Planning Commission - 05/09/2005 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 9, 2005 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Larry Kacher, John Kirk, 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: Sutherland.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Nelson, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 8-0.
III. MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 25, 2005
MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Koenig, to approve the minutes. Motion carried
7-0. Kirk abstained.
IV. PUBLIC MEETING
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE#2005-06 Shurgard Storage at 7921 Eden Prairie Road, Eden
Prairie, Minnesota. Request is for a front yard setback variance from 50 feet to 35
feet in the I-2 Zoning District and sign front yard setback variance from 10 feet to
5 feet in the I-2 Zoning District.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 9, 2005
Page 2
Franzen presented the proposal. He stated that as part of the final plat, the City
asked for a right-of-way along Eden Prairie Road. Franzen displayed another
diagram illustrating the setback variance. He stated that the setback variance was
created by the dedication of right-of-way. Franzen said that Staff views this as a
reasonable request.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Seymour asked Franzen that if in the future Shurgard Storage was to use this
facility for a different reason, would the setbacks still be set in place. Franzen
stated that the setback variance applies to the property.
Stoelting asked if the existing sidewalk would be replaced or eliminated. Franzen
stated that they sidewalks would be replaced.
MOTION by Kacher, seconded by Nelson, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 8-0.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Nelson, to approve the following
variances: Front yard setback variance from 50 feet to 35 feet in the I-2 Zoning
District, sign setback variance from 10 feet to 5 feet in the I-2 Zoning District.
Motion carried 8-0.
B. EAGLE RIDGE AT HENNEPIN VILLAGE— SIX by Pemtom Land
Company; location east of Spring Road and south of Charlson Road. This is a
request for a Planned Unit Development concept Review on 16.9 acres; Planned
Unit Development District Review on 16.9 acres; Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-9.5 on 16.93 acres; and a Preliminary Plat of 16.9 acres into 41 single
family lots and 4 outlots.
Dwight Jelle, from Westwood Professional Services, representing Pemtom Land
Company,presented the proposal. He stated that, in regards to the project, all of
Summit Oaks is completed and they are moving into the last phase of the
residential area. He displayed the site using an overhead projection. He stated
that there is one public road going through this site and that they have been
working with Staff and utilizing DRC comments to revise the site to comply with
recommendations. Mr. Jelle stated that they have planned for a considerable
amount of landscaping and some burming in front of Charlson Road. He stated
that the pond on this site is still considered to be a dry pond and is intended to be
an infiltration pond. He stated that the developers agree with every
recommendation from Staff, except that they would like to plant the trees on the
boulevard because they feel that this is important for the image of Hennepin
Village.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 9, 2005
Page 3
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the Staff report. Franzen stated that the
rezoning and the preliminary plat is consistent with the concept plan that the
Commission and the Council approved a few months ago. The Staff
recommendation for this project is for approval. Franzen stated that there are a
few minor changes to be made prior to the May 17 Council meeting. These
changes have to do with covenants and restrictions that have to be recorded on the
property for the eight affordable units on this site. They would stay in affect for a
forty year time period and would transfer only to those families that would be
eligible for the program. The unit would have to be under$193,700, which is a
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency standard for what they consider affordable
for a family of four. Franzen stated that the developer has not brought back the
signed agreement,but did expect it in the near future. The City came up with the
covenant to ensure that if a family left after a short amount of time, the program
would continue to the next family that lived there.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Nelson asked Franzen if the covenant needed to be signed before the City Council
meeting and should it be added to the recommendations for approval.
Franzen stated that the developer's agreement is based upon the guide plan
change and concept that the Planning Commission had addressed a few months
ago and the City Council approved a month ago and that would be filed against
the particular property where the subdivision is located. He stated that it will
happen in advance of this project going forward to the City Council.
Rocheford asked Franzen if he could give some history on the concept of
affordable units and housing in Eden Prairie and whose direction does the City go
with as far as providing for more affordable housing units in developments like
the one discussed.
