Loading...
Planning Commission - 12/13/2004 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 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 Gene Dietz, Director of Public Works 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: Vicki Koenig, Fred Seymour and William Sutherland. Pete Rocheford was absent after the first public hearing. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Brooks, to make Item 6A, Item 4A, and to approve agenda. Motion carried 6-0. III. MINUTES A. PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 22, 2004 MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Brooks, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 5-Koenig and Rocheford abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS A. HENNEPIN VILLAGE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE OFFICE TO LOW ANDMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, by Dan Herbst, Hennepin Village LP. Location: North of Highway 212, east of Spring Road. Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 2 Franzen stated that the developer is asking that the application be continued to the February 14 meeting. V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING A. THE POINTE ON LAKE RILEY By G & L Land Investments, LLC for 9004 Riley Road. This is an informational meeting for the developer to present a plan to develop four single-family lots along the north shore of Lake Riley. Steve Longman,partner of G & L Land Investments,presented the proposal. Mr. Longman stated that they have two plans; one that conforms to City code; the other requires a waiver for a private road. He added that the private road plan saves more trees. Mr. Longman stated that they do need some direction from the Planning Board as to which direction to go; either a private or public road. Stoelting asked Mr. Longman if he could discuss the maps that were in the Planning Board packet. Mr. Longman presented the conceptual plan for the public road. This road would come up along the property line, past the purposed ponding and past the wetland to a cul-de-sac. Mr. Longman stated that City requirements for a public road have restrictions as to width and in order to maintain the City's pitch of the road, it is difficult to do so on this site. It can be done through grading,but it would have more impact on the trees. He stated that if they were to go to a conceptual plan for a private road, the road would not have to be so wide. A private road would not have the restrictions along the side of the road as far as retaining walls, spaces for snowplows; and also the grades can be a little greater, which also means less impact on the land and trees. Instead of it being a cul-de-sac, it would be more in the shape of a Y. Mr. Longman stated that this plan was presented to the fire marshal and it was okayed by him. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. After looking at both alternatives and taking into consideration the lakes, the trees, and the wetlands,both plans do a good job,but the private road plan has more merit because there is less hard surface area, less retaining walls, and more trees would be saved. The tradeoff for that benefit would be granting a waiver for the private road. Franzen stated that private roads are not uncommon in Eden Prairie because they are used in areas where there are some environmental features on the property that are worth preserving. The staff is comfortable with either approach but feels that the private road plan is a better choice for the development of the property. Stoelting Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 3 opened the meeting up for public input. John Bushey, of 9000 Riley Lake Road, stated that he feels that it is important to know the history of the property that is to be developed. Mr. Bushey stated that the land now known as Riley Estates is the three lots out on the peninsula that has been a unique part of Eden Prairie. This land is surrounded by the lake and farmland on either side. Mr. Bushey presented overhead views and stated that since 1945 this land has been untouched. It has been a retreat for the rotary and a Presbyterian church camp. Most recently, it has been three private lots,roughly 5 acres each. Mr. Bushey further stated that as far back as anyone can remember, this land has always been a fully canopied peninsula of mature oaks, basswood and maples and that two of the three owners are committed to preserving this appearance from the lake and from the roadside in its current state. The proposed plan for lot three, even the one with the shared driveway, calls for clear cutting nearly two contiguous acres of the 4 1/2 acre lot. Mr. Bushey also stated that this would leave only a few token trees between the closely spaced homes; leaving the remaining trees at risk. Mr. Bushey showed road plans that outlined the areas cleared of the canopy and the significant difference it will make in the character of the property. He stated that many of the remaining trees, even the ones outside of these areas, are going to be at risk from a couple of sources. The trees have grown together for years and have formed this canopy; supporting and protecting each other from the elements. Because of this, the trees left remaining, after the clearing, are going to be exposed and susceptible to windfall. Mr. Bushey also stated that the number of trees that he has counted that would be taken down is 70 trees for the public road and 55 trees for the shared private driveways. He also felt that more trees will be taken down because the residents will want to look out at the lake so the trees between the houses and lake