Loading...
Planning Commission - 05/13/2002 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, MAY 13, 2002 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Frantz Corneille, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Fred Seymour, Paul Sodt, Dave Steppat, Ray Stoelting STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Alan Gray, City Engineer Danette Moore, Planner Kirsten Oden, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Corneille called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Corneille, Commissioners Brooks, Foote, Koenig, Nelson, Stoelting, Sodt, Seymour, and Steppat. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Sodt moved, second by Stoelting to approve the agenda. Motion carried, 9 - 0. III. MINUTES IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. STONEGATE BY Carlston Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 28.83 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 28.82 acres, Zoning District Change fro m rural to R1-13.5 on 26.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 28.82 acres into 46 lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Pioneer Trail west of Stable Path. Jay Scott Carlston presented revised plans describing minor changes in lot lines. Koenig inquired about the tree loss, which was adjusted to 38%. It appears most of the trees being taken out are the largest. Community Planning Board Minutes May 13, 2002 Page 2 Jay Scott Carlston stated he would meet with Fox and they would design the development to save as many significant trees as they could. Sodt inquired about item 1. B., the temporary turnaround at the end of street D, regarding the traffic routing and how that had been resolved. Jay Scott Carlston noted he spoke with Ms. Weber and the road will be signed for future connection. Sodt inquired about condition 2.A., addressing written proof of a private driveway easement across the property. Jay Scott Carlston stated the reason for the easement was to give access to the Horstfahl property so they would not be landlocked. His attorney has written a document regarding the vacation of the road easement. Sodt inquired about item S.B., the waiver of a front yard setback of 25 feet. He asked why that was necessary. He did not want to set a precedent. Jay Scott Carlston stated this was to allow them to keep back from the wetlands and allow more tree preservation. Franzen stated staff was comfortable with the tree loss originally. Staff suggested the five foot waiver. The farther buildings can be kept from the drip line, more trees can be preserved. Koenig asked whether anything needed to be in the developers agreement about signing the road extensions. Franzen noted there would be a disclosure and a general concept plan so purchasers will realize there will be lots behind them. MOTION: Stoelting moved, second by Koenig to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 9-0. The public hearing closed at 7:15 p.m. MOTION: Stoelting moved, second by Brooks to approve Stonegate by Carlston Inc. Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 28.83 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 28.82 acres, Zoning District Change fro m rural to R1-13.5 on 26.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 28.82 acres into 46 lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way according to the conditions within the staff report. Motion carried, 9-0. Koenig thanked Carlston for his cooperation with the city. Community Planning Board Minutes May 13, 2002 Page 3 B. City Code Amendment Conditional Use Permits for Historic Designated Property Franzen noted page 3 of the staff report presents a summary regarding the effects of changing the city code to allow conditional use permits for historic designated property. Staff is recommending approval. Steppat stated this is for a three year period and inquired about the renewal process. Rosow stated they would need to reapply. One reason the city does not allow widespread use of conditional permits is that once someone meets the requirements the permit must be granted. Once it is granted it is difficult to revoke. Steppat inquired about the procedure if there were violations prior to renewal. Rosow stated as with all permits or licenses, Council could hold hearings to determine whether it should be revoked. Stoelting noted the City already has a conditional use permit ordinance; all this is doing is adding a historic property. Gertz stated there were six historic properties, two were listed on the national register. Stoelting inquired how many of the six properties would be utilized for commercial purposes. Gertz stated this would apply only to the Smith Douglas Moore house. Stoelting noted in addition to a CUP applicants must obtain a site alteration permit. Gertz explained that is a permit required to make any changes to a designated Heritage Preservation site. It only applies to those the City Council has designated. It is reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission, who sends a recommendation. Nelson asked whether this was reviewed so there would not be drastic changes made to the property and whether the kitchen could meet health codes and maintain its historic designation. Gertz noted the revision was for the city code as it relates to