Franzen stated that the City's comprehensive plan has a variety of different
housing programs that address affordability from an ownership standpoint and a
rent ability standpoint. He pointed out that on affordable ownership, most of what
the City has done is not owned by the Met Council or the Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency, rather they are agreements that the developers had when they
brought their project through the process at the initial start of their construction.
What the City is seeing now, with the land costs and construction costs so high, is
that it is very difficult to make the units affordable. This is a problem not just to
Eden Prairie,but exists throughout the Metropolitan area.
Stoltz stated that in the Staff report on page 3, under architecture, it talked about
architectural framework, materials, roof pitches and porches and states in the last
sentence, "developer should amend this framework to include an architectural
diversity plan so that no two units are alike, side by side, or opposite each other."
He asked Mr. Jelle if they have had issues with this in the past, and is this
Planning Commission Minutes
May 9, 2005
Page 4
something new or is this something that is typically done. Mr. Jelle stated that
they have not had any issues with this, that in fact, it is a diversity plan pertaining
to repetition control. He stated that they encourage no two units side by side, or
across the street, to look the same.
Koenig asked Franzen if we had a disclosure statement pertaining to the Flying
Cloud Airport and asked if it was for all of the residential units. Franzen stated
that the City did for all of Hennepin Village and recently for the Ridge at Riley
Creek and Eden Heights Estates. He stated that any new housing developments
that are within or near noise zones, safety zones, or aircraft approaches have to
have a disclosure statement. Franzen also stated that in speaking with the
Building Department, the normal construction techniques for single family homes
meets the requirements.
Koenig asked Franzen if this information gets disclosed to the future owner, if the
present owner decides to sell the home after residing in it for a short period of
time. Franzen responded by stating that the notification is basically for the party
purchasing the unit for the first time.
Koenig asked what the problem would be if the developer were to landscape in
the right-of-way.
Gray responded by stating that the City maintains a policy that a residential street
right-of-way avoid having a lot of landscaping materials placed on it. He stated
that this policy is good for the City for three reasons. The first is for snowplow
operations. He explained that if there is a boulevard full of trees it is very
difficult to wing out with the snowplow. The second reason would be that it is
very costly for the City to maintain and trim the trees that are on the boulevards.
If the trees are outside of the right-of-way, on private property, it is the
homeowner's responsibility to maintain the trees. Thirdly, is the site distance
issue with the way some of the landscaping is sited.
Fox stated that there are also some other reasons that the trees should not be
placed in the right-of-way. The first reason being that underground utilities are
placed in that corridor. The second reason would be that the 8-foot boulevard
would be fine for small trees because if you plant larger trees on the boulevard
and they grow, they would be confined to that small area. The third reason is
two-fold. In the winter it is very difficult to plow with the trees in the boulevard,
and in the summer it is very costly to trim the trees. Fox pointed out that it has
been the policy of the City that trees belong out of the right-of-way. He stated
that the developer has a streetscape throughout the entire area and that they do
have trees inside their private street and will be maintaining the area for snow
removal and tree trimming. Fox suggested that if the developer wanted continuity
through this area then a possible agreement could be established that would make
them responsible for all the trees within the subdivision.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 9, 2005
Page 5
Koenig asked Fox if that agreement could be put in the developer's agreement.
Fox responded by stating that for maintaining trees in the public right-of-way, it
would take something above and beyond a simple term in the developer's
agreement.
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 8-0.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Seymour, to approve the request Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 16.9 acres; Planned Unit Development
District Review on 16.95 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on
16.9 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 16.9 acres into 41 single family lots and 4
outlots,based on plans dated May 6, 2005, subject to the recommendations of the
staff report dated May 6, 2005, to the City Council, subject to the following
changes to be completed by the Developer prior to review by the City Council.
The changes are A, B, and C of the Staff recommendations.
Koenig commented that she felt torn on the placement of the boulevard trees.
Stoelting asked Rocheford, for the record, if he could explain what A, B, and C,
of the Staff recommendations were. Rocheford stated that the recommendations
were as followed:
A. Revise the preliminary plat to show a 100 foot diameter cul de sac and remove
the planting island from the road right of way.
B. Revise the landscape plan to remove trees from the right of way.
C. Provide an architectural diversity plan so that no two units are alike, side by
side, or opposite each other.
