Planning Commission - 12/08/2003 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 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
Al Gray, City Engineer
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, Seymour, Steppat, and Sutherland.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Koenig, second by Steppat, to approve the agenda. Motion carried, 8-0
III. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the November 24, 2003 Community Planning Board Meeting
Steppat stated that on page four the second sentence should read. "He stated he
would be comfortable with option four or some variation thereof."
MOTION by Seymour, second by Steppat, to approve the minutes. Motion passed
8-0, Koenig and Stoelting abstained
IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BROOKVIEW RIDGE by David and Patricia Smith. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 4.56 acres, Planned Unit Development District
Review with waivers on 4.56 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on
4.56 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 4.56 acres into 5 lots. Location: 9780 Brookview
Circle.
Planning Board Minutes
December 8, 2003
Page 2
The owners are requesting a continuance to the January 12, 2004 meeting.
Franzen stated this item had been before the board previously. The proponent had
been directed to reduce grading and tree impacts. They need additional time to
review it and are asking for a continuance to the January 12 meeting.
MOTION by Steppat, second by Koenig, to recommend a continuance to the
January 12, 2004, meeting. Motion carried, 8-0
B. LAMETTRY TIRE SHOP by Richard LaMettry. Request for Zoning District
Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 1.22 acres and Site Plan
Review on 1.22 acres. Location: East of Plaza Drive, west of I-494.
The owners are requesting a continuance to the January 12, 2004 meeting.
Franzen stated there are two reasons for continuance. The developer is out of town
and the building needs to be redesigned to address screening of the loading area and
mechanical equipment.
MOTION by Koenig, second by Nelson, to recommend a continuance to the January
12, 2004, meeting. Motion carried, 8-0
C. HENNEPIN VILLAGE SITE C & D REZONING by Pemtom Land Company.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 64.9 acres, Planned
Unit Development District Review on 11.99 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-
9.5 to RM 6.5 on 11.99 acres, and Site Plan Review on 11.99 acres. Location: North
of Highway 212, east of Spring Road.
Dan Herbst of Pemtom Land Company presented the project. He stated when trying
to meet submission guidelines for the November Community Planning Board
meeting he was unable to get all the information together in time; as a result,he
presented Site A separately from Sites C and D. He displayed a map of the area and
stated he is requesting a rezoning of 113 single family lots to RM-6.5, multifamily.
He said they are planning on using the same architectural elements in the multifamily
homes as they have used in the single family. He stated there is no request to change
the density, they are merely substituting twin and triple homes on the single family
sites. He said another request is to change the city code to allow an intermix of
multifamily and single family homes.
He said the twin homes and three-plexes will have most of the living area on one
level, the landscaping and streetscape will remain the same although there will be a
loss of 4.6 acres of green space. He asserted they are anxious to get the homes built
and sold.
Planning Board Minutes
December 8, 2003
Page 3
Franzen stated that staff is recommending approval based on the narrative from the
developer which stated that if the mixed use zoning district is not in place they will
agree to the 40 homes converted to multifamily. The developer has reaffirmed his
initial intention that the board should act on all of the lots. He said there are
questions that need to be addressed such as whether single family housing is an
important product type and, if so, where it should be located. Another question
would be how many single family homes need to be maintained as part of the
development.
Brooks stated that in the original plan there were 760 lots. He asked what percentage
are proposed to be single family. Herbst responded that of Sites C & D approxi-
mately 28% are single family with 83 in C and 30 in D; Site A now has 27 single
family lots.
Brooks asked the square footage of the multifamily units. Herbst responded
approximately 1,100 - 1,300 square feet. He said they would have basements with
ingress/egress windows to allow finishing the lower level.
Nelson stated the letter said the houses were to accommodate work force housing
and asked Herbst how much the homes will cost. Herbst responded they start at
$265,000 and the final price is approximately $325,000. Nelson asked if there are
any priced as work force housing. Herbst responded they are workforce housing.
Nelson asked if he would leave single family homes in Site B. Herbst responded
because the topography is so severe, they have already done a great deal of grading
which did result in loss of trees. Nelson stated she is concerned about the loss of the
single family housing and she suggested possibly designing Site B with single family
homes. Herbst stated he hasn't explored that possibility since he is now unsure what
type of single family house would sell. The multifamily homes are selling well with
70 sales out of 144. The single family sales still remain slow. Nelson asked Herbst
why he took out the green space rather than removing a home here and there to
preserve the green space. Herbst responded that he can't afford to lose any of the
homes because of increased costs due to infrastructure and higher assessments.
