alexander and Habicht abstaining due to absence. MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Clinton, to approve the Minutes of the October 11, 1999 Planning Commission. Motion carried 3-0-3 with Commissioners Clinton, Lewis and Sandstad abstaining due to absence. MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Habicht,to approve the Minutes of the October 25, 1999 Planning Commission. Motion carried 4-0-2 with Commissioners Alexander and Sandstad abstaining due to absence. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 NOVEMBER 22, 1999 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. LIBERTY PLACE by Liberty Property Limited Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Industrial/High Density Residential to Office on 3.9 acres, and from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential on 2.58 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 55.08 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 55.08 acres, Zoning District Change from RM-2.5 to I-2 on 5.47 acres; RM-2.5 to Office on 7.12 acres; I-2 to Office on .41 acres,Rural to Office on .15 acres; and Rural to RM-2.5 on 5.55 acres,Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 Zoning District on 3.78 acres, Site Plan Review on 55.08 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 55.08 acres into 3 lots and 2 outlots. Location: Smetana Lane and Valley View Road. Franzen reported a letter had been received from the applicant requesting the public hearing be continued until the December 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting due to an access issue remaining unresolved. MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Sandstad, to continue the public hearing until the December 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 6-0. Chair Foote advised the audience new public hearing notices would be mailed out. B. HORNELAND ADDITION by Liv Homeland. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 1.32 acres to the Ridgewood PUD, Planned Unit Development District Review on 1.32 acres with waivers,Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning District on 1.32 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 1.32 acres into 3 lots. Location: 8802 and 8802 Knollwood Drive. Liv Homeland, owner of the property, presented a brief overview of the proposed plan She indicated her house was the first one built in the Addition and development of the Addition had caused a loss of the panoramic view of the lake. The proposed new house would be appropriate for the Addition. Several designs had been considered due to the severe topography of the property. An attempt had been made to retain as many trees as possible in the proposed plan. Would also add replacement trees as recommended by the City. She indicated attempts had been made to meet with neighbors to review the proposed plan and address their concerns. Clinton asked for clarification with respect to tree loss on the south side of the property. Homeland responded trees would be added. The trees being removed were currently located where the proposed house would be constructed and they would be transplanted. Doug Stahl, Engineer with Schell &Madson,provided an overview of the location of the proposed house on the lot. Tree loss would be mainly in the area of the new house. The applicant was willing to replace trees however the City deemed adequate. Different locations for the house had been reviewed and the proposed location afforded the least disruption to the property. Franzen related that in the past,waivers for lot frontage had been considered if it resulted in a better environmental plan for saving tress, slopes and wetlands and it did not increase the density beyond what would develop if the plan met all code requirements. He indicated the lot size would be consistent with the area, it met setback requirements and the subdivision of the lot would not change the character of the neighborhood. However, reasons to not consider the waiver were the subdivision of the lot was inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and the approved PLANNING COMMISSION M[1NTJTES PAGE 3 NOVEMBER 22, 1999 Planned Unit Development, the existing lots had a lot frontage waiver from Knollwood Drive, access from the south had not been anticipated when the existing lots were originally subdivided, and the existing large lots were a density transfer for the existing Ridgewood Cluster lots. He indicated Staff had proposed two options for consideration with respect to granting or denying the street frontage waiver from 85 ft. to 25.69 ft. for the proposed third lot as set forth in the Staff Report dated November 19, 1999. The Staff recommended denying the proposed project as set forth in Alternate Two of the Staff Report. Clinton asked if a similar situation had existed in the Kramer project,which had been a long lot that had been subdivided and lot front waivers requested. Franzen responded he did not know. The only subdivision of lots that had a house was the Karmel Addition, which was a 27,000 s.f. lot that had been divided in half but had met all the requirements for setbacks and was approved. Karen Sell, 8796 Flesher Circle, indicated Homeland had spoken to neighbors about the project and understood the reasons for the proposed project. Although the lot seemed to meet the minimum size requirement, much of the land was unbuildable and the house would be wedged into the lot with very little front and back yards. She expressed concerned with proposed driveway since it intersected with her private driveway which was on a very steep grade. Seeing vehicles exiting the driveway would be a problem and a safety concern. Asked that the proposed plan be denied. Chris Henkennis, 8812 Flesher Circle, indicated the proposed house would be built next to her property. Concerned about the amount of trees being removed and potential run-off. Also,with the woods removed,concerned the loss would devalue the property. Larry Berger, 8780 Flesher Circle, was concerned that the subdivision of the lots and placing the house on the proposed third lot did not conform to the neighborhood and the City. Habicht stated the plan was a nice, creative plan and did not have an issue with the lot size