Loading...
Planning Commission - 08/28/2006 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,AUGUST 28, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Jon Duckstad, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Al Gray, City Engineer Mike Franzen, City Planner Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Kirk. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 8-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 14, 2006 MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Powell, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 5-0. Koenig, Rocheford and Seymour abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING Request for: Informational meeting to present a concept plan for a proposed multiple family use of property currently guided for low density residential. The plan includes 17 condominium units in a two-story building. Location is the northwest corner of Baker Road and St. Andrew Drive. Henry Lazniarz, of 1117 Marquette Avenue, presented the proposal. He gave some history on the project stating that the previous developer did not create the environment Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 2 he felt was conducive to the area. He felt the best use for the property would be for a 17 unit condominium. He showed an illustration of what the building would look like by utilizing the overhead projector. He pointed out that they will not be brining in fill to the area, which could potentially be disruptive to the wetland that is located to the east of the property. He stated that at the end of Vervoot Lane, there is no traffic in the area and that it is full of trees, and they want to leave it as such. Mr. Lazniarz felt that this site has been left alone for too many years and that this condominium complex would be the best fit for the area. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that this is an informational meeting, which would consist of a presentation by the project proponent, public questions and Commission discussion. He pointed out that question three on page four of the staff report is the most important question the Commission needs to address. Stoelting asked Franzen to address the alternatives to this proposal. Franzen stated that the alternatives are as follows: 1. The development as proposed. 2. Single family development. 3. Senior detached town homes. 4. Twin homes. 5. Modified condominiums. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Jess Rimeter, of 7270 Vervoot Lane, said he and his neighbors share the same concerns for this property. He stated that he believes the size of the lot versus the building size is not an accurate portrayal. He is also concerned with water run-off and traffic and parking issues. He said he felt that the parking lot is not an adequate size for the building and pointed out that there are only four outdoor parking spaces. He also questioned the vacancy of this unit and if there would be a market for these buildings. Mr. Rimeter said that he would like the zoning kept as is and would rather see town homes or single family homes in the area. Ron Harris, of 7262 Vervoot Lane, said that they had built their home in 1988 and are currently the only original homeowners in the area, and have no intention of moving. He stated that this area was originally designed for single family homes and that is what he would like to see in the area. Patricia Harris, wife of Ron Harris of 7262 Vervoot Lane, said that being a Senior Financial Analysist, she is concerned with the vacancy of the proposed project. She said another concern of hers is that the project proponent said that putting up the condominiums would eliminate noise on Baker Road. She pointed out that they can still hear noise on Baker Road and that it is not a concern. She said that there would be more noise and traffic in the area once this project is completed. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 3 Margaret Perry, of 13715 St. Andrew Drive, which is the area where the driveway would come out, said that she has concerns over parking in the area and that there are only four outdoor spaces for the complex. Gloria Husby, of 13748 Fenwood Circle, said that her deck would be overlooking the roof of the condominium building and she would much rather look out over single family homes. Jim Russell, 7206 Divinity Lane, and stated he has three concerns. The first issue is that he feels this project will increase traffic on Baker Road, which is already heavy. Secondly,he stated that he is an engineer and looking at this project,he feel that there is not much fill in this area and is concerned with water run-off. The third concern is that he feels that by labeling this as elderly housing it could potentially turn into low income housing. Lance Jacobson, of 13796 Canvas Lane, representing the Forest Hills Development, stated that he is concerned with water run-off in the area. He also said that regarding traffic, this would be an issue on Baker Road. He also felt that the school buses would stop in the area and would add more traffic; which would not be good. He also felt that there was plenty of senior housing in Eden Prairie and that this project was not necessary. Eric Peterson, of 13719 St. Andrew Road, stated that he recently moved into the area in the last six months and is concerned with the high density unit in the area. Joan Carroll, of 13764 Fenwick Circle, stated that if they are going to build this condominium, the most important aspect of this project would be to have a good association to keep the property up. Mel Hunker, of 13716 Fenwick Circle, said that he is president of his association and that they are also concerned with landscaping in the area and also the tree loss associated with the project. Stoelting summarized the issues as follows: 1. Wetland concern—where is the water drainage going to run into. 2. Traffic concerns. 3. Senior housing—how will it work. What will the quality be,how good will the association be, and how will they keep it as senior housing. 4. Landscaping. 