Loading...
Planning Commission - 11/10/2003 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2003 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig, Fred Seymour, Kathy Nelson, Dave Steppat, Ray Stoelting, Bill Sutherland STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Mike Franzen, City Planner Jane Hovind, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Stoelting, Commissioners Brooks, Foote, Koenig, Nelson and Sutherland. Absent: Seymour and Steppat II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Koenig, second by Nelson, to approve the minutes. Motion carried, 6-0 III. MINUTES A. Minutes of the October 27, 2003 Community Planning Board Meeting MOTION by Sutherland, second by Brooks, to approve the agenda. Motion passed 4-0, Nelson and Koenig abstained IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TRAXLER OFFICE BUILDING by Keith Traxler. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office on .43 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on .43 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on .43 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on .43 acres, Site Plan Review on .43 acres, and Preliminary Plat of.43 acres on 1 lot. Location: 9340 Hennepin Town Road. Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2003 Page 2 Gary Sands presented the project. He stated the home on the property is in poor condition and needs to be torn down. They are proposing a small single story office building which should fit in well with other buildings in the area. He stated tree loss amounts to 200 diameter inches of trees of which 168 inches are mature silver maples. He said there is a lilac stand in rear of the lot that serves as a barrier to the abutting development. He said they intend to plant evergreens for privacy. Franzen stated the project is a guide plan change from low density residential to office for a 3,1000 square foot office building. He said staff supports an office building in this location; the building is small, one story, with a pitched roof. He stated the traffic generated will be on the weekdays. He said the site takes access to Hennepin Town Road and there will be no access into a residential area. Staff recommends approval with a requirement of a modified landscaping plan for tree replacement. Fox stated tree preservation is required of all projects before the board. He said the ordinance applies to woodland areas prior to subdivision. He compared Plan A and Plan B. He said Plan A allowed for 7 trees for every tree lost, Plan B which is the preferred plan allowed for 5 trees for every tree lost. He stated it is important to plant trees far enough apart to provide for room to grow and to avoid planting too many so that there isn't a need to remove trees due to crowding. Koenig asked Fox about the health of the lilac trees. Fox responded lilacs are dependent on good plant management practices and these are 10-15 feet tall. He said they are partially shaded and lilacs need full sun. Koenig asked if the proposal allows enough space for trees. Fox responded Plan B allows for enough room. He said it's necessary to look at what to do with redevelopment on residential property or small infill projects where trees on the property were planted, not grown as in a woodland area. Koenig stated she remembers a larger proposal in the past where a developer planted on park property and asked if this would be a possibility. Fox responded that according to the City Attorney it can't be required. Sutherland asked Franzen about the NURP pond requirement. Franzen responded with this smaller site a NURP pond isn't required. He said that a catch basin will be built to allow drainage to Hennepin Town Road and since there's not a lot of runoff the concern is with the quality of the water leaving the site. He stated a manhole will trap debris in the storm sewer. Sutherland asked who would maintain the catch basin. Franzen responded it's the City's responsibility to provide upkeep and to clean them out periodically if it's public, if private, then maintenance is up to the property owner. Nelson asked the proponent if they had a tenant for this building. Keith Traxler responded there is no specific customer for the building. Nelson asked if the area Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2003 Page 3 will remain office or whether if at some future date the building could become a restaurant. Franzen responded that commercial is not allowed in the office zoning district. Stoelting asked Franzen if he was comfortable with the number of parking spaces allowed for in the plans. He said there are eight offices in the building and questioned whether the parking could accommodate the employees. Franzen responded they need 5 spaces per 1000 s.f., according to code, but experience has shown that small office buildings generally use 3 spaces per 1000 s.f. Foote asked about how the neighbors feel about the office building. Sands responded he spoke to a couple of neighbors who were for the development because of the bad condition of the house and they're anxious to see it removed. MOTION by Sutherland, second by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 6-0 MOTION by Sutherland, second by Foote to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office on .43 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on .43 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on .43 acres, Zoning District Change From Rural to Office on .43 acres, Site Plan Review on .43 acres, and Preliminary Plat of.43 acres on 1 lot,based on plans dated October 8, 2003, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated November 7, 2003, to the City Council. Nelson asked if the Board needed to indicate the preferred tree replacement plan was Plan B in the motion. MOTION by Sutherland, second by Brooks, to amend the previous motion to indicate that tree replacement Plan B is the preferred plan. Motion carried, 6-0 B. HENNEPIN VILLAGE SITE A REZONING by Pemtom Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 30.