or quality of the house. He indicated when a waiver was requested, there was typically a trade-off for the City or there was a real hardship and in this instance,there was neither. Lewis stated making a change to the development at this late date would set a very dangerous precedent that would have developers requesting changes from the original of the plan. Also, a 65% tree loss was very significant. Unless there was an overwhelming reason, the City would not approve the plan. Sandstad indicated the proposed plan did not justify the requested waivers and he could not support the plan. Clinton agreed with Habicht that it was a creative plan. He had walked the neighborhood and the proposed site and was concerned by the request for waivers and the amount of tree loss. Alexander indicated the plan was a good plan and believed it was not as intrusive as some of the property owners in the addition had conveyed. However,the City has zoning laws which had to be adhered to and did not believe the Commission could approve a variance and be fair to the current zoning laws. Foote voiced his agreement with the comments of the other Commissioners. The proposed plan did not support the requested waivers. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 NOVEMBER 22, 1999 MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Alexander, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-9. MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Habicht,to deny the request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 1.32 acres to the Ridgewood PUD, Planned Unit Development District Review on 1.32 acres with waivers,Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning District on 1.32 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 1.32 acres into 3 lots. C. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE EAST SENIOR HOUSING AND COMMERICAL by Hustad Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.77 acres, Rezoning from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 2.77 acres, and Site Plan Review on 2.77 acres. Location: Pioneer Trail and Highway 169. Franzen asked the developer to give a two-part presentation with respect to what had been approved by the City Council and the proposed senior housing project. Brian Hutz, architect, indicated the applicant currently had plan approval by the Planning Commission for the northeast portion of the site for a small retail building and park and ride. Neighbors had issues with the plan and applicant had revised it. A revised plan for senior housing and retail with park and ride had been submitted to the City Council. That plan met with some concerns with respect to access noise and visual screening. Another plan was developed and submitted back to the Planning Commission. At this time,the current parcel was the only one to be approved. The proposed plan included moving the park and ride to the west side of the property, eliminating the north access to retain the existing berm, construct a L-shaped senior housing building with a small retail building. The senior housing building somewhat larger but overall length was the same. Hutz indicated he believed the project would be an effective sound barrier. Habicht asked clarification of what had been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council and the plan now being proposed for approval. Franzen indicated the Planning Commission had previously approved this site as a park and ride only. The plan had originally been a senior housing building on the back of a retail center. Planning Commission had concerns with density and had indicated the elimination of the senior housing or park and ride. The Planning Commission was in agreement with the park and ride and retail. Neighbors had subsequently voiced concerns with sound. The developer presented the City Council with two alternatives. The opportunity to construct senior housing with retail or with park and ride. City Council had indicated its preference for the senior housing and park and ride. City Council approved plan for 3 story senior housing building with 30 units, no retail, and a berm along Highway 169. The City Council had not approved a 55-unit senior housing. Foote asked if the park and ride had been eliminated. Franzen responded that the park and ride had been tucked into the retail building. Clinton asked if the berm along 169 currently existed. Hutz responded it was except for the top 5 ft. Foote asked if SW Metro had reviewed the plan. Franzen responded it had. Franzen indicated the Staff recommended approval of the plan as submitted. With additional landscaping,plan would address the concern of City Council regarding noise. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5 NOVEMBER 22, 1999 Bruce Webster, 9953 Balmoral Lane, voiced concern with the noise generated from Highway 169. The construction of a 3-story building would provide some sound protection. Would like to see what options were available to build-up the existing berm or extend the sound wall. Clinton asked if sound would still be an issue with the development of this property. Hutz indicated the City Council had directed the City Staff to look into the matter. Arthur Schenk, 8432 W. 100th Street,Bloomington, indicated from his property, he could look over the noise wall and believed the senior housing project would be a valuable project to move forward with. He indicated the addition of a buffer of trees or visual screen with a noise wall should be included since residents of the senior housing could look out their windows and see his property and vice versa. Noise from Highway 169 should be addressed. Clinton asked Schenk where his property was located in relationship to the noise barrier. Schenk indicated the barrier was to the east of his property. The noise barrier and senior housing could be viewed from his property. Jeannette Gunderson, 9922 Balmoral Lane, related there had been a great deal of negotiation to provide the 30- unit senior housing and buffer. There had been a greater setback from Highway 169 than 30 ft. She indicated the developer appeared to be forcing more development onto the site. Changes that had been approved by the City Council, Staff and neighbors were not reflected on the plan. The