Steppat asked Herbst if he was of the opinion that no single family home design will
sell. Herbst responded that he needs to keep the project going and single family
homes aren't selling currently. He said the consumer wants single level living areas
which these townhomes and three-plexes will provide. Steppat asked if Herbst had
considered going with the original plan and redesigning the single family homes with
single level living areas. Herbst responded the footprint is too small for a larger
home and he is trying to accommodate consumer demands with the least amount of
change to the plan.
Foote stated the single family home element design was what intrigued him from the
beginning with this project. He said in Site A 33 are changed. He asked if the
developer were to stay with that proportion on Sites C and D, what kind of hardship
Planning Board Minutes
December 8, 2003
Page 4
that would cause. Herbst responded he was afraid it wouldn't work and they would
have to come back before the Board; they would rather have all the lots changed to
multifamily. He said all three products could be offered and demand would be
determined by market demand. Foote asked when the homes would be completed.
Herbst responded they are behind on the single family homes, Site A should be
complete in 1 1/2 years and then they will start on Sites C and D. Herbst stated it is a
bad time of year and if the pace picks up they could build more single family homes
in the multifamily district. He said the change in code allows flexibility in types of
homes built and he wouldn't need to come before the Board again.
Foote asked for staff input regarding this overlay zoning. Franzen stated the City
can't spot zone. The City cannot create a zoning district for this project only. If the
City considers changing single family to allow multiple family or multiple family to
allow single family, the city wide implications must be studied. There are vacant
single family lots scattered throughout the community in established neighborhoods.
Building a multiple family unit would be inconsistent with neighborhood expecta-
tions and existing single family homes could be converted to multiple family. He
stated the easiest way to go would be to change the code to allow single family in a
multifamily zoning district. Franzen added that if the area is zoned multiple family it
will be developed as all multiple family, since the developer will not make a
commitment to build any amount of single family.
Koenig asked the developer what the difference in square footage is between the
single family and multifamily homes. Herbst responded the two story single family
homes have approximately 1,800 square feet which includes both the upper and
lower levels; the multifamily has 1,200 - 1,400 square feet. Koenig asked where the
square footage is lost. Herbst explained with the single family the upper level allows
for additional bedrooms.
Koenig asked whether the price point would change with the multifamily homes.
Herbst responded the one story rambler style is going to cost about the same. She
asked with the single family, duplex and tri homes mixture how that would affect
association dues. Herbst responded nothing changes everyone would pay the same.
He explained that there will be differences between the single family and multi
family. Koenig stated it didn't make sense that single family homeowners would pay
the same rates for association dues as multifamily homeowners.
Nelson asked staff to explain the front yard setbacks that have been agreed to
initially with this development and what they would be without the waivers. Franzen
responded that in this development, the single family homes have setbacks of 10 feet
in the front, 10 feet in the rear,regular setbacks would be 30 in the front and 25 in
the rear.
Planning Board Minutes
December 8, 2003
Page 5
Nelson asked how close the homes are to the airport flight path. Franzen answered
they are not in the safety zones and none in this site are located in the 60 or 65 noise
contours, although a portion of Site A is in those areas.
Nelson asked what typical setbacks would be for multifamily housing. Franzen
responded for RM- 6.5 it would be a setback of 30 feet in front and 20 feet between
the buildings. These buildings have 14 feet between them. She asked what the City
was getting in return for this product as opposed to what other developers have
provided. Franzen responded there isn't anything out there with this size floor plan.
Other developments offer larger homes (1,500 - 1,800 s.f.) with an equal amount in
the lower level, with some plans at approximately 4,000 s. f. and costing between
$500,000 - 600,000. Franzen said the City is getting open space dedicated, common
space, a trail system, and diversity of home types. He said it's important to look at
the homes and ask if they are a better design and if the waivers weren't granted the
City wouldn't have all these items in return.
Nelson asked staff the minimum width for doorways in the single level townhomes
would measure. Franzen responded he didn't know about interior doors but the
exterior entrance and exit doors need to be at least 36 inches. He said the interior
doors would be a minimum of 30 inches and would be 36 - 42 inches for
handicapped accessibility.
Nelson asked Herbst about the door widths. Herbst stated he wasn't sure about door
sizes. Nelson asked how many stairs there were from the garage into the house.
Herbst responded there are 2-4 steps. She asked how many there were on the front of
the homes. Herbst answered that there was one step. Nelson said that she would like
to know if the homes will be handicap accessible to those who would want single
level living and until she has those answers, she can't agree to the changes.
