Loading...
Planning Commission - 04/22/1996 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 22, 1996 7:00 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, City Planner Scott Kipp, Planner I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES by Pulte Master Builders. Request For Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM 6.5 and RM-2.5 on 44 acres,Planned Unit • Concept Review on 88.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 44 acres, Site Plan Review on 44 acres, Preliminary Plat of 44 acres into 394 lots,and EAW review. Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway and HWY 169.' A continued public hearing. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIH. PLANNERS'REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT J APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 1996 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton,Randy Foote,Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail,-Katherine Kardell,Douglas Sandstad,Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, City Planner; Elinda Bahley, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL Chair Clinton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Wissner to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0. 0III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-APRIL 8, 1996 MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Habicht to approve the Minutes of the April 8, 1996 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 7-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. STARING LAKE TOWNHOMES by Pulte Master Builders. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density,Medium Density, and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 and RM-2.5 on 44 acres,Planned Unit Concept Review on 88.5 acres,Planning Unit Development District Review on 44 acres, Site Plan Review on 44 acres,Preliminary Plat of 44 acres into 394 lots,and EAW review. Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway and HWY 169. A continued public hearing. Franzen indicated the first time this project came to the Planning Commission was March 25 and that meeting was more for informational purposes and to listen to the issues from the neighborhood. Although the Staff Report was prepared for action,the Planning Commission decided to continue the project for two weeks and directed the developer to make some changes which included setback and landscaping changes along the sites perimeter. The neighborhood would be given an opportunity to come back with the six • issues they wanted to have addressed at the next meeting. 1 At the meeting on April 8 residents spoke regarding the six major items. The Planning Commission said they were not happy with the project yet and directed the developer to look at 10 to 30 percent reduction in total units. Along with that,the Planning Commission said that the developer, Staff and the neighborhood representatives would meet a couple of times to further go over the issues and to look at alternative multiple family plans. The first meeting on April 11 was more a discussion of the issues. At the follow-up meeting,the developer presented a revised plan, and spent half the time going over what the changes are and the other half hearing from the neighborhood. At the end of the meeting the neighborhood indicated they thought the Guide Plan for the property was the preferred land use for the property. Subsequent to that meeting,the Staff met with the developer again to make sure that the changes were made, and those changes are listed on Page 1 and 2 of the Staff Report. Franzen introduced Tom Stanke of Pulte Master Builders. Stanke reviewed the changes made to the development pursuant to those requested by Staff,the Planning Commission and the neighborhood representatives. The number of homes now proposed are 692, down from 788 which is a 12 percent reduction. The open space is at 40 percent. • Ron Bastyr reviewed the site plan indicating they changed the configurations of the homes to direct traffic to the Vo-tech intersection. The new plan showed club homes and the previous plan showed court homes. The old plan showed the setbacks were 35 feet along Staring Lake Parkway and Anderson Lakes Parkway, and 50 feet on US Highway 169. The plan is 100 foot setback minimum on all three roads. This has given the opportunity to put a substantial amount of bemiing. At 100 feet,the berms are generally from eight feet tall up to as much as 20 feet tall. The NURP pond is a one-cell pond and it could change to a two-cell pond if the Watershed District prefers that. There is an area near the NURP pond designated for a flat park area. They are not going into the ravine and taking out trees. The tree loss on the site has been reduced to zero. A green vinyl chained link fence will be put in at a height that would deter children and adults from going over the top of the fence into the natural bluff area. The cost will be incurred by the developer and put in by the developer. There will be a five foot sidewalk along Columbine as well as a black top trail along Columbine within the village homes. There is a five foot sidewalk proposed on the main roadway of the club home area. Wissner asked about the signage for the development. Bestyr showed on the map where the permanent and secondary signage will be. • Clinton was concerned about the spacing between the homes. Bestyr indicated the spacing within the club homes are 25 