Planning Commission - 01/10/2005 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,JANUARY 10, 2005 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Larry Kacher, Vicki Koenig, Kathy
Nelson, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray
Stoelting, Jon Stoltz, William Sutherland
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Al Gray, City Engineer
Mike Franzen, City Planner
Julie Krull, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Brooks, Kacher and
Koenig
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Nelson, to approve the agenda. Motion
carried 6-0.
III. MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 13, 2004
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Rocheford to approve the minutes. Motion
carried 6-0. Seymour and Sutherland abstained.
IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING
V1. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. COVE 2ND ADDITION—RESCIND APPROVALS ( 2004-27) by Ted Vickerman,
Jr. Request to rescind the Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on
3.2 acres; the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review within the R1-22
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2005
Page 2
Zoning District on 3.2 acres; the Resolution for Preliminary Plat; the Resolution for Final
Plat; and the Development Agreement. Location: 6861 and 6871 Beach Road.
Franzen presented the proposal for the project proponent and also the Staff. He stated
that this was a project that was previously approved by the City Council in which two
existing single-family lots were subdivided to create a third lot. Theodore Vickerman,
one of the owners of the development, passed away and his son, Theodore Vickerman,
Jr., requested that the approvals granted by the City for this development be rescinded.
Franzen stated that the Staff recommends closing the public hearing and motion to
rescind this action.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
MOTION by Sutherland, seconded by Nelson, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0.
MOTION by Sutherland, seconded by Nelson, to recommend approval of a request to
Rescind the Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.2 acres; the
Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review within the R1-22 Zoning
District on 3.2 acres; the Resolution for Preliminary Plat; the Resolution for Final Plat;
and the Development Agreement,based on the staff report dated January 7, 2005, to the
City Council. Motion carried 6-0.
B. HERITAGE PINES ( 2004-31) by David W. Durst. Request for Guide Plan Change
from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 1.65 acres; Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 1.65 acres; Site Plan Review on 1.65 acres; and
Preliminary Plat of 1.65 acres into 12 lots and road right-of-way. Location: 17621
Pioneer Trail.
David Durst, developer, stated that he has been building homes in Eden Prairie
since 1976 and to compete against the other builders in the area his company
needs to develop their own property. They would like to build 11 units in 2
buildings; a five-plex and a six-plex. In order to do that, they need to rezone.
Eric Johnson, landscape architect, displayed an overhead picture of the proposed
development. He stated that this project would take access off the existing
Wiedman Way. There is no access proposed at Pioneer Trail. He stated that their
objective is to get the units as far away as possible from Pioneer Trail. In addition
to tree planting, they are proposing to transplant a number of existing trees on the
property out towards Pioneer Trail to get that screening off the roadway. Mr.
Durst displayed an overhead picture depicting the building elevation. Mr. Durst
stated that they are proposing 2 buildings with a row-housing concept. Garage
and front entries would be on the front elevation. There are gables on the
buildings and units are in and out to give an offset in design. There is a Dutch hip
on the two ends and rear elevation mirrors with two more gables.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2005
Page 3
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report.
Franzen stated that this piece of property is adjacent to land that is already guided
as medium density residential and the proposed density of the project is consistent
with the density of the Eden Orchard project which is south and west of this site,
and the project of the townhouses, which is directly to the east. The development
plan that they have conforms to the requirements of the RM6.5 zoning district,
which is the zoning of the adjacent parcels. Franzen stated that they have one
minor technical modification to the tree-replacement plan prior to the City
Council meeting, and that modification is to add 51 more caliber inches of
replacement to the plan. Franzen also addressed a letter that was received after
the packet was distributed. The letter is from Mary Erhard, who resides at 17580
Wiedman Way. There were four items that were raised in her letter, ranging from
the number of real estate signs on the corner of Pioneer Trail to whether or not
this project will participate in maintenance of the private road; which they are
obligated to do by recorded cross-access agreement. Ms. Erhard was also
concerned with the speed of the traffic because of her concern for the children in
the townhouses. The Staff will prepare a formal letter to Mary Erhard and a copy
will be placed in the Planning Commission packet for the next meeting.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Stoelting addressed the Board for questions. There was none.
Stoelting asked Mr. Durst and Mr. Johnson that if the plan needed to revised for
an additional 55 caliber inches of tree replacement, would there be a problem with
that.
Mr. Johnson stated that they plan to deal with that revision and work closely with
the City to accomplish this. He also stated that they plan to transplant a number
of existing spruce trees on the site.
Stoltz asked Franzen if six stalls at a 1/2 stall per unit was typically normal for
guest parking in parking lots.
Franzen stated that historically it was the average for this type of project.
Stoltz stated that he does not like the look of the buildings and feels they look like
a barn. He stated he would like to see more detail, pictures, and building
materials.
Mr. Durst stated that their buildings are all in the developmental stages and they
want to build affordable housing. He stated that in order to do that, there has to
be some constraints of what is put together. Their vision was to have vinyl lap
siding on the building and shakers up by the gable ends. Mr. Durst stated that
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2005
Page 4
they would have the timber-lined shingles for the roof and that the garage doors
would have more of a carriage type look.