will also be coming down. Mr. Bushey would like the City to work with the developer to find a way to respect what this land means to the community. Ken Ross, of 8976 English Turn, which is located inside the Bearpath gate, stated that he would like to address the issue of the condition of Riley Lake Road and the significant increase of noise due to the construction. Mr. Ross's request is that if development is going to happen that the small stretch of Riley Lake Road be better paved,because the noise of the construction vehicles would be very disruptive. Kurt Niederluecke, of 5565 Waterford Circle, Shorewood, is the attorney representing Ron and Virginia Lund. Mr. Lund was not able to make the meeting but enclosed a letter in the packet. On behalf on Mr. Lund, Mr. Niederluecke stated that the Lund's purchased their property approximately four years ago. This property is adjacent to the subject Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 4 property. The concern for the Lunds is the loss of trees and also the fact that a private or public driveway will obliterate the Lund's current driveway, of which they have a deeded access on that property. Also, from viewing the original pictures from the developer, it shows how close the driveway and the house are to the adjacent property. The Lunds have two structures on their property and there would be almost no land between their structures and the proposed house. Mr. Niederluecke stated the concern of the Lunds is that when they look into their yard, they will end up looking right into the back of one of their new unwanted neighbor's houses. So in conclusion, the Lunds feel that the best use of this land would be for a single home development that can be used with respect for the land, instead of destroying the land. Bob Adimitus, of 9503 Ivy Drive, stated that his residence is across the lake from the proposed development and he just has one question. Is this plot of land part of the Big Woods and if it is part of the Big Woods, are the restrictions on tree removal and tree destruction comparable to the restrictions that were placed on the Big Woods development? Greg Halvorson, of 9536 Lakeland Terrace, which is located in the southeast corner of Lake Riley,had one question for the Board. He stated that it seemed unique that this should be the only parcel on Lake Riley in Eden Prairie that would have multiple dwellings on it. His question was that if this is the case is it the same for other lake properties in Eden Prairie. If it is so, he does not feel that it is appropriate. Stoelting asked him if he meant are there any more lakeside properties in Eden Prairie and Mr. Halvorson responded by stating that that was correct; on other lakes in Eden Prairie with multiple dwellings on one site. Wallace Anderson, whose property is east, three sites removed from the proposed development, questioned if in the proposal the developer would be paying for water and sewer that is not on the existing Riley Lake Road. Stoelting summarized by stating that Staff can address a good number of these issues and some issues might be better addressed by the project proponent. Mr. Longman addressed the issue of respect for quality versus quantity by stating that they are being respectful of the existing trees and part of this site is on a bluff and that will be designed to comply with the bluff ordinance. The next issue Mr. Longman addressed was anticipated vehicle noise associated with the poor condition of Riley Lake Road. He stated that they are proposing to extend the utilities along the road and that they will repave it. The next issue was the obliteration of the Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 5 deeded access along the Lund driveway. Mr. Longman stated that they will be respectful of that deed but that it is for everyone's use; it is not an exclusive access. He stated that they are deeded to use it and they will acknowledge that. The issue of setbacks between the development and the Lunds development was also addressed Mr. Longman stated that the R122 rezoning is compatible with the City ordinance and that they, in fact, exceed that in regard to lot size because there is quite a bite of distance between the houses. Mr. Longman stated that they will replace as many of the trees as possible. Stoelting asked Franzen to address some of the questions in regards to the uses of the property. Franzen responded by stating that there are three parcels on this point that are guided as low density residential. That means it is up to 2 1/2 units per acre. On a 4 1/2 acre site, that could accommodate up to 12 units. In looking at this property, it cannot accommodate 12 units. Franzen stated that in developing this site, one must take into account both lot size requirements and shoreline requirements, which are slightly larger lots, in order to preserve the character of the lakeshore. Dietz responded to the utility issue by stating that the question of when to approve Riley Lake Road has been asked for at least 23 years. He stated that this is an expensive project and previously, Bearpath funded half of this road. The concerns about this road are mainly coming from the Chanhassen residents. Many of the homes in the area are not homesteaded and there are no provisions for capping special assessments. Dietz stated that the proposal will bring sewer and water to this project. The Council has ordered a feasibility study. Fox addressed the tree issue. He stated that this wood is remnants of Big Woods. The reason that it is in the same condition is the result of topography. As far as the health of the trees, they are very healthy. The things that will impact the health of these trees would be the road construction, retaining walls, and utility lines. He commented about the slope, stating that there are places in the City where there are slopes and people have taken trees down for access to the dock area. Stoelting addressed the Board for questions. Nelson asked the Staff if there was going to be a conservation easement to make sure the trees along the lake stay put as much as possible. Franzen responded that this has not been discussed yet,but would be addressed in the zoning review of the project. Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 6 Nelson asked what percentage of tree loss would there be. Fox responded by stating that for the public road it would be 38 percent and for the private road it would be 28 percent,based on the concept layout. Nelson asked if the road was equipped to handle school buses going in and out of the development. Franzen responded that he was not sure if school buses travel on private roads. Nelson responded by stating that they do go in for kindergartners and this could potentially be an issue. Nelson also asked who would be required to snow plow the private road, the City or the homeowner association. Dietz responded that it would be privately done by the association. Brooks asked how many other parcels of land on Lake Riley may be potentially sub-divided. Franzen responded that he knows of two larger ones on the point; there maybe some smaller ones that could be divided in half. Nelson made a comment regarding that a private drive would be a better alternative in regards to tree loss and would like to see a conservation easement. Stoltz asked if there were restrictions placed on Big Woods and the subdivisions in the past. Fox responded by stating that what first came out of the post-subdivision was that they wanted Eden Prairie to purchase the property,but the City did not have the money at the time. What came out of it, eventually, were significant conservation easements and setbacks. Kacher asked Kurt Niederluecke, attorney for the Lunds, to clarify what was written in Mr. Lund's letter regarding that the setback limitations were not consistent with the City requirements. Niederluecke responding by stating that part of this had to do with the rezoning from rural and asked Franzen if that was correct. Franzen responded by stating that other properties are zoned rural until sewer and water are extended to the property. The rural side yard setback is 50 feet. The R1-22 side yard setback is 15 feet. Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 7 Niederluecke stated that Mr. Lund was concerned with the reduction of the setback and that it would ultimately reflect on the value of his property, along with the aesthetic value. Kacher asked how the City dealt with such situations in the past. Franzen responded that if there is industrial or commercial next to residential there is typically a buffer or transition because that is required by the ordinance. But when there is residential or rural, the City does not require a buffer zone or transition. When you have an R-19.5 next to an R113.5 there is no buffer zones between those districts. Kacher asked if there was anything that could be done to protect Mr. Lund in this case. Franzen stated that according to code, the City cannot require a larger setback. Kacher asked if Franzen had any recommendations for the developer. Franzen stated that the buildings could be shifted east to create a bigger setback, but it may create other problems such as wetland fill and/or increased tree loss. Kacher stated that he supports a private driveway but would like to see the developer work with the other homeowners to address this issue. Stoelting concluded the informational meeting by giving the project proponent guidance for the next meeting. He stated that the Board is looking for a proposal that minimizes the loss of the trees. Second to explore a conservation easement. Stoelting also stated that the Staff seemed to favor the private road proposal over the public road because it impacts fewer trees. And finally the frontage issue, if there could be a possibility to move the buildings around and create more setback for the adjacent Lund property. This proposal would require rezoning the site from rural to R1-22. VI. PUBLIC HEARING A. HENNEPIN VILLAGE OFFICE - COMMERCIAL GUIDE PLAN CHANGE AND PUD AMENDMENT by United Properties. Location: North of Highway 212, east of Spring Road. This is a request for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Industrial on 20 acres. Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 8 A Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from neighborhood Commercial to Office on 4.5 acres, and a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 51 acres. Bill Catter, of United Properties and Ed Farr, project architect, presented the proposal. Mr. Catter stated that the nature of the request was to obtain more flexibility to this site. Mr. Catter stated that he felt the flexibility of adding industrial would benefit the City. Mr. Farr showed an overhead presentation outlining the importance of this request for the guide plan change. United Properties would like to make this site more marketable and the view over the bluff is a very key feature for the office space. They will be submitting a very detailed plan in the near future. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that page 4 of the staff report lists two recommended land use plans. The square footage is fixed on building sites 1, 2, and 3 for office and industrial, 4, 5, and 6 have a range because there would be the possibility of multiple stories. And for building sites 7, 8, and 9, the Staff would still like to reserve the possibility for something larger than 9,000 sq. ft. for retail. The Staff recommendation for this is on page 2 of the staff report. The Staff is recommending Alternative Two, which is an alternative land use plan, an alternative PUD plan for the property. Stoelting opened the meeting up to public input. There was no public input. Nelson asked the Staff when guiding this industrial, does it mean light industrial or just what kind of industrial. Franzen responded by stating that once zoned industrial, any industrial use is permitted. He also stated that the one thing that the City was concerned about when they did the guide plan change from residential to office was that the City did not want to end up with an industrial park similar to the Shady Oak Industrial Park. Nelson asked if this layout would not allow any industrial that had heavy industrial usage. Franzen stated that the guiding would allow any industrial use;but the zoning of the property is where the restrictions will occur, such as screened back areas, buffer zones to residential, and exterior materials will likely preclude heavy industrial use. Stoelting asked the project proponent if he had any problems accepting Alternative Two. Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 9 Project proponent stated that they do not; they are supportive of Alternative Two. MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Nelson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Nelson, to approve Alternative Two for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Office/ Industrial on 17 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office/Neighborhood Commercial/Industrial on 14.5 acres. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 51 acres with Building sites 1, 2, and 3 concept approval 205,150 square feet office and industrial. Building sites 4, 5, and 6 concept approval for 228,000—352,000 square feet office, and Building sites 7, 8, and 9 concept approval for 9,000—30,000 square feet neighborhood commercial, and 64,400 square feet office and industrial. Motion carried 6-0. B. EDEN DEVELOPMENT ADDITION,by Eden Development. Location: 7875 Fuller Road. This is a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3 acres. A Planned Unit Development District Review on 3 acres. Zoning District Change from 1-General to 1-2 on 3 acres. Site Plan Review on 3 acres. Elmer Woodall, and Bill Dahl, owners of the property,presented the proposal. Mr. Woodall stated that they have 22,800 square feet of property. The back area of this property is being rented out to Waterpro for pipe storage. Mr. Woodall stated that they would like to make better use of that property and not have any outdoor storage. They would like to build a tenant space in the back with access off of the side road, making the building L shaped with access from two different side streets. Mr. Woodall explained the concept using the overheard projector. He stated that the main entrance is 20 ft. wide and they would like to increase that to 28 feet. There is parking along the front of the building now and they would like to increase that to have a double row of parking and increase the side parking, and also increase the turn-around area for semi-trucks, so they can come in and turn around. The main entrance would be off the side street of Fuller Road. Mr. Woodall and Mr. Dahl would like to use this for a tenant office warehouse. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that the staff recommendation if for approval, according to the recommendations on page 3 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 10 MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Kacher to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Kacher, for approval of a request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 3 acres, Zoning District Change from I- General to I-2 on 3 acres, and Site Plan Review on 3 acres, based on plans dated November 22, 2004, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated December 10, 2004, to the City Council. Motion carried 5-0. C. MAINTENANCE OUTDOOR STORAGE SITE,by the City of Eden Prairie. Location: 9955 Flying Cloud Drive. This is rezoning from Rural to I-General on 17 acres. Gene Dietz stated that the City acquired these 17 acres of land in 2002. The Parks and Public Works Department saw this site as an opportunity to store sand/salt and space for vehicles and off-season equipment storage. Mr. Dietz stated that they have a proposed grading plan for the site and a concept plan,but at this time, there is no particular site plan. He stated that he is here tonight to get the zoning approval to move ahead in this project. Stoelting asked Franzen if the Staff had any additional comments and Franzen stated no. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Brooks, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Brooks, to recommend approval of a request for Rezoning from Rural to I-General on 17 acres, based on plans dated December 10, 1004, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated December 10, 2004, to the City Council. Motion carried 5-0. VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS IX. NEW BUSINESS X. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen stated that there will be no meeting December 27, 2004. Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2004 Page 11 XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Brooks, to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 5-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.