the exterior. It does not involve the interior. Nelson stated most historic designated properties can't do extensive alterations. Gertz stated most designations relate to exterior rather than interior features. They can remove interior walls. Community Planning Board Minutes May 13, 2002 Page 4 Koenig stated the Heritage Preservation Commission is in favor of changing the ordinance. She inquired how approval of this ordinance would affect the Cummings house restoration. Gertz stated the Cummings house is a City owned property; the goal was to restore it to an earlier period. Koenig inquired whether there was another possible site designated for commercial use. Gertz stated currently there were no other sites designated. Koenig inquired whether this was the only way to keep up preservation. Gertz stated yes. Rosow noted the board had a marked copy of the ordinance. Provisions relating to the major center area are not being proposed for change. They took an existing code provision which was the only place the CUP was used. They will use this structure to deal with historic properties. Historic preservation site alteration permit is an existing provision of city code. The City or a private individual has to go to the board. Staff went through variety of alternatives. They could not apply this to only city owned properties. There would be constitutional problems under equal protection of the law. Brooks stated he is pleased there is a proposed use, and is in favor of it. This is a great way for people to enjoy the home. Gertz stated there were not many negative aspects. This is a way to preserve historic properties when use as a residence is no longer viable. There is another review process to see whether the proposed use will have an adverse effect. Steppat asked of other designated properties how many would be candidates. Gertz said there were six properties with the historic designation, including a bridge; they would vary in terms of maintenance and costs. Corneille any comments from the audience. MOTION: Stoelting moved, second by Koenig to close the public hearing. Motion carried 9-0. The public hearing closed at 7:33 p.m. MOTION: Stoelting moved, second by Seymour to approve the City Code Amendment for Conditional Use Permits for Historic Designated Property. Community Planning Board Minutes May 13, 2002 Page 5 Nelson stated she would question allowing the change of interior on a historic designated property. Hopefully it would not change too much. If too many people sign off too easily it could bring about the end of historic properties. She is concerned there is not anything that insists it be kept in proper period in colors or anything to keep some level of original character. Koenig concurred with Nelson. They are opening the door on all the properties. Tax money may not cover historic properties. It is a give and take. Gertz stated all historic properties have to go through the Heritage Preservation review process. In the case of Smith Douglas Moore it is being applied to the interior. Eventually the plans would come to the planning board. The HPC will continue with its review process. They uphold code for historic preservation process. They won't allow change of windows, for example, from wood to vinyl. They are concerned about the inside and out and are working with architect to preserve the original character. Steppat noted the other alternative is further deterioration of the home. Corneille said the HPC mandate would still be there. Rosow said item B 1 requires applicants to demonstrate that the historic characteristics could not be maintained unless a conditional use permit were granted. Koenig asked Gertz to list historic properties within the city. Gertz stated the Riley Jakes farmstead, Purgatory Creek Bridge, Smith Douglas Moore, Miller Spring, Lookout Park, Cummins House, and Glen Lake Childrens Camp. Corneille called the question. Motion carried, 9-0. C. Smith Douglas Moore House Conditional Use Permit by Dunn Brothers Coffee and the City of Eden Prairie. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.7 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.7 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Rural zoning District on 1.7 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.7 acres, and Conditional Use Permit on 1.7 acres. Location: 807 Eden Prairie Road. (to be continued to June 10, 2002 meeting) MOTION: Stoelting moved, second by Koenig to continue the item. Motion carried, 9-0. VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS Community Planning Board Minutes May 13, 2002 Page 6 A. Airport Element of the Comprehensive Plan Rosow said they updated the draft of the Airport Element of the Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the proposed Final Agreement with MAC. They modified goals and objectives to take into consideration terms of the Final Agreement Nelson asked him to review the final agreement. Rosow stated any action tonight should be contingent upon the City and MAC entering into the final agreement. They are still working on the agreement; the goal is to bring it to Council a week from tomorrow night. The airport is designated as a minor use airport. There is nothing this agreement does to change this designation; this would take a legislative act. If they