feet apart. The court homes are 75 feet because the 2 driveways are between the homes. The village homes are approximately 75 feet apart. Franzen explained that the reason they bent Columbine Road was because the intersection at the south end were operating at a level of service A so it would handle more traffic. They tried to put less units up in the north end because this was operating at a level of service D. Staff believes that if this plan is approved they would not see the stress on the intersection than they would have seen if the plan had gone forward in its original form. Staff recommended lowering the berms along Staring Lake Parkway and Anderson Lake Parkway to allow some view of the units from the parkways, and it's more integral to the community as people drive by. Reference was made to the last page of the Staff Report indicating a traffic chart. Staff recommended approval of the project based on the revised plans. The Public Hearing was opened. A resident residing at 8925 Ferndale Lane,indicated he is opposed to townhomes being built at such a high density. He expressed concern about the traffic conditions on US Highway 169 because he uses it. He does not agree with Staff that they don't expect any traffic problems with a high density like this. He believes there will be traffic jams at both ends of this property. He was concerned that this high density will have an impact on the school and on Staring Lake. Chester Baker,residing at 8918 Pine Bluff Court reaffirmed his opposition to this project. If this project fails,he intends to notify the City every time there is an accident on Anderson Lakes Parkway,US Highway 169,US Highway 212, Staring Lake Parkway and Columbine Road as a result of increased traffic. He intends to notify the City of his concerns every time the referendum for increased spending on the school district is presented due to exceeding the school's capacity. He intends to notify the City every time someone uses his property as a short cut because of this development. He intends to notify the City of any negative effects of this development as long as he is a resident. Karen Tinucci,9187 Victoria Drive, commented the idea of affordable housing is wonderful but this project is too big of a scale. She expressed concern about the traffic issues and the parking situation. She asked if there will be a parking lot. Franzen replied it is under consideration at this point. They will be looking for input from the Parks Commission as to whether it's necessary to have it at that location. Tinucci expressed concern about the safety of the children as a result of so many cars parking along Staring Lake Parkway. She was also concerned about the environment surrounding Staring Lake. This project is getting rushed through and she urged the Planning Commission not to approve this until there is a better plan. Tom Ashford, 8938 Pine Bluff Court,was concerned about whether the City took into consideration that a daycare is going up. Franzen replied the traffic study takes into 3 i consideration any projects that are built today, any projects that are under construction, and any future undeveloped land based upon how the property is guided. Ashford was concerned about what will happen if the zoning changes. Franzen stated that if the desire is for another land use,they have to evaluate if the traffic conditions are going to be more on the road system and can't handle it as it is now, and that's a reason for not approving the project. Ashford believes that moving the project from one end to another will not make a difference as to which entrance or exit a resident will use. Gino Levine, 13999 Wellington Drive,believes there is a better way to build low income housing. They should spread the low income housing all around the community,not in one neighborhood, so they can become part of Eden Prairie. It's not right to build all the low income housing to be segregated from everyone else. This is not cultural diversity in his opinion. Paul Olson 8899 Flesher Circle, expressed concern about the deviation from the guide plan and the traffic congestion. He was concerned that no one has discussed the option of plan B,that the option still exists that this could go to even higher density of multiple family homes in addition to office space. He was also concerned about the park area being put where they understood it to be natural prairie grass. He believes the park may not be in the right location. Foote commented that he shares some of the concerns that Paul Olson has in regard to the phasing of the project. He asked if the plan was to buy the entire property. Stanke affirmed it is the plan which is why they presented the entire parcel. The phasing of the project is because of the cost. Wissner inquired when the park area would be started. Stanke stated that because the NURP pond would be required in the first phase,the park would be done at the same time as the NURP pond. Larry Berger, 8780 Flesher Circle, commented he wants to preserve the integrity of the area and the pond. He was concerned about there not being a choice of location for people wishing to buy affordable housing. He was also concerned about the safety of the children because of the additional traffic. A resident commented about the City's plan of 30 percent affordable housing. She asked if there are any projects coming up,what the plan is. She would like to see affordable housing somewhere else,not this project