Stoelting asked where the single family housing is currently located. Herbst
displayed a diagram and showed that they were in Site A in the center of the site.
Steppat asked how many of the single family homes had sold. Herbst answered ten
with some lot holds. Steppat stated he is troubled because the project keeps coming
back to the Board. He said there are people who have bought single family homes in
the development and they have certain expectations. He said even though it does
seem as though the single family homes are not selling; he said he was not in favor
of mixing single family and multifamily and would want single family retained in
some areas of the development.
Brooks asked what type of grading could be done to allow a different type of single
family home on Sites C and D. Herbst responded that curb cuts and grading has
been done and utilities are installed; it would be very difficult to make changes.
Brooks asked if multifamily were already built. Herbst responded they had been
built in some areas. Brooks stated that he saw the need for changes in Site A. He
Planning Board Minutes
December 8, 2003
Page 6
said with the scope of this project it's difficult to deal with it as a whole. He stated
he would reluctantly approve the request because it wasn't good to have the property
not selling.
Sutherland asked Herbst how many levels were in the current multifamily homes.
Herbst responded the Carriage homes are three levels and the Heritage homes have a
walkout with bedrooms on the lower level. Sutherland stated that Herbst indicated
single family isn't selling because it's not single level yet the multifamily homes are
selling well and aren't single level homes either. He asked why Herbst believes that
the single level multifamily homes would sell better since he hasn't built any of those
particular homes yet. Herbst responded that there are similar developments that are
selling well and it's a new concept which is consumer driven. Sutherland stated his
concern was the risk involved. He said single family didn't work, perhaps the
multifamily might not either. Herbst responded there are no guarantees. Sutherland
asked Herbst if the area was still just an open field, would he still build multifamily.
Herbst responded he may have come up with something different.
Stoelting asked if the request was originally to withdraw the rezoning request on Site
D and the eastern portion of Site C. Herbst responded the original plan was to
rezone all 113 lots to multifamily. He said if that didn't work, a portion would
remain single family. He showed the site plan and stated the product will be
unattached and mixed with multifamily. He asserted the streetscape would be very
attractive with the multifamily and single family homes mixed.
Stoelting stated they would need to modify the zonings in order to intermingle single
family and multifamily. Franzen said the proponent can ask for a code amendment or
work within the requirements of a particular zoning. He stated if he were to petition
for a zoning code change it could be a mix of single family and multifamily.
Stoelting said he would be agreeable to a phased approach toward single family
housing rather than eliminating it. Herbst responded he didn't want to eliminate
single family altogether. He said the Ryland Company feels strongly about the
project and he would be willing to return for a code change.
Foote stated he would have been reluctant to support the project had this been
requested at the beginning. He stated he doesn't want Herbst to come back over and
over. Franzen asked Herbst if Ryland thinks they should do a certain number of lots
this year or do a certain number next year. Herbst responded they don't have a
certain number and current homeowners don't seem to be opposed.
Koenig asked what type of housing would be going in next to the open space
adjacent to the park. Herbst responded there will be 52 townhomes in the $500,000
range. Koenig stated she is not against a mix as it will allow for variety but doesn't
agree with single family and multifamily intermingled as people in single family
homes won't like it. She said the development will look very different and appear
Planning Board Minutes
December 8, 2003
Page 7
much denser because of less open space and this is a real concern. She said she is
very confused about the Council's action to remove single family and replace with
multifamily. Koenig stated she is concerned it will remain all multifamily or just a
small number of single homes will be placed throughout the development.
Nelson asked if there is a way to guarantee certain sizes of interior doors. Franzen
responded there aren't requirements in the zoning code but there would be in the
building and fire codes.
Nelson stated she believes people are not attracted to the area because it looks like a
multifamily development. She said if the zoning is changed, she is not convinced
there will be single family homes built there. She stated the single level multifamily
homes need to provide amenities for people with needs for one level living. She
commented that if there was single family housing near the entrances, more interest
might be sparked in the development.
Koenig stated that the new units aren't family friendly. They're small and geared
toward empty nesters. She said she's not comfortable with it.
Brooks stated that the challenges are that the curb cuts, sewer and utilities are in and
because of this it confines the developer to what's existing for building pads.
Foote stated Site D could be totally redone to accommodate single level single
family homes if Herbst chose to do so. Herbst stated the single family houses will
not be adaptable on the perimeter of the site because of the alleys. He stated in order
to fit in the site they would have to move the garages into the front of the homes.