Motion carried 8-0.
C. CODE AMENDMENT Proposal to amend City Code Section 11.30 to add
Showroom to the list of permitted uses in the Industrial Zoning Districts.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the proposed code amendment. Franzen stated
that currently showrooms are considered retail; with that in mind, only 15% of the
building can be used for showroom. These showrooms are generally related to
the building industry, i.e. carpet stores, kitchen showrooms, and bathroom
showrooms. Franzen said that they are generally located in low visibility areas
with little parking. The industrial districts seem to be the best fit for these
showrooms. Recommendation is for approval of the code change. The attachment
on the last page of the Staff report lists the code format that would be officially
adopted. It is as follows: "Showrooms, provided products are for display
purposes only and not for direct retail sales." Franzen also stated that if there is a
showroom, it is allowed to have 15% retail space.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 9, 2005
Page 6
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 8-0.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Seymour, to approve the amendment to the
City Code. Motion carried 8-0.
VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
X. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Franzen asked Commission Members to fill out the forms that were enclosed in the
packet. He also stated that for the May 23rd meeting there will be two residential
variances and an application from LG Everest, to transport gravel by rail. They do not
conform to lot size so they will be asking for a raw products waiver.
Stoelting asked Franzen about the article by David Lindahl, which was enclosed in the
Commission packet. The article addressed the issue of mixed use urban land use setting.
Stoelting asked why Mr. Lindahl would share that with the Commission Members.
Franzen stated that this article gives examples of other cities have created a downtown.
When we get to the point of defining visually what we want to see, we can use this article
as discussion points.
Koenig made the comment that the area that was redone in the Excelsior and Grand area
in St. Louis Park, and also a redevelopment in uptown with residential and retail both
turned out very nicely
Rocheford made the comment that he met with David Lindahl the week previously and
asked him about the Hartford Project. Mr. Lindahl felt that it was a good project; that it
was a good fit and idea. Rocheford felt that he was uninformed in regards to this project
and in the future would like to see ideas, like those of Mr. Lindahl's, shared with the
Commission. Rocheford stated that it is important to know the history of projects and
had he known the history of the Hartford Project, he possibly would have made a
different decision. He felt that the City should not be making decisions without
disclosing the history on a piece of development.
Stoelting reiterated Rocheford's comment by stating it is important to understand the
history of a development on a piece of property before it comes before the Commission.
Stoelting asked Franzen what the guidelines would be for disclosing the history.
[Franzen stated that he speaks to many people in regards to the development of property
and that it is common to get 15 to 30 phone calls over the life of a particular piece of
Planning Commission Minutes
May 9, 2005
Page 7
property when it is going to be developed. The question to ask then is how much
information should be forwarded on to the Commission or Council.]
Koenig made the comment that if a development does not fit the piece, then you have to
wait until a better fit comes along with a better development plan.
Kacher commented that it would be helpful to view some history of the property.
Franzen stated that it would be fair and reasonable to have history on the projects brought
before the Commission, especially ones that have a project approved or denied.
Rocheford stated that the more recommendation that is given to the Commission the
better judgments that will be made. Franzen stated that from the Staff's point of view,
one recommendation is brought forward after committee review. Many people, possibly
as many as 15, come together to discuss the issues in an informational meeting prior to
coming to the Commission Meeting and that is where the recommendations are
established. Rocheford stated that information was helpful, because he did not realize so
many people were involved in making the recommendations.
Franzen stated that he also relates issues back to the developers based on the Commission
discussion.
Kirk stated that he has no problem with the Staff making recommendations based on the
meetings and process but he would also like to hear all the minority opinions so a good
choice can be made.
Koenig stated that the residents that come to the Commission Meetings tend to fill in
some of those opinions or opposing points of views.
Stoelting commented by stating history is important in making a decision but does not
necessarily feel that a full history on the project needs to be given.
Nelson stated that background information is helpful but does not need a full background
history. She stated that what is important is how this piece of property is going to fit now
and not what the history of the project was.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Nelson, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 8-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m.