Planning Commission - 07/08/1985 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, July 8, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia
Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. EDEN PLACE APARTMENTS, by Tipton Corporation. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 32.8 acres, Preliminary Plat
of 50.64 acres into two lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way,
and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review for construction of
four, 125-unit apartment buildings. A Public Hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
r
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, July 8, 1985
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Virginia Gartner, Stan
Johannes, Dennis Marhula
MEMBERS ABSENT: Christine Dodge, Robert Hallett
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to adopt the agenda as printed.
Motion carried--5-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to adopt the minutes of the
June 10, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as written.
Motion carried--4-0-1 (Johannes abstained)
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to adopt the minutes of the
June 24, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as written.
Motion carried--3-0-2 (Chairman Schuck and Bye abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. EDEN PLACE APARTMENTS, by Tipton Corporation. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 32.8 acres, Preliminary Plat
of 50.64 acres into two lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way,
and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review for construction of
four, 125-unit apartment buildings.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 8, 1985
Mr. Mike Sjeklocha, Tipton Corporation, stated that proponents had tried to
hold a neighborhood meeting with surrounding residents, sending a letter to
potentially affected individuals in the area. He noted that only one person
attended the meeting from the surrounding area.
Mr. Sjeklocha stated that the proponents had no difficulties with the
landscaping changes recommended by Staff. He noted that the average berm
height along Anderson Lakes Parkway would be 10 ft. above the elevation of
the road and that the buildings would were located at an elevation lower
than that of Anderson Lakes Parkway, making the buildings appear to be only
18 ft. in height from Anderson Lakes Parkway.
Regarding the suggestion of Staff that the buildings were too massive and
could possibly be split into more, smaller structures, Mr. Sjeklocha stated
that the smaller buildings would require the hard-surfacing of an additional
2-21-2 acres of property. He stated that this suggestion also presented
philosophical problems for him, in that he was concerned about the image of
the buildings from the point of view of the tenants. He stated that he
would prefer that tenants not have to view parking lots and streets, nor
look across the courtyards into each others windows.
Mr. Sjeklocha stated that the building would likely not be visible from many
of the adjacent uses to the east, south, and west; however, from the north,
around the Edenvale Planned Unit Development, the site would be visible. He
• stated that, because of the distance between the projects, a difference of
two small, versus one large, building, would be difficult to discern for
most people.
Regarding unit square footage, Mr. Sjeklocha stated that the units would be
900, 1,085, and 1,280 square feet.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of July 5, 1985. He stated that during the review process,
proponents had prepared revised plans, which seemed to depend heavily upon
landscaping for effective screening of the parking areas from the public
roads and to scale down the buildings. Planner Franzen stated that Staff
was unsure that the landscaping changes, alone, would be adequate to meet
ordinance requirements for this project.
It was pointed out that the Staff Report had offered other alternatives for
making changes, in addition to landscaping, including jogging of the
structures, shorter length to the structures, taller structures, less
density, etc. Planner Franzen noted that the sight lines would be above the
existing trees in the area from the north.
Chairman Schuck asked how this project compared to the other large apartment
buildings in the City. Planner Enger stated that the proponent's project
was 430 ft. long at its widest angle, due to the "Y" shape of the
structures, which was comparable to other structures of this type in the
City.
• Marhula asked for a comparison of densities with other similar projects.
Planner Enger stated that one structure, located at the northeast corner of
Mitchell Road and Valley View Road, had a total of 174 units, with a density
Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 8, 1985
• of 10 units per acre. Proponent's project was for 500 units, with a density
of approximately 15 units per acre, which was still under maximum densities
allowed in the City. Planner Enger added that the comparable structure was
visible from approximately two miles away in any direction. He reiterated
that the use of smaller buildings was not the only method of dealing with
the mass of the structures.
Mr. Steve Young, architect for proponent, stated that he felt that the
smaller buildings were less desirable because of the additional hard-
surfacing and he presented a sketch showing the difference. He stated that,
if possible, proponents would like to receive a positive recommendation from
the Commission, subjec to working out these matters with the Staff.
Mr. Sjeklocha stated that the smaller buildings of the Residence Inn project
along Highway #169, presented a massive look in his opinion, also, and,
again, questioned the advisability of changing the plan in this manner.
Mr. Young noted that the jogging of structures presented a problem for the
underground parking plans since, by jogging the buildings, some of the
underground parking spaces would be too short to meet Code requirments.
Johannes asked about the floor area ratio for the project. Mr. Sjeklocha
reported that it was about 0.14, which was within City maximum requirements.
Marhula stated that it appeared that the visibility of the project from
Anderson Lakes Parkway would be about the same, whether more small buildings
were used, or whether four large buildings were used. He stated that he was
uncertain that more smaller buildings would be the answer to reducing the
massiveness of the structures. He asked if Staff had been able to review
the plan with smaller buildings presented by the proponent. Staff responded
that they had not seen the alternative plan until the meeting, and had not
had an opportunity to review it.
