Loading...
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.