wanted to extend runways and keep their designation they would have to acquire more property to maintain the safety zone. The goal was to maintain the character of the airport, provide noise relief and provide an enforceable agreement. The materials describe types of restrictions proposed, such as mandatory restrictions on nighttime maintenance, operations of aircrafts more than 60,000 pounds and Stage 2 aircrafts prohibited from using longest of two runways. Stage 2 aircraft are now using both runways. Currently there are not many Stage 2 aircraft using the airport. Additionally the final agreement MAC will not increase the pavement strength. Over time heavier planes would degrade the runway. MAC will not increase the length of the two runways or seek a certificate allowing commercial passenger use. This has important ramifications in terms of the amount and frequency of traffic. Homes within the 60 DNLs will be tested to see if they meet sound standards and will be insulated if they do not. Most homes are already built to acceptable construction standards. Voluntary restriction of nighttime and early morning operations are the Final Agreement with MAC. Nelson asked if the longer runway would increase. Rosow stated it would be 5,000 feet. MAC will prohibit Stage 2 aircraft from the longer runway. These mitigations help maintain it as a minor use airport. When a plane comes in to land the tower will know if it is a Stage 2 runway aircraft. Corneille inquired about the runways. Rosow stated this addresses the two parallel runways; one 5,000 feet, one 3,900 feet. Seymour stated nothing mentions the 3"runway. Rosow said that is not part of the project being undertaken. They would have to go through the entire process again if they wanted to modify it. Foote said one runway is 5,000 feet. What would the City do if they wanted to expand further. Community Planning Board Minutes May 13, 2002 Page 7 Rosow said they would need to come through the process. This is a written agreement with a remedies section, addressing violations. The City believes this is enforceable. The City will rescind resolutions opposing the expansion and refrain from making negative comments and objections. Stoelting thanked him for the summary. He hopes the informational campaign will help as it relates to the ultimate resolution. This was a contentious issue and very public. He thanked everyone involved in the process. This is an equitable resolution. The question is what is the role of the planning board. The 5h goal is to establish and implement a design framework manual for existing and new development for MAC. Franzen said they were trying to make existing and new buildings closer to industrial buildings. The City wants to upgrade the exterior appearance. There would be site plan resolutions or building permits if they met the criteria. Nelson stated surrounding land use would be an issue. Koenig inquired about the City's lost revenue. Rosow stated if the airport had not developed, land acquired for safety zones would have been developed, and the city would have earned taxes. Since a portion will be devoted to open space there is not the opportunity to recover those payments. Koenig asked how they would pursue lost payments. Rosow said they were in discussions with MAC concerning infrastructure development to serve airport, properties, park needs, and retention ponds. Koenig asked about sound proofing older homes. Rosow after Dec 4, 2001 exempt because they have to meet sound insulation anyway. Seymour asked about replacement of first generation hanger buildings. Franzen stated this would be part of the design framework manual. MOTION: Stoelting moved, second by Foote to approve the Guide Plan Aviation Chapter, subject to City and MAC completing the final agreement. Motion carried, 9-0. VII. INFORMATIONAL MEETING A. Southwest Station by North American Properties of Minnesota. Request for: Guide Plan Change from Regional Commercial to High Density Residential on 8.23 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 14.89 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 14.89 acres, Zoning District Change Community Planning Board Minutes May 13, 2002 Page 8 from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 6.66 acres, and from rural to RM-2.5 on 8.23 acres, Site Plan Review on 14.89 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 21.84 acres into 20 lots. Location: Prairie Center Drive and Technology Drive. Jay Jay Scott of North American Properties noted they had worked on the project for approximately 2 years. The master plan community integrates retail, restaurant, and entertainment around the mass transit center. It is broken into two projects because of its unique shape. The west side is high density apartments and townhomes. There were substantial challenges with soil conditions. They needed to create a project with enough density to support the economic impact of the soil conditions. They tried to create some new urban planning designs with the parking and pulling the buildings out toward the road. The biggest issue is it would require setback waivers. There is some precedence on the site; the parking garage is at zero setback. Bob Worthington of Southwest Metro Transit Commission noted this had been considered for the past