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.55 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 on 2.55 acres, and Site Plan Review on 2.55 acres. Location: North of Highway 212, west of Spring Road. Dan Herbst of Pemtom Land Company presented the proposal. He indicated because of slow sales and input from consumers, they want to make changes within Site A. He said Hennepin Village is a very complex PUD consisting of approximately 270 acres. He asserted the development was not approved for one housing type, that there were four that were approved. He said the zoning code will not allow single and multi family to mix in the same area. He said an alternative would be to pick areas that have not been built on at this time. He stated he would Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2003 Page 4 still like to intermix the homes because the architecture is very similar. He commented that consumers had indicted they would like to have most of their living space on a single level. He said the homes are not historically accurate, design elements were taken from historic home and utilized in the architecture but they are not meant to be historic. He stated This plan will allow for utilization of the same single family lots since the doubles and triples are designed to fit on the lots. Herbst discussed the suggestions made by Miller-Dunwiddie Architects regarding gabling of the multifamily units. He stated he did not agree with the design; the proposed architecture in his plan was taken from historical home architecture and incorporated into the design of the homes in Hennepin Village. He stated the original plan is still intact and will not be significantly modified. He said the City Planner suggested incorporating the multi-family on Sites C & D. Herbst stated he would rather it be done on Site A. He said the single family homeowners will not be willing to wait for years to see neighboring homes sold. Herbst described the floor plans for the multi unit buildings. Franzen stated there are two fundamental principles of development in Eden Prairie. One is that zoning is based on a development plan. This way the Board, Council and neighbors know what will be built in a given area. The second is that developments are expected to alter their plans to conform to City code and policies. He stated when Pemtom brought in the Hennepin Village project; staff did not ask them to alter the design because the plans provided what the City expected,historic elements, trails, and considerable open space. The first time Pemtom brought in these changes, staff indicated that the use did not fit with the single family homes in Site A. The second time Pemtom discussed this with the staff; they added a list of reasons why the two and three unit buildings should be considered. Staff responded that the product still does not fit. After the third time of reviewing additional reasons why the City should consider the change, the staff thought that rather than just saying no,that it might be appropriate to see if the architecture of the two and three unit buildings could be designed to be more historically accurate and compatible with the single family homes, Staff decided to bring in a historic architect for ideas on how to make the two and three unit buildings more historically accurate. Franzen stated according to Miller- Dunwiddie Architects, the most important item to add to the project is a gable roof.. If the ideas by Miller Dunwiddie are considered a final design, then both the Ryland design and the Miller Dunwiddie design do not fit with the single family homes. Compatability of use and architecture is one item, consideration should be given to Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2003 Page 5 the people who have bought houses in the development with the belief that they would be living in a single family home development. For all of these reasons, staff is recommending completing Site A as originally proposed and do the changes on the other sites where no homes have been built or sold. Staff is recommending denial of the project. Herbst stated that the architect for Hennepin Village has done a masterful job on this site with the gables, Victorian design and shutters. Herbst stated he understands the City Planner's position but that planners are not architects and should not make architectural decisions. Herbst proceeded to discuss each revision of the plan that was referred to in the staff report. Revision 1 —Chanse In Architecture The one level product for the two and three unit buildings has a different architectural look than the two story single family homes. Herbst stated architecture is very subjective in nature and the architect has adapted the historic elements into the multifamily home. He said they are introducing a product consumers say is good. He said it's foolish to continue with single family homes in Site A since they're just not selling. Revisions 2— Chance In Open Space The zero lot line set back reduces internal open space between buildings by.37 acres. Herbst stated that this has absolutely no affect on the overall site. He said it is only .2% of the land mass. Revision 3 —Rezoning 33 Single Family Lots From R1-9.5 To RM-6.5 Multiple family buildings are not permitted in the single family zoning district. Herbst said that is why they are asking for the zoning change since it is not allowed. Revision 4—Chance in Product Mix The proposed mix is 84 townhouses units, 33 twin or three unit townhouses, and 27 single family homes. Herbst stated there is no reason that the townhouse units can't fit in Site A. He said Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2003 Page 6 he has shown that they will fit on the current site and if the City Planner believes it can work on Sites C and D, why not Site A. Herbst stated that he reviewed the planning staff report for the informational meeting when the Board was originally considering the Hennepin Village plat. He said the staff report listed the reasons for approving the comprehensive guide plan as the mix of land use, 71 acres of dedicated green space, closer service to existing and future developments south of Pioneer Trail and the architectural theme. He said the architectural design was not the main reason the project was