Loading...
Planning Commission - 11/22/2004 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2004 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 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Brooks, Kacher, Nelson, Seymour, Stoelting, Stoltz, and Sutherland. Absent: Koenig and Rocheford II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Seymour, second by Nelson, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. III. MINUTES A. COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 25, 2004 MOTION by Seymour, second by Nelson, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 6-0. Sutherland abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING A. HARTFORD CORPORATE SITE INFORMATIONAL by the Hartford Group. This is an informational meeting for the developer to present a revised concept plan, which includes a 24,800 square foot office building and a 42-unit condominium building at Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive. Frank James, of the Hartford Group, presented the project. He stated that they are returning tonight with revisions to the site plan that was presented to the Board a month ago. Mr. James introduced Patrick Sarver, landscape architect for Hartford, who will present the changes to the site plan and answer any questions. Planning Board Minutes November 22, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Sarver stated that at the last meeting they had two town home buildings, one located to the west and one to the east,by the Medcom Boulevard extension. What was brought out at the last meeting was that saving the trees was the most important issue. Because of that, Hartford came up with a single residential building with a setback of 35 feet. He stated it would be a 42 unit building with two floors of underground parking. This building will afford Hartford the opportunity to save a substantial amount of trees around the building. There will be one primary entrance to the building. Mr. Sarver also stated that the grade change in this proposal is more suitable for the Medcom Boulevard extension, which is currently an 8% grade. Stoelting requested that the staff report be reviewed at this time. Franzen stated that the use of property is correct to have a soft commercial office use and a residential use. The one building plan has a distinct advantage over the previous plan submitted, and that would be saving the trees. The one unknown is the mass,height and shape of building; which is an important issue. Franzen stated that 30 units per acre is not the issue,but rather what the building looks like. Stoelting stated that this is an informational meeting. He opened the meeting to public input. Mary Carla Johnson, of 8500 Franlo Road, unit 212,president of the Eden Hills Condominium Association, stated that they could possibly support the plan for the corporate headquarters but they have concerns over the residential area. She stated that the existing traffic at Prairie Center Drive and Franlo Road is a major concern. She feels that even though a signal will be put up, it will not eliminate the problem. Ms. Johnson also stated that this development will not enhance the Eden Hills complex and feels that the removal of trees will decrease the property value. She stated that overcrowding land use will be a problem and that the site is too small for the amount of development proposed; that there is no safe place for children to play, therefore, the site will not attract families. Ms. Johnson believes that the City should require a better plan for development. Steve Kuruso, a resident of the Eden Hills Condominium Association, stated that in discussing the issue of high density, he feels that traffic is a major concern, even with putting up a stoplight. He feels that building condominiums would be a better way to resolve the traffic problem. Bob Margo, a resident of the Eden Hills Condominium Association, stated that the proposal seems to imply that Hartford wants the extension of Medcom Boulevard, and questioned if it is only going in because of this development and if so will it take out a lot of trees. Mr. Margo also commented that he does not want to see a restaurant go up in the area. Chet Saunders, of 8500 Franlo Road, questioned where they would measure the 45- foot height ordinance from. Planning Board Minutes November 22, 2004 Page 3 Bob Bouten, of 8900 Southview Drive, Bloomington, owner of 8460 Franlo Road, stated that he would like to give history of the property. He stated that he owned this house since 1980, and since then new developments took down massive amounts of trees on adjacent sites. Bouten feels that if the current decision is made on the basis of removing trees it is unfair because Hartford is trying to save the trees, versus previous developers who would not. Peter Westerhouse, of Chanhassen, owner of 8470 and 8480 Franlo Drive, stated that what Bob Bouten said about the trees is correct. That Hartford is interested in working with the residents to make sure that the use of the property meets the needs of the residents already there. Mr. Westerhouse stated that he would like to see an economically viable building plan for this property. Stoelting responded by summarizing six issues brought up by public input. The first issue being the traffic situation and Mr. Gray will address that issue. The second issue is tree loss, and Mr. Fox will address that issue. The third is the question of the height of the 4-story building and the project proponent will address that issue. The fifth issue would be what kind of unit is this, a condominium or a rental unit. The last issue would be that if this property were not developed, would the road still be built. Mr. Gray will address that issue. Frank James responded by stating that they have addressed these issues by making changes to the site plan. The first point is the height of the building. It is a 4-story building with 42 units. It will have 2 