four years. He came upon the property about 4.5 years ago. They put together a team to try to develop a concept around transit. They presented a concept plan in 1999 which was approved. It is currently the guiding plan. The ramp is under construction. It was designed for four stories, possibly five. They are planning to build the fifth level. The Board approved five stories. Jay Jay Scott noted they were not looking for any formal action at that time,just feedback from the board while they move it into a more formal proposal. All of the architecture will reflect a contemporary prairie style, with copper looking roofs. They want a high quality image. The size of the site is a hindrance; they are trying to develop an outdoor plaza area with many dining options with outdoor decks, metal railing, fire pit. They want to meet demands for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The goal is to maintain quality architecture; three story structures over one level of parking with a front door image. There are twelve townhomes with tuck-under garage parking. Franzen noted in October of 1999 the Commission looked at a 12 story twin tower apartment buildings on the west end with commercial and housing on the east side. The Commission stated they would support multiple family on one side and commercial and housing on the east. They did approve the parking ramp. Council only approved the parking deck and mixed use housing and commercial. There were requests for waivers, however, the staff report only supported waivers for the ramp, since the City was trying to promote transit use. The staff did not support waivers for the housing and commercial. Landscaping is a concern. At this point, there is not sufficient reason to consider the waivers. Nelson inquired if the plan removes the woods near St. Andrews. Franzen stated it meets shoreline setbacks, the parking meets setbacks, and all of the woods would remain. Community Planning Board Minutes May 13, 2002 Page 9 Nelson stated there does not seem to be garden or fountain areas and that was one thing she liked. As much green space should be in as possible if the density will be that high. There is a lot of parking. Between the bus station and road out back, the pollution level could be excessive. Franzen said pollution levels have not been studied. Nelson inquired about the size of the apartments. Jay Scott said there are 60% one bedroom or one bedroom dens and 40% two bedroom plus. Eight floor plans are proposed. Nelson inquired whether walkways from the apartment to St. Andrews church were proposed. Jay Scott explained there will be a sidewalk connection towards Technology Drive. Nelson stated it appeared there were no provisions for children. A great number of working families have children. There are many projects with no provisions for children. Brooks said he likes the mixed use development. The east side is all parking; it is needed relative to city code but does not look attractive. He inquired whether there were other sites with zero foot setbacks. Franzen said Eden Prairie has not approved zero setbacks before. Jay Scott said it resembles a larger downtown environment. Arbor Lakes in Maple Grove was done with zero setbacks. Steppat works in downtown St. Paul where they are doing some development and favors the concept in general but the setbacks seem appropriate in a suburban area. He has some concerns about pedestrian safety. Steppat asked about the average rent and market. Jay Scott said it was diverse housing and will provide an affordable element. Rent will probably be around $1,000 - $1,500 per month. Long-term maintenance could be a problem if townhomes were sold instead of rented. Foote stated this was targeted as a prime area for affordable housing; if this was part of the plan he would not be hesitant to support it. Community Planning Board Minutes May 13, 2002 Page 10 Jay Scott stated one of the challenges is economic; they need to increase density and employ expensive construction. They need to generate high level rental rates to support the infrastructure. They want to maintain integrity of the original design. If they can maintain density they can bring more affordable housing to the site. They believe there is a need in the community. Foote asked if they were still on schedule for the garage. Jay Scott stated he would like to start in the fall. They would have businesses open on the commercial side in 2003. Koenig stated they need housing addressing families. 60% efficiency does not address that need. She is not comfortable with the project. It seems crowded and she is afraid density will be too high. Franzen said zero is the closest point; it is not zero in all cases. Koenig asked about Technology Drive going to four lanes. Franzen said it would be redone down to the bridge crossing and a signal would go in the main entrance. Four lanes were warranted with the ADC project. Koenig expressed concern about the soil situation and the fact this is all rental property. Franzen stated the structures would be reviewed according to the building code. Corneille said the board should consider mixed use and whether they liked this. Sodt stated the plan should show the relationship to the highway; it is close and noise may be an issue. Jay Scott stated they would be doing