Loading...
Planning Commission - 01/08/2001 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY,JANUARY 8, 2001 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Kenneth E. Clinton, Frantz Corneille, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Susan Stock, Ray Stoelting STAFF MEMBERS: Krista Flemming, Planner I Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Alan Gray, City Engineer Scott Kipp, Senior Planner Leslie Stovring, Environmental Coordinator Donald Uram, Community Development/ Financial Services Director I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Corneille called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Corneille, Commissioners Foote, Koenig, Stock, Stoelting and Nelson. Absent: Brooks and Clinton. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Stock, second by Stoelting to approve the agenda. Motion carried, 6-0. III. MINUTES A. November 13, 2001 Motion by Stoelting, second by Stock to approve the November 13, 2000 minutes. Motion carried, 6-0 B. December 11, 2001 Stock said it should be noted she left before the opening of the Valley View Corporate Center public hearing. Koenig noted on page 7 the last sentence should read she understood residents' concerns about Top View and the light would be a benefit. Community Planning Board Minutes January 8, 2001 Page 2 Motion by Stock, second by Stoelting to approve the December 11, 2000 minutes as amended. Motion failed 4-2-0 without a quorum, abstention Nelson and Corneille. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. AZTEC TOWN OFFICE PARK by DaVern, Inc. Request for Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Office on 6.48 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 6.48 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.46 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 4.46 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.48 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot. Location: Aztec Drive. Flemming said the developer has revised the plan according to the Community Planning Board recommendations upon review of this project at the December 11, 2000 meeting. The Board voted to continue the public hearing until January 8, 2001 and directed the developer to revise the plans by creating a better transition to adjacent residents according to the staff report (taller berm, additional plantings, etc.), and by meeting the parking requirements. The plan has been changed by adding 6-8 foot tall conifers along the east property line, reducing the building square footage to meet parking requirements without proof of parking, meeting required parking stalls and dimensions, maintaining the berm elevation of 890-892 and continuing a permanent berm at an elevation of 884. Staff recommends approval of the request based on plans dated January 5, 2001, the staff report and its conditions: The public hearing opened at 7:07 p.m. There was no public comment. Nelson said she was very pleased by the revised plans; the developer took into account the staff and Board recommendations. Stoelting thanked the developer for meeting the requests of the Board and noted he was pleased with the plan. Motion by Stoelting, second by Nelson to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 6-0. The hearing closed at 7:09 p.m. Motion by Stoelting, second by Koenig to approve the request for Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Office on 6.48 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 6.48 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.46 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 4.46 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.48 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot. Location: Aztec Drive. Motion carried, 6-0. Corneille thanked the developers and the staff for working so hard on the project. Community Planning Board Minutes January 8, 2001 Page 3 B. SUNNYBROOK PLACE by Baton Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.71 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.71 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 Zoning District on 7.71 acres, Site Plan Review on 7.71 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 7.71 acres into 17 lots. Location: Sunnybrook Road. The public hearing opened at 7:11 p.m. Randy Zejdlik of Baton Corporation presented the Development Concept Review. The site is zoned rural and low-density multifamily is proposed. The purpose of the project is to cluster the units on the higher ground on the south side of the site to preserve the north portion of the site. The units are approximately 2400 square foot one level rambler walkout/lookout townhomes similar to units on Sherman Drive. Prices will be in the low $200,000 range. Most units will have a four season porch and optionally finished walkout lower levels, and two car garages. Flemming presented the staff report. There are sixteen units on the site, which is guided low density residential for up to 2.5 units per acre. Surrounding land uses include existing and proposed single family residential to the north, south and east. The undeveloped land to the north is guided low density residential. Highway 212 runs parallel with the western property line. The preliminary plat shows subdivision of 7.71 acres into 16 multiple-family units in 2 and 3 unit structures at a density of 2.07 units per acre. Surrounding project densities include Sunnybrook Cove and Purgatory Creek Estates at 2.3 units per acre, Creekview Acres Addition at 2.0 units per acre and Waters Edge at Purgatory Creek at 1.3 units per acre. The project requires some waivers from city code: front yard setback from 30 feet to 17 feet on Lot 16 and side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet on lot 3 (creating a better buffer and consistent setback next to the wetlands); a wetland buffer strip of 25 feet and buffer setback of 15 feet to the alternative wetland buffer strip of 10 feet and buffer setback of 15 feet for a low quality wetland as defined by code. The alternatives are defined in the city code and allowable when the wetland meets criteria appropriate for the alternatives. Staff recommends tree loss for conifers to be evaluated at a 30% loss, requiring a replacement of 527 caliper inches. Tree loss for the naturally- occurring