approved. He said City Councilmembers have had all positive comments regarding the development. In the November 20, 2001 City Council public hearing, they had the following comments: Sherry Butcher stated this is a plan for a community that is about neighborhoods and incorporation of natural landscapes that fit into the topography and also into the historical aspects of the site and this project fits well into the growth of the southwest portion of the City by using density transfer to utilize open space for all to enjoy. Mayor Harris said the plan was delightful. It reflects many of the concepts the City has for this area. The historical, cultural and archeological resources are preserved, and 70 acres of open space would be donated to the City. Ron Case said he liked this project because it has new homes that have an old look, with the ambiance of front porches and gables. He also liked the trails and open spaces. Nancy Tyra-Lukens said she believed this is a beautiful neighborhood, building a community within the City. She liked the effort to work with the geography of the site regarding architecture. Ann Higgins who lives in Apple Valley stated she was representing her son who had signed a purchase agreement for one of the homes in the development. She stated she is impressed with the development and her son was very distressed about the possibility of the loss of the single family homes. She said when he purchased his home he thought the development would be unique. She stated her son believes that there would be many people interested in the product. Foote asked Herbst where this product has worked in the past. Herbst responded there is a development in Hopkins; the product sold out before there was a model. Foote asked if Herbst did a survey. He responded that there was no other choice for the Hopkin's area. He said in Eden Prairie people want the single level living space. Foote stated his favorite part of the development is the single family element. Herbst stated Pemtom had hoped that they would sell but that isn't the case. Nelson stated this development incorporates a large area of Eden Prairie. She said when it was approved it was with a mix of housing types and the most appealing Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2003 Page 7 aspect was the single family homes. She stated she had reservations about it from the beginning and she is not willing at this point to give up the single family housing. She stated she would like to see various designs of the single family homes and the lots may have to be adjusted to allow for the larger main floor and to allow for some medium and larger single family homes. She said she is concerned about the loss of the single family home element in such a large development. Brooks asked where the eight homes that were sold are located as to where he wanted to put the mix of homes. Herbst showed on a map where the homes were located. Herbst stated all sewer and water are in place and it would be very difficult to change the size of the lots. Brooks asked about price of single family homes; Herbst responded they were $350,000 - 375,000. Brooks asked if there was more square footage on the first floor of the multifamily home. Herbst responded there was. Brooks stated he disagrees with the mix of homes in the single family area, he said it should remain single family. Brooks asked how long the models have been complete. Herbst responded at least a year. Koenig asked Franzen to review the variance issues. She asked whether they would need waivers for these changes and she commented this change makes the development seem denser. Franzen responded that supporting the waivers and density transfer were a conscious decision because of what the City was getting in return; more open space and historic architecture.. He said the only real difference in the waivers is the multi-family buildings have zero lot lines and open space between buildings is lost. Koenig stated she was trying to visualize how the loss of the space would affect the development. . Koenig asked Herbst whether the eight homes that have sold were sold more recently, in other words, was there any momentum. Herbst responded it was very slow. Koenig asked about assessments and whether the price point increase had any affect on sales in the development. Herbst responded they have had a big affect on the price of the homes. Stoelting stated he would like input from each board member concerning the four amendments. Revision 1 Brooks stated he's fine with it. Nelson stated she is fine if the architecture remains historical. Foote stated the developer has done a great job with the architecture. Koenig stated she agreed that she had no problem with the architecture. She stated she would like it to be consistent. Sutherland stated the proponent has done a great job with the architecture. He said there's more than architectural design, it is the look and feel of a row of homes; the architecture of the single family houses is very appealing and he prefers the existing architecture. Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2003 Page 8 Revision 2 Brooks has no problem with that. Nelson stated when looking at the houses there is green space. She said if the side green space next to one of the townhouse areas is taken away, it leaves very little green space remaining. She stated if the green space is removed from the side, it should be added to the front; there should be a significant space of green when looking out the windows from the inside of the buildings. Foote stated that .37 acres is negligible and when putting in the larger buildings there will be the perception of less green space. Koenig stated she is not comfortable with this part and it's going to be overwhelming because the homes are going to be close together. She said she doesn't like the zero lot line. Sutherland stated the .37 acreage isn't that important but a few well placed areas of green space are important and it depends on where it's located. If it's in this area, it's very important. Revision 3 Brooks stated he has a problem with this. He would hate to be one of the eight who have bought homes only to find