having it all. Franzen noted the goal is for 30 percent affordable housing on all housing projects regardless of its location. The resident suggested the City prepare a comprehensive plan that truly accomplishes this goal. Kardell commented that as a result of legislation,the City is required to develop an action plan. One of the goals in the plan is the 30 percent number,and the plan is being developed now by the City. It does identify a number of strategies that effect the 4 neighborhood. It shows 30 percent of all new residential subdivisions proposals ideally will have housing components that are affordable homes at the price of$115,000 or less. Mr.Riley, 8956 Garland Court, stated this project is too large and the City is trying to solve the problem of providing affordable housing in one shot. Dale Gardner, 8967 Victoria Drive, expressed concern about the size of the project,not the affordable housing issue. He noted that he asked investors from the company he works for if they would invest in a project of this size. The investors said no because a project this size is too hard to control. The larger the project,the more things that can go wrong not only in the development construction,but also the sales. The key to a successful project is to make it blend in comfortably with the neighborhood and the community. The fact that this is the first time a project of this size is happening in Eden Prairie sends a bad signal. He was also concerned that if office did go up,the people that bought their homes prior to that would have then be mislead. The park area should be more towards the center of the project and filled with things that everyone can use. He opposes to the fence because it's not attractive and it was a cheap shortcut for the developer. Mr. Swenson, 8942 Garland Court, asked if there are any other townhomes currently planned for the near future in Eden Prairie. Stanke stated this is the only subdivision they are working on at this time. Swenson noted that he heard on the radio in the last few weeks,and in the Sunday newspaper,that Pulte advertised these townhomes to be coming soon in Eden Prairie. It's irresponsible advertising these townhomes when they don't have the approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council. A resident residing at 8971 Ferndale Lane,was concerned about emergency vehicles accessibility into the site. Franzen indicated that the streets are 28 feet wide and can accommodate a hook and ladder. Amy Horn,residing on Garland Court, expressed concern about the environment surrounding Staring Lake. She was concerned about bicycles,rollerblading, and the dangers they impose to the walkers and children. They have seen four loons on the lake for the last three days, and she was concerned about their environment. She also opposes to the size of this project. Grant Warfield, 8991 Ferndale Lane,noted that he did his own study and found there to be 130 homes around Staring Lake, and on another corridor a block away from the lake his count was 300 homes. He believes this area has enough homes and opposes to the project. Tim Jackson, 8872 Pine Bluff Court, was concerned about the need for a four lane road • on the north end of the project turning into the main road. 5 Foote commented about the citizens group meeting he attended. He thought that at the first meeting they were going look at alternative family housing plans for the site. When he got there, it wasn't the case. A lot of the neighborhood out there still wanted commercial or some mixture. He believes this plan is significantly better than the first plan,both in density and in layout. Kardell commented she has supported multiple family housing from the beginning. This is an improved plan and she supported it. She was concerned about supporting Alternative 2 at this point. She believes the plan is highly consistent with the density of the surrounding neighborhood from the townhomes by Boulder Point over towards the apartments. The density issue is a non-issue in her opinion. Regarding the traffic issues, she invited residents to visit other areas in Eden Prairie because there is traffic all over. She supports the park and would like to get the NURP pond built to a scale that is appropriate to best serve this site. She concurred with Staff that the berming is too high. Foote stated he doesn't believe there will be many children living in this development so it's not an issue for him. He doesn't believe there will be any additional traffic problems here versus an industrial warehouse type situation. He was concerned because this project does not address mainstream housing which is families with children. He supported the plan. Wissner commented that she visited another Pulte site similar to this in Woodbury. The demographics were people in their 40's, 50's and 60's who were looking to retire. She noted that this is not low income housing,but affordable housing. She discussed a letter from the principal of Eden Lake School stating that their teachers make $25,000 a year, and that seven teachers have moved into Eden Prairie. He commented that it's nice to have teachers living and working in Eden Prairie. She does not see this development as a separate entity at all. She sees it in a positive way which would enable many people to live in Eden Prairie. She opposed to Alternative 2. Sandstad stated he supports the project as it stands. He was very pleased to see this because it has taken many years to