Bye stated that she was uncertain that landscaping, alone, would mitigate
the massive look of the structures. She pointed out that the 28 ft. high
trees proposed would be shorter than the buildings constructed on the
project.
Johannes asked if jogs in the roof lines of the structures would help
mitigate the massive look of the structures. Mr. Young stated that plans
could be drawn showing this alternative. Johannes asked if the project
would be phased. Mr. Young responded that it would be done all at once.
Johannes asked if the project would be a rental project, or turn into
condominiums. Mr. Sjeklocha responded that Tipton preferred to rent the
units and had no plans for turning the project into a condominium project.
Johannes asked if proponents were using private financing for the
development. Mr. Sjeklocha stated that they were.
Marhula asked if Staff had seen any plans for the property to the north of
this project. Planner Franzen responded that the potential developers of
• the property to the north had been in to see Staff regarding the
possibilities for development of that property as a combination of 8-, 12-,
16-, and 24-unit structures. He noted that the property was guided the same
as this project, High Density Residential .
Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 8, 1985
•
Marhula stated that he was more concerned about the visual impact of the
structures upon the immediate area, than he was from points farther away.
Marhula stated that he felt the visual impact from the street was a matter
of concern, with respect to the relationship of the buildings to the road.
Mr. Sjeklocha stated that the structures would be 46 ft. high, but would
only be visible for the top 18 ft.
Marhula asked about the elevation of the area around Anderson Lakes Parkway
and Garden Street. Mr. Young responded that it was approximately 850-852,
whereas the building elevation shown was 878. He added that the structures
could be lowered even more, if the Commission wanted.
Mr. Sjeklocha stated that the views from the north would always be the most
difficult for this site, but the other areas of visual impact mentioned by
the Commission could be worked out. Mr. Young suggested that the tree line
along the north boundary of the property could be replanted to be more
substantial .
Marhula asked Staff if the suggestions by the proponent were viable in terms
of mitigating the massiveness of the project. Planner Enger stated that the
suggestions could solve some of the problems. He stated that he felt the
differences would have to be as large as ten feet in order to have a
meaningful impact. He added that one of the advantages of the smaller
buildings was that more than one elevation of the structures was possible,
which helped break up the view of the site.
Marhula stated that he felt there were views from Anderson Lakes Parkway
which were matters of concern and asked proponents if sight lines had been
prepared from any of these areas. Proponents responded that none were
a prepared for this meeting. Marhula stated that he felt the proponents would
have to redesign the site with the goal in mind of finding methods of
mitigating the visual impact of the structures, whether that meant smaller
buildings, jogging the structures, or less density.
Mr. Joe Whitney, Tipton Corporation, stated that he felt comparison to the
other existing building in town was inappropriate. He pointed out that
there were texture, materials, and other differences making this project
more desirable. Mr. Whitney stated that he did not feel it was possible to
totally screen 500 units.
Chairman Schuck stated that he felt the Commission needed a better feel for
the project and that additional sight line studies would be in order,
perhaps with additional change to the structures, as well .
Johannes stated that his preference would be for more smaller buildings,
with a reduction of the density, if necessary. He stated that his biggest
concern was the roof lines of the structures and that he felt the' roof lines
could be altered to bring down the scale of the buildings. He added that he
agreed that, from a distance, the view would not be significantly different
• from far away; however, it could be a more interesting view than as
currently proposed.
Marhula reiterated concern regarding visual impact from the streets in the
Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 8, 1985
40 immediate vicinity. He stated that he felt that, even though high density
residential structures were limited in some areas of design, still there
should be methods available to mitigate the massiveness of these structures.
He added that he was not certain that smaller buildings were the answer and
that he felt Staff needed an opportunity to review any amended plans with
the proponents prior to further Commission review.
Gartner stated that she was not certain about a positive impact from the use
of smaller buildings, either. She stated that she felt lowering the
elevation of the structures might help, along with alteration of the roof
lines. Gartner stated that perhaps the answer would be to reduce the total
number of units for the project.
Bye concurred with Gartner regarding the impact of smaller buildings. She
stated that she would like to see what some of the changes proposed might
look like prior to making a decision.
Chairman Schuck stated that he felt additional sight lines were necessary,
indicating the changes made to the plan and the effectiveness of the changes
in terms of mitigating the massiveness of the structures.
Mr. Sjeklocha stated that proponents would work with Staff on these changes
prior to the next Commission review of the project.
• Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to continue this item to the
August 12, 1985, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponent the
opportunity to revise plans with respect to the concerns of the Commission
at the July 8, 1985, Planning Commission meeting and the Staff Report of
July 5, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
Steiner Property--The Oaks Business Center
Planner Franzen reported that trees had been cut from the flood plain area
of this project and reviewed the action taken by the Staff to have the
matter corrected by the developer, including use of a restraining order to
stop further grading on the property until a tree replacement plan had been
prepared by the developer and approved by the Staff. Staff also obtained a
bond covering the tree replacement from the developer to assure compliance.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 8, 1985
&I. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes.
Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.