cottonwoods is 15%,requiring a tree replacement of 46 caliper inches. Total tree replacement would be 573 inches. A conservation easement will be placed over the wetland and wetland buffer area. The landscaping plan requires 704 caliper inches and must be revised to meet city code. Development of this site is consistent with the guide plan and compatible with the surrounding area since the proposed density is less than 2.5 units per acre and is similar to developments to the north, east, and south. Staff recommends approval based on plans dated December 27, 2000, and conditions in the staff report dated January 5, 2001. Community Planning Board Minutes January 8, 2001 Page 4 Libby Hargrove, a resident of 12640 Sunnybrook Road owns property adjacent to the proposed development. Sunnybrook Road was one of the last roads in Eden Prairie to become blacktopped and has since become sporadically developed. Utilities came in bits and pieces instead of uniformly. She paid assessments based on a per-unit homestead basis for sewer and water and utility. The assessment on the 7.71 acre piece was for four units. She believes that she is paying more than her share if she is paying assessments on two units for her two lots and the 7.71 acre parcel is paying only on four units. The property in question was sold with a wetland on it and a portion was filled without a permit before permits were required. The area supports wildlife such as mink, redtailed hawks, herons, muskrat, ducks and geese. The city put in a culvert to Purgatory Creek from the wetland to control the flow. She liked the tree loss mitigation; there are not a lot of valuable trees in the area. She liked the rambler style townhouse because it was lower in the sight line; she thinks the density is too high. There is not enough room for a city road; there is not enough parking for guests. Sunnybrook is a narrow road with curves and would not provide proper parking. It could be a safety issue. The NURP pond is on the southwest part of the project; in many cases NURP ponds protect the environment; she does not see the benefit of the pond in this position. The drainage will go into the wetland in the back. She has major concerns with alterations to the wetland area because it will affect the overall drainage to the area. She also was concerned with lots located so closely to Highway 212. Foote asked how she felt about the multi-family versus single family. Libby said twinhomes would be appropriate. It is not very desirable for single family; three unit structures seem to crowd the site,but twinhomes are appropriate. Kay Kindle is one of the property owners across the street. She said the existing homes are on a dangerous road. There is a blind curve; they are concerned with increased traffic and lack of parking. Parking on Sunnybrook Road would make the road more dangerous. She asked how the $200,000 homes would affect the value of the surrounding $400,000 and up single family homes. There was no further public comment. Corneille summarized the issues of fairness of the assessments, confusion with 16 v. 17 lots, road and guest parking, NURP ponds and drainage, wetland fill and mitigation, and property value impact. Motion by Stoelting, second by Stock to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 6- 0. The hearing closed at 7:46 p.m. Flemming said there were 16 units and 17 lots. Lot 17 is a wetland area. The plans are all sent to the state highway department for comment; no concerns were received from the state. The closest unit to the edge of the highway is 95 feet. The city's Community Planning Board Minutes January 8, 2001 Page 5 policy is 25 percent of the total units should be provided for guest parking. They are showing 6 parking spaces per guest or 50 percent. Gray said the assessment matches proportionally. Without additional improvements to the site such as roads, the site could develop into four units. To accomplish 16 units there must be additional street and sanitary sewer to serve the units being proposed. These additional units will be assessed appropriately. The stormwater being treated by the NURP pond is from the private street. The turf areas and back yards are not being treated. It is for impervious surface runoff, not for every square foot of the development. From a wetland standpoint, the site is over 7 acres and has about 2 acres of wetland. Ideally wetlands should be preserved,but there will be some wetland impact. The impact must be mitigated; here it is being done on site. There is a conservation easement being put over the wetland and its buffer and setbacks. Otherwise, the "higher" land on the north side could be developed at a later date when land north of this site develops. It is not a high quality wetland. Lower quality wetlands allow consideration of alternative wetlands, buffers and setbacks. Stoelting asked about the parking, and whether the guideline was 25 percent per unit. Flemming said 16 units would require 4 spaces per unit and there are actually 6. Stoelting asked about the memo on the analysis for wetland alternatives from Stovring. He asked Flemming to review the memo and wetlands and fill, and how the conservation easement relates to the wetland. Flemming said last January, wetland standards were added to the zoning ordinance with required buffers and buffer setbacks. The quality of the wetland is related to the setback requirement with available alternatives to the standards. If the site meets criteria defined by city code, it can qualify for alternative setbacks and buffers. The Watershed District and Environmental Coordinator felt this site meets alternative criteria. Stoelting asked about the easement Flemming said it was permanent; it will include the upland area so there will be no future development. Koenig asked whether there would be a monument showing where the easement starts. Flemming said monumentation would be provided and is marked on the plans to show how the monuments will be located along the edge of the buffer. Community Planning Board Minutes January 8, 2001 Page 6 Koenig said the property owner would have 15 feet in back of the property before they get to the easement. If this is a low quality wetland,residents may be tempted to fill it to have more of a backyard. Flemming said staff felt