levels of underground parking and Hartford will meet the height requirement, which is a 45-foot height requirement. The next issue was the number of condo units versus the number of town home units. The question was how did we go from 24 town home units to 42 condominium units. That was a function of economic reasons, with regards to marketability and sales price. The third issue was condominiums versus rental units. It would be Hartford's intent to have the building constructed as condominium units with separately platted units. Another issue was that of traffic and Hartford feels that whatever plan goes into this site will generate traffic and the Medcom extension, that the City made plans for, should elevate some of that. The last issue was the development of this site. Hartford feels that there is no perfect plan to have the site fit in with the residential area but what they want to do is work with the residents and find the best use for this site. Mr. James stated that Hartford feels that a blended use, commercial and residential would be the best fit. Fox responded by stating that this property has had diseased trees in the past and they have been taken out. The tree ordinance has been set up for natural areas. In residential areas, you run into the dilemma of losing trees and have the problem of replacing them. Tiffany Lane housing development is a good example of this. It is impossible to replace all of the trees. Planning Board Minutes November 22, 2004 Page 4 Stoelting asked about the existing vegetation that is to be maintained. Fox responded that it is difficult to say to what extent that this can be saved. Stoelting responded by stating that a detailed tree inventory is needed. Gray responded to the Medcom Boulevard issue stating that this has been in the works for a long time. The right away and existing structures on the adjoining properties were inhibitors for building this road. The houses would have had to be condemned. To put it through today, it will be difficult with the existing houses and right-of-way. Gray stated that the City needs a development plan to coordinate grades and right of way. He stated that this will not solve the traffic issues, especially on Prairie Center Drive and Franlo Road, but it will lessen the traffic. Brooks stated that he has a problem with the use of the property as was stated in the last meeting. The problem is with the density of the building. It will be a big building for this site; going from 24 to 42 units. He would like to see a mixed-use development with less density. Nelson stated that she is concerned about the amount of parking spaces and how many will there be. She stated that she has a concern with the density issue. There will be an office building and 42 condominiums on 2 1/2 acres. Nelson stated that she would be willing to look at something for just an office or commercial site. Seymour stated that density is also an issue for him. The question that needs to be asked is what is a good use for this site; maybe all office versus regional commercial. Stoelting stated that the project proponent was adding residential for a buffer and that the current plan was trying to protect more trees. The question that needs to be asked is why are there so many units. Also,how does density compare with the previous plan; is there more building mass or an increased number of families in smaller units? Seymour stated that with the size of the building his concern would be that not much of the vegetation would be saved. Kacher stated that the maximum density is 17.4 units per acre and the proposed is 30 units per acre and he sees no reason to exceed the maximum density. Stoelting also agreed that this would be a waiver that the Board would not feel comfortable in granting. Mr. James asked if there was some guidance that they could get from the Board as to how many units would be acceptable. Stoelting asked Franzen to address the issue as to how the density compares to the previous plan and what sort of density would this project need to have without granting a waiver. Planning Board Minutes November 22, 2004 Page 5 Franzen responded by stating that the previous plan was 18 units per acre. The density has gone up from 18 units to 30 units and this will require a waiver. Stoelting asked what the maximum density would be without granting a waiver. Franzen responded by stating that 17.4 units per acre is the maximum density without granting a waiver. He said it is important to identify the correct land use first and the number of units second. Franzen added that on commercial sites, because of the value, more units are typically needed to make the project viable. Stoltz stated that Hartford is trying to fit too much in this small area of land. He stated that he realizes it is economics for Hartford but putting 42 units on this site is not feasible and not a good match for the City. Brooks asked a question, in regards to the site map,if the site dimensions were the entire site dimensions, including commercial or was it just residential. Franzen responded by stating that is was 2.4 acres for both residential and commercial. Stoelting summarized the issues for the project proponent stating that if the project is going to go forward with mixed use it needs to be less dense. The second issue would be to have adequate parking. The third issue would be to have a detailed landscaping plan and tree replacement plan. And the fourth issue would be the height and size of the building. Stoelting ended the informational meeting. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. EDEN HEIGHTS ESTATES by Premier Development. The location of this site is the southwest corner of Pioneer Trail and Eden Prairie Road. This is a request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 24.78 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 24.78 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 18.62 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 24.78 acres into 47 lots. Nathan Jones, of Premier Development, stated that the plan is to develop 38 single- family lots on approximately 19 acres and 8 existing homes will be replatted. There are 14 property owners with 6 of those on Pioneer Trail and 8 on Hilltop Road. He stated that when Premier Development first looked at this project they looked at the 6 homes on Pioneer Trail and had a meeting with these residents. There was very little opposition to this plan. Hilltop property owners wanted to be included in the proposal. Premier Development is also working with the County on this project. With this site,previous land builders were proposing higher density use of this land. Premier Development is proposing 2 units per acre, which is consistent with the guide plan. Jones stated that there have been a lot of misconceptions with the previous builders. Because of that, Premier Development has been very proactive with keeping the details of the development open to the property owners and to the Planning Board Minutes November 22, 2004 Page 6 residents of the area. Jones stated that some of the details of the development are that they want to begin with demolishing 6 homes in May of 2005. Premier Development has entered into an agreement with a homebuilder who is in the Lake Elmo region. These units will be single-family owner occupied in the $600,000 to 700,000 price range and the minimum square footage would be in the 3,000 square foot range. James stated that Premier Development has worked with the City guide plan and also with the residents and would welcome any comments. Stoelting asked Mr. Jones to address the issue of the waivers that Premier Development is requesting. Jones stated that the first waiver would be a lot size less than 13,500 sq. ft. for lots 5-11. There would also be an easement by the trail. Franzen stated that the original plan did not contain any waivers, however, a trail was proposed on private property and covered by an easement. The homes would be built first and the trail would be built later by the County. In this situation residents would be concerned about losing their backyard for a trail. The waiver was for right-of-way dedication to place the trail clearly in public ownership. Franzen stated that it is easier to explain to homeowners where their property ends and where the trail starts. The original plan met code because the lots were on a bubble. The waiver eliminates extra hard surface and maintenance for the City. Franzen stated that the staff recommendation is for approval according to conditions on page 4 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up to the public. John Hansen, of 16200 Hilltop Road, stated that he does see a traffic problem on Pioneer Trail but feels that the upgrading of the road should make it work. Steven Schmidt, on Gateway, is a new owner as of the past 6 months. He stated he is concerned with the traffic coming out of the development onto Pioneer Trail. Richard Perkins, of 16351 Pioneer Trail, stated that as far as traffic,he feels that with improvements to the road it should be just fine and he is in favor of this project. Stoelting summarized the concern of the public input. Traffic seemed to be the major concern and Mr. Gray will address the traffic concerns on Gateway and Pioneer Trail. Gray responded by stating that traffic is tough in the area of Pioneer Trail,but the construction of the new 212 should take away a lot of that traffic on Pioneer Trail. This project should be completed in about 3 years, if everything stays on track. He Planning Board Minutes November 22, 2004 Page 7 stated the future of Pioneer Trail traffic will continue to grow as it is developed to the west of the area and the southeast part of Chanhassen. Gray stated that in the future, Pioneer Trail should be a four-lane road with a median. The City picked this location for better traffic movements in the Pioneer Trail area. Brooks asked what the lot prices are for the lots adjacent to Pioneer Trail. Mr. Jones stated that the lots by Pioneer Trail would be in the upper 100's. Brooks stated that he liked the project but has a question about economics. When seeing house prices from $650,000 to 800,000, and not seeing other projects in that price range in that area his question would be what happens if these lots are slow to resale? Do they get rezoned for town homes? And the other issue is who is to maintain these lots if they are not selling. Franzen stated that these lots are comparable to lots in Stonegate. He stated that if the Board looks at this project and gets approval for a preliminary plat and rezoning to single family, the Board will enter into a contractual agreement with the developer. The only way to change the lots after they start building on some of them is to go through the public review process; which can be difficult once the land is platted. Franzen stated that the maintenance of the lots is a developer requirement. The code requires grass to be cut if it exceeds 10 inches. It would be in the developer's best interest to keep the lots well maintained as they can affect sales of other homes in the project. Kacher stated that he wanted to commend the developer, the neighborhood and the City for how they worked together for this project. Kacher stated that it is a good example of community work in action. Seymour stated he wanted to concur with Kacher and that this proposal had come a long way since the last proposal. He stated he also wanted to commend the developer and the residents for coming together for a workable project. Sutherland agreed with the other Board members as to what a difference this meeting has been as compared to the last proposal. Stoelting concurred with fellow Board members and stated that it is good to see everyone working together. MOTION by Nelson, second by Seymour, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Nelson, second by Seymour, to recommend approval of a request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 24.78 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 24.78 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 18.62 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 24.78 acres into 47 Planning Board Minutes November 22, 2004 Page 8 lots,based on plans dated November 10, 2004, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated November 19, 2004, to the City Council. Motion carried 7-0 B. HENNEPIN VILLAGE SITE C REZONING by Dan Herbst, Hennepin Village LP. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 11.99 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 11.99 acres, Zoning District Change from RM 6.5 to R1-9.5 on 11.99 acres, Site Plan Review on 11.99 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 11.9 acres into 40 lots. The location is north of Highway 212, east of Spring Road. The request is changing the approved 40-unit twin home plan back to the original 40 unit single-family plan. Dan Herbst, of 7597 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie, responded by giving a history of Hennepin Village. He stated that site A has 144 units and this summer all of the amenity packages of site A were completed. The swimming pool is in along with the tot lot, parking area, the barn is remodeled and windmill is up. The second phase of residential on site C is being completed with a public overlook and first linkage of trail down to Spring Road. Charleston Road is completed. Phase 3 will start next year. Herbst stated that they came before the Board after 18 months of marketing effort and Ryland was having difficulty with one of the products on site A. They had three products there; the Prairie home detached, the Traditional home, and the Carriage home. Herbst stated that they asked if they could rezone a few areas; one of the blocks in site A and one of the blocks in site C to a twin home product and the Board approved that request. He stated that they are here tonight to tell the Board that because they are changing their marketing efforts, the new sales staff has found that the single-family product is gaining momentum. Because of that, Herbst is asking the Board to rezone this particular block area consisting of what was approved for twin homes and come back to 40 single family detached homes. Nothing will happen with the density. Herbst stated that they have to replat and put the easements back in. There are no structural or engineering changes taking place. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that the staff recommendation is for approval. Stoelting opened the meeting to the public. There was not public input. Sutherland asked Herbst why the City is an "undo button" for his various marketing programs. Herbst responded by stating that the twin home project concept was not going to work and that they wanted to convert it back to single-family detached. Sutherland asked if the end result that Herbst requested today differed from the initial proposal. Herbst stated that it is an identical product but the prices are slightly reduced, but the walkout town home and Carriage home are slightly higher than the original. Planning Board Minutes November 22, 2004 Page 9 Sutherland asked if density and lot size where the same as well. Herbst responded by stating that density is identical. Sutherland asked if the Board is going to see Herbst back here again in 18 months, asking to go back again. Herbst responded by stating that he would like to promise that he would not but he has been in this business too long to do that. Brooks stated that he does not see any reason not to approve this and he agrees that buying habits change and he is in favor of the change. Nelson asked if there was any possibility of upgrading any of the amenities. Herbst responded by stating that they are pretty well out of space to do any amenities. He stated that when the trees mature and with the swimming pool it is a pretty good place to live. Nelson asked if some benches could be added in along the trail system. Herbst responded by stating that it could be a possibility. He said they are trying to keep the cost down but he will look into that. Kacher stated that he supports the change back because the market does change and given that the prices would be less, it would be giving something back to the consumer. MOTION by Brooks, second by Nelson to close the public hearing. Motion passed 7-0. MOTION by Brooks, second by Nelson to approve the request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 11.99 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 11.99 acres, Zoning District Change from RM 6.5 to R1-9.5 on 11.99 acres, Site Plan Review on 11.99 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 11.9 acres into 40 lots,based on plans dated November 12, 2004, subject to the recom- mendations of the staff report dated November 19, 2004. Motion passed 7-0. C. VARIANCE#2004-14 Petition of Enterprise Rent-A-Car, at 8783 Columbine Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Variance is for a temporary outdoor display area from 60 days to 365 days. Variance to increase the allowable outdoor display from 2% to 12%. Variance from one half of one percent of the required parking stalls to be used for outside display area to 15 spaces. Rick Memlick, of Enterprise Rent-A-Car,presented the proposal. He stated that the variance request is nothing new, it is just an extension of their authorization to do business. They are requesting a 5-year extension. Stoelting asked Mr. Memlick to explain the undo hardship associated with this variance request. Mr. Memlick responded by stating that he reviewed the history and because the site Planning Board Minutes November 22, 2004 Page 10 is so small they would not be able to have a visible sign, and that would be the hardship for building display. He also stated that the other hardship would be that they would not be able to conduct business at this site if they were only allowed to have their vehicles there for 60 days. If they were to follow code they would not be in existence. Nelson commented that she was on the Board when this was originally approved and at that time she had some questions about the operations and kept a very close eye on this business and was pleasantly surprised at how well it worked out. She stated that at this point if they keep doing business like they have, she highly approves of it. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen reviewed the report and reasons why the variance should be granted. Stoelting opened the meeting up to the public. There was no public input. Kacher questioned Franzen as to why this business has to keep coming back to the Planning Board. Franzen stated it would be difficult to make this type of use permanent, because car rental places vary in size and a large one would not be appropriate in a neighborhood retail center. By putting a time frame on the variance it allows the board to monitor whether they are in compliance with the approval. Stoltz questioned Mr. Memlick about how much revenue Enterprise Rent-A-Car takes in a year. Mr. Memlick responded that he does not know,but if he did,he would not be able to divulge that information. MOTION by Brooks, second by Nelson to close the public hearing. MOTION carried 7-0. MOTION by Brooks, second by Nelson to approve Variance 2004-14 based on the following conditions: No more than 10 vehicles shall be located in the front parking lot and not more than 5 vehicles shall be located in the rear parking lot. No vehicle(s) shall be displayed or located above the elevation of the parking lot area. The vehicles in the parking lot shall not display signs or prices. The small "e" logo on the vehicle is permitted. All washing and maintenance of the vehicles is to be conducted inside the building. No sales of vehicles occur from this site. The variance approval shall be unique to Enterprise, and not transferable to another leasing company. The variance approval shall be for a five year period ending December 9, 2009. In the event the terms and conditions of the Final Order are violated, the City may, in addition to all other remedies afforded it herein and by law, terminate the variances upon the expiration of 15 days from the date of written notice. MOTION carried 7-0. Planning Board Minutes November 22, 2004 Page 11 D. SIGN CODE AMENDMENT A proposed amendment to the City Code relating to signs. The amendment, if adopted, would repeal City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 4. A. 9., B. 10., C. 5. D. 7.,relating to reviews and approvals of the City Manager or designee; add provisions to Subd 3.II regarding performance standards, and add penalty provisions Section 11.99. Franzen presented the amendment to the Staff. He stated that the Board needs to do this for clarification of the code. In Revision 1, the code currently states for each of these items that approval is required by the City manager, or the City Manager's designee. These items are being repealed since the language gives the City too much discretion in the interpretation and enforcement of the sign code. In Revision 2, this change is adding language to the paragraph that non-commercial have to meet setbacks and square footage requirements for the district they are located in. The third revision would be adding a penalty provision for a person who violated the sign code by performing an act that is prohibited or unlawful, if convicted, shall be punished as a misdemeanor. Stoelting opened the meeting up to the public. There was no public input. Sutherland asked staff whether under the old code the City Manager ever looked at signage permit variances or if it came to the Board. Franzen responded no, the Planning Division reviews the permits. Sutherland asked if Franzen or his staff were considered the designee. Franzen responded by stating that he was considered the designee. He stated that the City actually has one person that is responsible for sign permits and interpretation of the sign codes Sutherland asked if that function would not exist any more if the code changes. Franzen responded that the function of permit review is the same as well as who is responsible for the review changes. Sutherland responded that it appears we are getting rid of old language that is not applicable. Nelson asked how Revision 2 would affect "for sale" or "garage sale" signs. Franzen stated that the City would still allow these signs to be put up in the lots. MOTION by Brooks, second by Seymour to close the public hearing. MOTION carried 7-0. MOTION by Brooks, second by Seymour to approve the amendment to the City Sign Code. MOTION carried 7-0. VII. MEMBERS REPORTS Planning Board Minutes November 22, 2004 Page 12 VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS IX. NEW BUSINESS X. PLANNERS REPORTS Franzen stated that there would be 5 items scheduled for the next meeting. They are: 1. Informational meeting on the development of 4 single-family lots on Lake Riley. The Board will be asked to make a decision of a 4 lot single family plan with a public road that meets all the requirements or a 4 lot single family plan with a private road and waivers that will save tree mass. 2. Dan Herbst will be back asking questions relating to two office sites being converted to 41 single family homes on Charleston Road. 3. United Properties would like to buy 51 of 67 office acres and change part of them to industrial. This would reduce commercial from 30,000 sq. ft. to 9,000 sq. ft. 4. Industrial building on Hwy 5 requests a small building addition. 5. Request from the City of Eden Prairie Public Works Department to rezone a Flying Cloud Drive site to allow items to be stored outside on the site. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Nelson, second by Brooks to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m.