Stoelting stated Site A has a mix of multifamily. He asked if Sites C and D should
be done similar to Site A allowing for single family housing. Herbst responded they
would like to do a mix and if they can't they would want to do all multifamily.
Steppat stated he is not in favor of a mix of single family and multifamily on the
same block. He said he doesn't favor setting up block by block and would prefer all
multifamily and a separate site for single family. He said he believes there is a large
population of empty nesters who need this type of housing.
Stoelting commented that the recurring theme he's hearing from Board members is
that they are not in favor of a mix of single family and multifamily on the same
block. He asked members if they would be comfortable with not intermixing and
how they felt about single family eliminated altogether.
Brooks stated that if this is how the project had been presented originally, he would
not have supported it. He said he's a little more comfortable with the project but
doesn't like the mixed housing.
Planning Board Minutes
December 8, 2003
Page 8
Nelson said she's okay with single level housing but is not comfortable with the
project and has not been from the beginning. She also would never have agreed to it
if it had been presented this way originally. If the single level housing is done
correctly it would be marketable.
Foote stated he doesn't support intermingling of single family and multifamily on the
same block.
Steppat said he doesn't support intermingling but would be okay with sections of
single family and multifamily. He said had this project come in originally this way
he wouldn't have supported it.
Koenig stated she didn't support intermingling or all multifamily housing.
Seymour stated he appreciates the complexity of the site. He continued the market
and dynamics of Eden Prairie have changed and there are just a few bits of
developable land remaining. He thought that originally they would be developed
differently and was disappointed about the lack of single family housing in this
development. He said it's important to get it developed and not let it sit but he's not
in favor of intermingling the multifamily and single family.
Sutherland stated that intermingling did not make sense. They need to look at an
incremental approach which is something that has not been tried. He said in looking
at Site C there could be a change to multifamily on the east side.
Koenig stated that they have ignored Site B and asked what the plans are for that
area. Herbst responded that the development of Site B will be a couple of years out
and he's not ready to commit to that area currently. Koenig asked whether Site B
would consist of multifamily or single family. Herbst responded there were
originally 180 homes and now there are 167. There are 51 single family, 64 Heritage
townhomes, and 64 Carriage townhomes. Koenig said the state of the economy is a
factor and it's important to look at the long range since single family may be selling
better in a year or two.
Foote stated he was not happy with the lack of single family homes and reduction of
square footage which means there will be no families in this development. He said
he hopes the east side of Site C can incorporate single family.
Koenig stated that when the development was originally presented, it was with single
family homes aimed at families. She asked staff if there will be an affect on traffic
numbers with a mix of multi and single family. Gray responded there would be very
little difference in traffic.
Stoelting stated the consensus of the Board indicates they don't want to mix single
family and multiple family on the same block. He asked if Herbst could look at a
Planning Board Minutes
December 8, 2003
Page 9
middle ground with Site C. Herbst responded they could rezone and then wait and
address the site later.
Foote stated it sounds like a good approach to take the one section at this time and
asked if that would be acceptable. Herbst responded Ryland would not like it as the
homes are consumer driven.
Nelson agreed with Foote that she would like the eastern part of Site C to be returned
to single family. She stated there would be enough room to allow a house that would
have some first floor space area. She suggested two or three architectural designs
that differ from those not selling.
Stoelting suggested a phased approach in that the western portion of Sites C & D
would be changed and the eastern side of Site C would not be. He asked the board
for input as to a phased approach.
Sutherland stated that he would be for an incremental approach on Site C.
Seymour stated he would not be opposed to increments.
Koenig said an incremental approach would be good.
Steppat said he would support an incremental approach.
Foote agreed that the incremental approach would be good and the Board can look at
other areas in the future.
Nelson stated she agreed with the incremental approach and would like a full
building season to pass before bringing the project back.
Brooks agreed with increments.
Koenig liked the idea of a variety of single family homes and placement of those
homes on the perimeter of Site C.
MOTION by Sutherland, second by Nelson, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried, 8-0
MOTION by Sutherland, second by Foote, to approve the request to rezone 40
single family lots to multiple family in the west portion of Site C.
Franzen said the Board must make a recommendation to the Council in regard to the
remaining units.
Foote stated the motion should indicate they are for the rezoning of 40 lots in the
Planning Board Minutes
December 8, 2003
Page 10
western portion of Site C but not in favor of rezoning the remaining lots in Site D.
Stoelting read the amended motion as move to approve the request to rezone 40
single family lots to multiple family in the west portion of Site C. Deny the request
to rezone 29 single family lots to multiple family in Site D and the request to rezone
44 single family lots to multiple family in the eastern portion of Site C. Foote
seconded.