it was important to maintain a consistent edge so one lot would not go in further than another. Secondly,because it is townhome there is an association that manages the lawn, etc., not individual homeowners. Koenig asked whether the easement would be in the association documents. Flemming confirmed that was the case. Stoelting asked staff about unit#16 and its proximity to Highway 212; whether there was a concern with highway noise. Gray said the distance would not be greater than some homes along Highway 5. The area will have higher than average noise. Buyers are aware of this. Corneille noted the staff report commented on wetland plantings. Flemming said there would be higher tree loss on the site; the developer will plant smaller trees along the wetland edge to mitigate tree replacement and help restore the wetland. Franzen noted a uniform theme for plantings will reinforce monumentation along the wetland buffer. Nelson expressed concern with the size of the units at 1400 square feet, listed as one bedroom den with possible expansion. These are not large units but the price is not small; it is not exactly affordable housing. She noted proximity to the highway and questioned how the units would sell at that price. Flemming said the development is similar to the Hartford Place and Staring Lake townhomes in regards to location and size. There is 1400 square feet on the first level with the potential to finish out another 1000 square feet on the lower level, for a total of 2400 square feet. The developer noted these are similar in size and price range. In Eden Prairie, building costs are driving up the costs of homes. Buyers have expressed willingness to show units if the Board wants to see them. A $200,000 price range is an affordable one-level home. They may be harder to sell along the freeway, but because of the market, they will sell. They will not be the same price as the ones across the pond. Corneille asked him to address adjacent property value. Community Planning Board Minutes January 8, 2001 Page 7 The developer said this would be a positive. The quality of landscaping and structure is high-end. Associations dictate maintenance to keep value and prestige of neighborhood. The units will be around $250,000 base and over$300,000 with finished basements. Foote expressed concern with houses 15, 16, 14, and 13 15-20 feet below the road 90-100 feet away. He is concerned with wetland fill near units 15 and 13 with the steep slope from the corner. He would not want the houses to settle. Also,he is concerned with the two buildings with three units, they should be two unit buildings. Safety is an issue with the units near the road; a car could end up in a roof. Koenig asked staff to address the landscape plan and whether the developer was meeting the requirement. Fox said they do not currently meet the requirement; they can plant more on the north side of the parcel or provide cash in lieu for planting in other areas. There are a variety of species that could be planted, a mix of conifers and deciduous. The specific trees would be determined prior to final approval. Stock noted as far as consistency with guide plan, it is,but two unit buildings are better than three because of lower density; waivers are reasonable, setback from Highway 212 is a concern. Stoelting asked the developer about the possibility of making the three unit buildings into two unit buildings. The developer said the three unit building was the initial alternative to minimizing the wetland impact;by moving potential units from the north side to south side. The site is allowed about 18 units. To leave the north section undeveloped, we clustered the units to the south and east. This allows some pricing diversity as well. Nelson said it was appropriate for the guide plan, she was comfortable enough with the wetland, not totally thrilled,but it meets requirements. The only reason she is alright with the setback from Highway 212 is because Gray said Highway 212 was not going to expand. Foote said over the whole site, it appears legally compliant with the guide plan. He won't support the project with units 15 and 16 along Highway 112. Units 13 and 14 would work if turned around to face Sunnybrook Road. They will see rooftops from Highway 212. The wetland is fine; it enhances property. Stoelting said this is a very difficult project. Staff has worked hard with the developer and created a conservation easement, onsite wetland mitigation, and he is comfortable with waivers requested. He concurs with no units going near the Community Planning Board Minutes January 8, 2001 Page 8 highway,but making the north side a conservation area is a trade-off. He can't point to any specific reason to vote against the project. Koenig said she can support the project,but not enthusiastically. She does not like only 15 feet between townhomes and conservation easement. Townhomes will have someone mowing; hopefully they will respect the wetland buffer. She is not pleased about 45% tree loss but understands why it is necessary for this project. Corneille concurred with Stoelting regarding density and trade-offs, the waivers are reasonable. Foote said in Bell Oaks there was a problem with houses built to close to embankments. There is a steep slope from the corner down to the conservation easement. Franzen said he would be concerned about the structure,but it is a requirement that the lowest floor is 2 feet above the flood elevation. This is 8 feet at the lowest point. The ordinance has no regulation based on how they look from the highway. There is 13 feet difference between the normal setback and the proposal. The Board should determine whether the setback is more important adjacent to the highway or wetland. Staff believed the wetland is more important. Stock asked whether lots 13, 14, 15, and 16 could be staggered in one three unit building to gain distance from the highway. The developer said he didn't know if he would be able to keep the wetland impact the same. He wanted to pull the unit as far back from wetlands as possible. Motion by Stoelting, second by Nelson approval of project Motion carried, 4-2. V. PUBLIC MEETING VI. MEMBER'S REPORTS VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. PLANNERS' REPORT X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.