Loading...
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.