Seymour stated that the developer can still develop the sites as proposed earlier.
A vote was taken: Brooks, Foote, Koenig, Nelson Seymour, Steppat, Sutherland,
and Stoelting voted aye. Motion carried, 8-0.
Herbst responded the Board has looked at it hard and feels the project is challenging.
He said they're looking at unique projects with the hope of being flexible.
Koenig told the developer she appreciates the open space and park space fees.
VI. INFORMATIONAL MEETING
A. INFORMATIONAL MEETING—KLEVE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT by
Dennis Kleve. Request for Informational meeting to discuss a Guide Plan Change
from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial, Rezoning from Rural and I-2 to
Neighborhood Commercial, Preliminary Plat, and Site Plan Review. Location:
13075 Pioneer Trail.
Dennis Kleve presented the project and stated he is requesting a change in the guide
plan from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial on 2.96 acres in order to build a
25,000 square foot retail building.
Franzen stated this area is a collection of different land uses built at different times
and the conditions of the properties vary. Many of the sites were built prior to
current zoning and are non-conforming. The change in the guide plan for this site
could be the catalyst for other sites to improve or change to other appropriate and
compatible uses. One of the questions would be whether there is a need for
rezoning in this area and whether a change from industrial to commercial would fit
in this area. He said notices were sent to surrounding property owners although it
was not required.
Chuck Scheberger of 18014 Valley View Road stated he has two properties adjacent
to this area. He said they aren't opposed to retail but has concerns regarding
additional traffic, parking needs and adequate lighting.
Tim Borgett stated he has a business east of the proposed development. He stated he
is in favor of it but he has a manufacturing business with noise and odors. He said
Planning Board Minutes
December 8, 2003
Page 11
he would like to see a shared drive which would benefit both.
Amy Berk of 9549 Yorkshire Lane stated she was interested in knowing what was
being proposed and had no comments or questions.
Stoelting asked the proponent to address the concerns regarding parking, traffic and
lighting. Kleve responded there is currently adequate lighting and if they need to
add some they would do so. He said the noise and odor shouldn't be an issue. He
said they would like to make the property more usable with a restaurant and they
would welcome comments.
Stoelting asked staff to address traffic impacts. Gray responded an overall traffic
study hasn't been done and if they are changing land use, the City may want to do a
study of intersections at Pioneer Trail. The intersection of 212 and Pioneer Trail
will need to be looked at in the future. He said it's important the intersections work
well and the study can determine the level of service and how it will change.
Stoelting asked if the study would be initiated with this project or when Pioneer
Trail is upgraded. Gray responded studies can be funded by the developer, the City
or County.
Nelson asked if a gas station or fast food restaurant would be allowed in this
development. Franzen responded they could be allowed. A request for a gas station
would need to go through the process again. He said for a guide plan change staff
looks at compatibility and traffic impacts.
Nelson asked Kleve if he knows for a fact there would be a restaurant. Kleve
responded that he is not sure and that he would like to see a nice sit-down
restaurant.
Steppat asked what kind of activities or tenants would be there. Kleve said he
would like to see tenants similar to those in other retail centers and the restaurant
wouldn't be fast food or a drive through.
Stoelting asked if when they come back before the Board whether they would have
specific tenants and a design in mind. Kleve answered he would have drawings but
wasn't sure about tenants.
Brooks asked who owned the land south of the site. Franzen responded it's owned
by the Metropolitan Airport Commission and the land is used for public gardens.
Brooks stated they need to address sight lines and provide appropriate buffers for
abutting properties and signage needs to be addressed.
Kleve stated that because of the airport, there are height restrictions on the buildings
of 27 feet and he realizes signage will be important.
Planning Board Minutes
December 8, 2003
Page 12
Seymour asked whether the MAC site was a runway impact zone. Franzen
responded no.
Steppat stated he is in favor of the changes in the area and if it could serve as a
catalyst and lead to other improvements it would be a positive project.
Stoelting asked about a common drive and if that would fit in the development.
Kleve responded the needs of the City and neighbors can be taken into account. He
would be agreeable and if it is feasible has no problem with the shared drive..
Stoelting summarized the Board's input by stating there needs to be a traffic study
done; the proponent needs to determine the type of retail and restaurant, and signage
all need to be incorporated in the formal plans in the future.
VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
X. PLANNERS' REPORTS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Steppat, second by Koenig to adjourn. Motion passed, 8-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.