plan generally appeared a lot different then what had been discussed. Franzen indicated a drainage ditch ran across the property at the low point of the hill and to the end of wall. The noise wall was built where it should be. The City would have to discuss with MnDOT directly regarding the gap in the noise wall. Clinton indicated the noise issue did not appear to have been addressed very well by trees,the berm and wall and may be more than what could be addressed by the proposed plan. He expressed concern with the fact that a 30 unit, 3 story senior housing, berm and no retail having been approved yet the proposed plan was for 55-units and retail. Foote asked why the number of units had increased to 55 from 30 units. Hutz indicated economics of 55-units would be more successful than 30-units. The 55-unit senior housing would increase the amount of sound barrier. The approval for the 30-unit senior housing excluded the park and ride. If the park and ride was excluded,the property was under-developed. Habicht and Foote asked for clarification on where the park and ride was to have been located. Franzen responded that City Council had approved the park and ride on the other side of the road. A general discussion ensued with the Commissioners voicing concerns with using the senior housing building as a sound barrier was intrusive on the housing project and with the change in the site plan from a 3-story 30-unit building which had been approved by the City Council to the plan before the Planning Commission for a 3-story 55-unit building and retail. MOTION: Habicht moved,seconded by Lewis,to continue the public hearing until the December 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to propose a revised plan for a 3- story, 55-unit senior housing with park and ride or a 3-story, 30-unit senior housing, with berm located on the north side and small retail. Motion carried 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 NOVEMBER 22, 1999 Lewis asked if the questions regarding the sound issues could be addressed to MnDOT. Franzen indicated he would discuss with MnDOT prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. D. SUNNYBROOK COVE by Taurus Properties Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 6.51 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 6.51 acres with waivers„Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 6.51 acres and Preliminary Plat on 6.51 acres into 15 lots. Location: 12640, 12550, 12500 Sunnybrook Road. Wayne Deitrich, Taurus Properties, presented an overview of the proposed project which consists of the development of the remaining property owned by the applicant located on Sunnybrook Road into single family lots. Flemming indicated Staff recommended approval of the project based upon recommendations contained in the Staff Report of November 19, 1999. Foote questioned the amount of tree loss and asked if they were in poor condition. Flemming responded that the City Forester had determined many of the trees were in poor condition. Therefore Staff had recommended that tree loss be evaluated at 30% which was the average residential tree loss. A resident residing at 9248 Hearthstead Lane related he had no issues or questions with the proposed plan but requested information as to where the road would be going due to concerns with additional traffic that may be generated. Dietrich indicated through the Williams property to the north when developed. Anderson Lake Parkway would not be utilized as much as Highway 212. Clinton expressed concern with the amount of tree loss but based on the explanation that the trees were not in good health he could support the tree loss. Sandstad indicated his support of the project. Lee Smith, 12500 Sunnybrook Road, voiced concern for the amount of traffic off of Highway 212 and Anderson Lake Road. All of the houses back on the street and may cause a backup on to the road. Also concerned with Sunnybrook being used as a short cut. MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Alexander, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6- 0. MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Alexander, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Taurus Properties for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 6.51 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 6.51 acres with waivers,Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 6.51 acres and Preliminary Plat on 6.51 acres into 15 lots, based on plans dated November 15, 1999, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 19, 1999. Motion carried 6-0. E. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. Franzen presented a brief summary of the proposed amendment and purpose of the proposed change. The Amendment would eliminate the lot size requirement from 5 acres to no minimum acreage. The proposed change would consolidate the development review process. Allowing parcels of any size to develop when meeting the PUD criteria would provide for consistent review through the Planning Board and City Council and reduce City and developer review time by PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7 NOVEMBER 22, 1999 eliminating one meeting and the potential for appeals. Franzen stated the elimination of the lot size requirement did not mean every project would be accepted but that the process would be expedited. MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Lewis,to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Alexander, to recommend approval of the code amendment to City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.40 entitled "Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept and Section 11.70 entitled"Sign Permits" to eliminate the minimum lot size in the Planned Unit Development District from 5 acres to no minimum acreage and amend portions of Section 11.40 and Section 11.70 where the PUD size is referenced. Motion carried 6-0. V. PUBLIC MEETING VI. MEMBERS'REPORTS VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. PLANNERS'REPORTS X. ADJOURNMENT Franzen reminded the Commission no meeting would be held on December 27, 1999. MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Alexander,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.