the area is going to be changed. He suggested considering alternatives such as buying the homes back. Nelson stated she could see area D as a good area for this type of mix. She agreed the homebuyers have specific expectations because these changes could affect property values. She said the north part of the site has a feel of a single family development. She stated she wanted to see more single family housing than is shown on the revision. Foote stated the change would be very unfair to homebuyers. He stated Site A is not an option for this type of mix but perhaps the other areas would work. Koenig stated she agreed the single family homeowners who have committed to that area expect it to be the way it was presented to them. She stated she empathizes with the proponent's situation but she is not for changing Site A and she was unsure of Sites C and D. Sutherland stated there is a lot to think about here. He said this was presented to the Planning Board as having a character that was considered consistent with the City's character. He stated the rezoning proposed here is a step backwards from the original proposal and he doesn't agree with it. Nelson stated that if this had come in originally with more multifamily, she would not have approved it. She stated she is sympathetic to the economic changes that are affecting sales but the development has made such an impact in the community, it's not a small change the proponent is asking. Revision 4 Brooks stated that when looking at a product this size, there needs to be a balance of product mix. He said the reason for changing this may not have anything to do with the product other than the historic architecture which is taller. He would like to see Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2003 Page 9 other designs and would like time to discuss this and figure whether this is the best mix. Nelson agreed with Brooks comments. Foote stated there needs to be a balance of the mix of homes which this proposal doesn't have. Koenig stated that one thing she looks at when looking at a southwest development in Eden Prairie are the natural resources in that area. She said while there seems to be a lot of open space, she did not want to see the single family homes squeezed out. The mix is not to her liking. Brooks asked if this would increase the density of the project. Franzen responded it would not. Sutherland stated it's difficult to answer the question, look at it out of context. He said for himself it's a question without an answer. Nelson asked why the assessments went up so much. Franzen responded that the feasibility numbers are based on estimates and actual numbers are based on construction costs. Brooks asked for an explanation of the costs. Franzen responded there was a change in the fire code and they now require sprinkler systems in homes. He stated this has been a change for this year, whereas in previous years it was not required. Brooks asked the total dollar estimate. Herbst responded feasibility estimates for sites A, B, C, and D were a total of$4,201,912 which was $8,222.92 per unit. Current pending assessments are a total of$6,713,434 which is a cost of$11,321.14 per unit. MOTION by Sutherland, second by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 6-0 MOTION by Sutherland, second by Koenig to recommend denial of a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 30.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.55 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 on 2.55 acres, and Site Plan Review on 2.55 acres, based on plans dated November 7, 2003, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated November 7, 2003, to the City Council,based on the following reasons: Rezoning the property as proposed would be inconsistent with the approved planned unit development. The proposed two and three unit product type architecture is inconsistent with the approved architecture of the planned unit development. The waiver for zero lot line setback reduces open space Brooks asked if this motion passes what it would mean for the proponent. Franzen stated if it's denied,he can still go before the City Council. Koenig asked if they had any other recourse. Brooks stated the Board could move to continue. Koenig stated would the proponent have anything else to show. Stoelting stated they Board would direct him to do so. Stoelting asked for a roll call vote on the motion. Brooks, nay; Foote, aye; Nelson, Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2003 Page 10 aye; Koenig, aye; Sutherland, aye; Stoelting, aye. Motion carried, 5-1. Foote stated that there is a possibility for it to work in Sites C and D and the proponent could come forward with that product planned for that area. VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS Franzen stated he wanted to make sure that there would be quorum for the Planning Board meeting of November 24. He said there is a variance request for the Bergeland property and an informational meeting for the Pidcock property. All members except Stoelting indicated they plan on attending that meeting. Franzen said the second item of business concerned the meeting on December 22. He said there normally isn't a meeting during Christmas week and it would require a motion from the board to cancel that meeting. Foote asked how important the two items are that are planned for the November 24 meeting. Franzen responded there are a number of new projects that may possibly go to the December 8 meeting and he would like to spread them out between the two meetings. Stoelting asked how many projects are scheduled for December 22. Franzen responded there is nothing scheduled at this time and applicants are aware that they are scheduled for the first week in January. Nelson stated that the week of Christmas may be a difficult time for residents to attend the meeting. All members agreed that it should be cancelled. MOTION by Sutherland, second by Nelson, to cancel the December 22, 2003 Community Planning Board meeting. Motion carried, 6-0. IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Nelson, second by Koenig to adjourn. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m.