Stoltz asked if there would be any outside lighting. Mr. Durst stated that there
would be lighting on the front of the garages and recessed lighting in the front
entryways.
Stoltz stated that he could not comprehend what the final project will look like by
what material was presented tonight.
Stoelting stated that the architectural drawings are too conceptual and
would like to see a finished product.
Sutherland questioned the transplanting of the trees on the site and also what kind
of tree sizes the project proponent had in mind.
Mr. Johnson responded by stating that the transplant trees are 6" ash that exist
more down in the lower corner of the site. He stated there is basically anywhere
from 6-10" spruce; generally 18-20 ft. in height. Mr. Johnson stated that he has
previously transplanted trees of that size at the Wayzata Medical Clinic.
Sutherland asked Mr. Durst what he meant by affordable housing.
Mr. Durst stated that affordable housing would be between $325,000 and
$350,000.
Sutherland stated that he is interested in more detail of what the building is
intended to look like.
Nelson questioned the visitor parking and asked if more parking could be put
outside of the second building.
Mr. Johnson stated that from a grade standpoint, it looked like they would have
the opportunity to add additional spaces.
Nelson stated that this would be something well worth doing. She also questioned
the design of the garage and stated that the front of the building does not look like
the back; that they look like they are two different buildings.
Tim Nelson, architectural designer working on this project, stated that this is a
cottage style unit that is a very popular design. He stated that it consists of a lot
of cedar shake shingle and trim boards. Mr. Nelson said that this look is very
popular and that this is the character and charm that they are going after. The
garage doors are also cottage style; not the look of a barn. Mr. Nelson also stated
that the idea of the garage is to pull out the garage doors to get a three
dimensional relief to the buildings. He stated that the gables are prevalent with
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2005
Page 5
this design. They will be adding planter boxes to soften the landscaping. Mr.
Nelson suggested bringing in photos of existing projects at the next meeting.
Seymour questioned the Staff about the road that is located in this project;
that there is no turn-around for emergency vehicles at the end but that it is located
in the middle. He asked if this was a standard layout for this type of project.
Gray responded that this is a typical layout for private streets in this type of
development and that the adjoining development has a cross-access agreement
that exists between the existing development and this property. He stated that this
is consistent with the way the City expected the property to be developed in
relationship to the property to the east that was developed a few years ago.
Stoelting stated that three of the Board members were not satisfied with the
drawings that were displayed tonight and asked them what they would like to see
changed.
Stoltz stated that he would like to see more detail in the drawings.
Nelson stated that she is a bit more satisfied with the project but would also like to see
more detail.
Stoelting responded by stating that Mr. Nelson could come back to the next Planning
Commission meeting in two weeks and bring the photos at that time.
Mr. Durst stated that it will work to come back in two weeks,but asked if they could also
proceed with the City Council meeting.
Stoelting asked Franzen what the Commission would be proposing; either approval
with subsequent review or a continuance.
Franzen stated that if the Commission is not satisfied with the plan it would be a
continuance until the next meeting; therefore pushing the City Council meeting back two
weeks until the third week in February.
Nelson stated that she is comfortable with the change in the plan and does not see any
reason to get the project off schedule with the City Council.
Stoelting asked the Commission if there was anyone who was not satisfied with the guide
plan. There was no response. Stoelting summarized that the Commission supports the
guide plan but would like a better rendition of the building.
Seymour stated that it is reasonable for the Staff to ask for more detail in the drawings
and materials used.
Stoelting asked if there was any more guidance to give to the project proponent.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2005
Page 6
Rocheford stated that on page A5 of the plan, the drawing of the plan contains
inconsistencies and not very much detail.
Mr. Durst stated that he would bring better drawings and photos at the next meeting.
Stoltz stated that even though this architectural design is popular in Minnetonka, it might
not fit into the surrounding neighborhood.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Stoltz, to recommend continuance to the
January 24, 2005, Planning Commission Meeting and to revise the development
plans as listed below:
Updated drawings with more detail to the buildings and a parking plan. Motion
carried 6-0.
Stoelting asked if there were any additional questions.
Mr. Durst asked Nelson what she would like to see in parking.
Nelson stated that she would like to see 6 and 2, or 6 and 3,but stated just more
parking is important.
Franzen stated that in regards to architecture of a multiple family dwelling, code
allows the City to require compatibility in terms of materials, color and
construction detail with other buildings in the area.
VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
X. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Franzen stated that there would be four items on the agenda for the January 24, 2005 meeting.
They are as follows:
1. VARIANCE#2005-01 Petition of Theodore and Gail Dean at 6612 Golden Ridge Drive
Road, Eden Prairie, to permit a rear yard setback of 11'8" from the rear lot line.
2. EDEN PRAIRIE INN POOL ADDITION at 11500 West 78'h Street.
3. DAIRY QUEEN GRILL AND CHILL,request to open a new DQ at County Road 4
and Terry Pine Drive.
4. CONTINUATION OF THE HERITAGE PINES PROJECT
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2005
Page 7
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Seymour, to adjourn the meeting. Motion
carried 6-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.