noise mitigation with insulation. Sodt stated there should be a more direct way to get from residences to the bus area rather than the sidewalk. Nelson inquired whether they had considered skyways. She inquired about what they would do for aesthetics in the winter since trees would be bare. Jay Scott stated they will use hardscapes with pavers and lights would be on the trees all year round. Community Planning Board Minutes May 13, 2002 Page 11 Brooks stated he likes the mixed use and would like to see density reduced and green space increased. Knowing the average setback would be helpful. He inquired whether there had been settling to any of the permanent buildings. Jay Scott said there had been no settling. Bob Worthington stated the Depot Structure is being utilized by the operation itself and customers. Ridership increases every year. The report shows how they have grown in size and usage. They have not subleased any space. They lease meeting rooms occasionally. Stoelting stated he likes the multiuse design. He is concerned about sidewalks and whether the placement is a safety issue in the eastern portion of the project. There will be a lot of traffic there. The west side there is a lot of different issues. There were a lot of issues with Hartford Commons. There is not a lot of open space. Setback waivers were granted but in exchange there was more interior open space. This is all buildings and parking spaces. Corneille noted he also liked the mixed use. Renters by choice is a market. The traffic is an issue; pedestrians during cold weather will cross in dangerous areas. There should be some sort of crosswalk. Sodt said there was no safe way to get across Technology Drive to the future park and this should be addressed. Steppat stated pedestrian traffic would be within the development but also within blocks of it. They should deliver the pedestrian traffic safely. He asked if there were examples of hardscape within the Twin Cities metro area. Jay Scott stated Tamarack Village in Woodbury, Harbor Lights in Maple Grove, and Lexington and 35, The Village at Blaine. They do not have the room for more green space. Koenig stated there would be an urban park across from the buildings. But when facing the development it would not be as appealing. She does not like the zero setback. The density seems too much. Franzen asked why the apartment buildings were three stories. The developer stated the design was a mid-rise. They have a restriction that will not allow them to go below grade two levels. There are physical property constraints limiting the stories. Jay Scott inquired how important affordable housing was and if it would make a difference if they increased it to 20% affordability. There may be impacts to architecture and artscape. Community Planning Board Minutes May 13, 2002 Page 12 Nelson stated she did not like the huge parking garage with nothing at the residential end to balance the mass. Jay Scott stated apartment buildings would balance this. Brooks stated the market will dictate the occupancy rate. He would like to see affordability provided for parents with children, and would then be concerned with open space. Jay Scott said they have not abandoned the idea of family housing. There are major amenities in the buildings. Not as many people looking for family housing would choose this environment. Foote stated he would consider waivers if affordability were added but would not want it overbuilt to accommodate this. If there would not be affordability he would like less density. Seymour said he likes the mixed use; it fits with the urban park. He would like to have the urban park accessible safely and conveniently in all types of weather. Koenig asked why there was not more underground parking. Jay Scott stated the water table and soil conditions would preclude this. Koenig said if there were no affordable components there could be less density. Franzen stated the City has used density bonuses, built taller or more units per acre in order to get the affordable element in addition to adding a TIF district. They should be increasing the number of units. He would not support trading green space for affordability. Not every housing site has to address every housing goal. Heights of Valley View agreed to more two bedroom units of the affordable category. Jay Scott said the prevailing view was from the park into the project. All of the buildings meet the setbacks. The complex will not be in close proximity to the park area. They will address safety issues. Sodt inquired about setbacks. They should show the highway in future drawings. There should be an alternative plan if the waivers were not granted. Steppat stated affordability was an important consideration. Koenig stated there was not the option for density transfer. VIII. MEMBERS' REPORTS Community Planning Board Minutes May 13, 2002 Page 13 IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS X. NEW BUSINESS XI. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen noted due to the Memorial Day holiday, June 10 would be the next Community Planning Board meeting. XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Stoelting moved, second by Seymour to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried, 9-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m.