get a significant amount of affordable housing in the City. He opposed to Alternative 2. He approved a concept of 88 acres but he would like to see a more well formed pedestrian trail from the rear of the project near Columbine over to the park. He wants a defined pedestrian route that will serve everybody. Ismail commented he is not comfortable with the project as it stands. There is a need to discuss the issues more and listen to the opinions of the residents. He believes they are rushing into this a little bit, and he could not support the plan. Habicht believes the project has come a long way from when it was first presented. He agreed with the Commissioners to reject Alternative 2. A commercial or industrial use will have more impact on the traffic than this use will. He shares the concerns for Staring Lake but it is a regional resource. He is in favor of a park rather than grass land. He likes 6 the flow of the project from west to east as they move closer to US Highway 169. That's where the larger densities are. He gave his approval for Alternative 1. Clinton did not support Alternative 2. He was concerned about the commercial or industrial on the north end because it would be more of an impact. He commented that his company is in a 500,000 square foot building with 1500 employees, and they generate a lot of traffic. He would like to see something other than office building. He supported the concept of having single family affordable homes. He supported the project as it stands. Karen Tinucci of Eden Prairie did not agree with Commissioner Foote's comment that this project would not effect children and thinks they should not approve it. Foote commented that he lives 200 feet away from the Summerfield development. He rides his bike through there all the time and he does not see children there. He sees no reason why this project would attract children. The resident stated this project is very close to the school and the water slide. She believes there will be a lot of single parents in this development who can not afford the higher priced homes. Ms. Tinucci did not agree with Commissioner Kardell's comment that she is not in favor of a parking lot in that area. She also believes there was poor planning regarding Oak Pointe. She feels this whole project is just being pushed through. Ken Clinton and Kardell both indicated when they reviewed the school plans that they felt parking was inadequate, it's not the City's position to force a developer to correct the school district's error. Sandstad commented that the school district needs to hear her concerns about the poor planning about Oak Pointe. They are the decision makers. They can add parking there now if they want to. They can not force the adjacent property owners to give up real estate because the school district didn't plan it right in the first place. The resident urged the Planning Commission not to approve this plan,but to let the residents and the developer keep working at it. Stanke commented that the question was asked at the end of the meeting with the neighbors about what they wanted, and it was very clear that they wanted the existing medium,low,high density, and office. Chester Baker wanted it made clear that his citizens group is not opposed to affordable housing,that the words "low income"never came into play. He feels his group has been misrepresented. MOTION 1: Kardell moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 7-0. 7 MOTION 2: Kardell moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Pulte Master Builders for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density,Medium Density,and High Density and Office to Medium and High Density Residential and Office on 88.5 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to RM- 6.5 and RM-2.5 on 88.5 acres, Planned Unit Concept Review on 88.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 88.5 acres, Site Plan Review on 88.5 acres, Preliminary Plat of 88.5 acres into 692 lots, and EAW review based on revised plans dated April 19, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 19, 1996 amended that the motion is only to support Alternative 1,items 4 and 5 which refer to Alternative 2 would be struck from the recommendations, and also to add the recommendation regarding the Planning Commission's suggestion that there be a more defined trail through the court and club home neighborhood to the park to be accessed through those neighborhoods to be better defined. Motion carried 6-1. Ismail voted DO. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS Foote noted that last Tuesday the City Council approved the Bearpath variance request. He does not believe the City Council gave it all the thought they should have. •VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None. VH- NEW BUSINESS None. VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen noted there is currently only one meeting in May. He reviewed the projects scheduled for May 13. Habicht asked about the Flint Ridge project and Franzen indicated it was withdrawn by the developer. The City and the neighbors are still meeting to discuss alternatives for the realignment of Purgatory Road. Wissner urged all residents to read the Eden Prairie News to keep informed about what's going on in the City because every item that is scheduled for the meetings are listed. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Foote to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m. 8