Loading...
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.