5. Parking—underground and visitor. Mr. Lazniarz addressed some of these issues. He utilized the overhead projector to show the surfaces of the buildings and added that this is an upper end product that is being used. As for landscaping,he said that they are leaving the hill like it is, which would minimize grading. He said as far as trees, they would be willing to plant more evergreen trees in the area. He pointed out that condominium building would actually only take up the space of two single-family homes. He said that they would be willing to add Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 4 whatever landscaping they need to the property. Mr. Lazniarz said that as far as parking, there are thirty two parking spaces within the building, in the underground parking area; which would be close to two spaces per unit. He said as far as vacancy, they feel that there is a need for senior condominiums in the area. He also felt that the senior residents tend not to drive in early morning or during rush hour times. Mr. Lazniarz said that they will not be renting any of these units. Stoelting asked Mr. Lazniarz about the price range of the condominiums. Mr. Lazniarz said that they would range in the high $200,000's to the mid $300,000's. Shirley Hunker, 13176 Fenwick Circle, asked what age limit would be associated with this development. Mr. Lazniarz said that senior housing is mid fifties on up. Stoelting asked Staff to address the remaining issues. Gray said that in regards to storm water run-off, the southeast corner of the site is a fairly large area for water run-off. He stated that this proposed site is a very small area for drainage. He also said that there would not be much difference in regards to drainage if this was a four lot single family development versus the condominiums. Gray also felt that this project would not have a major impact on traffic in the area. He felt that there was ample parking space underneath the building but not enough outside parking spots. Koenig asked Franzen about a Covenance on a Deed. Franzen said that the City cannot require this, they can only dictate zoning issues. Duckstad asked Franzen if Eden Prairie has a need for senior housing at this time. Franzen stated that there will be a need for senior housing in the future and that a Senior Housing Focus Group will be developing in the near future to address the needs of seniors. Pitzrick stated that he is concerned with the parking issues and also questioned the storm water run-off and how it will be kept out of the garage. Gray stated that they will look at ponding to alleviate storm water drainage. He also stated that the grading plan needs to be established to verify proper drainage for the development.. Stoelting asked the Commissioners to address the five questions on page four of the staff report. Stoltz responded by stating that it is coming down to single family homes versus a condominium complex. He feels the condominium building itself is a good looking building, architecturally,but that it does not fit the need of the land. He feels that the condominium does not finish off the neighborhood. Powell stated that he agreed with Stoltz in that the condominium is a nice building but it does not fit into the area. He stated that an alternative would be to look at a less dense condominium building. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 5 Seymour also agreed that a lower density condominium unit would be better suited for the area. He stated that it would reduce traffic and that possibly the parking issue could be resolved. He stated that if he had to make a choice he would have to lean towards single family homes. Koenig stated that she leans more towards single family homes but is unsure if four could fit into the area. She also stated that if condominiums do go up in this area she would like the issue addressed of putting up rain gardens in the back of the steep hills. Duckstad stated that he agrees with the Commission members and is also concerned with drainage. He would like to see a better plan established. Pitzrick stated that he also agrees with the other Commission members preferring duplexes with out a basement as a first choice or a single family house as a second choice. Rocheford stated that he feels that the condominium complex would be a good fit for the area. He feels that there is ample parking for the unit and that people buying these units know that there is not a lot of visitor parking,hence there would most likely not be a lot of traffic flow into the area. Stoelting stated that in looking at the comments made by the Commission members, six members favor single family homes, two members favor lower density condominium units, and one member favors the current project as proposed. Stoelting stated that single family units would be a better fit for the area and asked the project proponent to come back with a plan for this and also a landscaping plan. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE#2006-09 by Paul Thomas Vogstrom. Request: To permit a shoreland setback variance from 150 feet to 100 feet at the northeast corner of the proposed structure. The applicant is asking for a continuance to the September 11, 2006 meeting, to allow the developer to discuss the proposed variance with the neighbors. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Duckstad, to recommend a continuance to the September 11, 2006, meeting. Motion passed 8-0. B. VARIANCE#2006-11 by Lecy Homes. Request: To permit a front yard setback of 40 feet. Steve Scholla, of 18170 Bearpath Trail, introduced Rob Harding, the developer of Bearpath, who will be presenting the proposal. Harding stated that when they initially laid out the designs for Bearpath they were to initially comply with a 30 ft. setback. He pointed out that they are requesting the proposed 40 foot setback Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 6 to protect the home from the golf course. He also pointed out that the setback would also utilize more of the backyard area. Mr. Harding illustrated this proposal utilizing the overhead projector. He pointed out that south of the site is the 10th fairway and stated that they need the proposed setback to protect the home from golf balls. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that there have been a lot of variance requests granted for this area and that Staff recommends approval of this protect. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Duckstad, to approve the variance based on plans stamped dated July 21, 2006, and the staff report dated August 25, 2006. Motion carried 8-0. C. PRAIRIE ESTATES 2'ADDITION by Prairie Estates of Eden Prairie, LLC. Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.33 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.33 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.33 acres; Preliminary Plat of 2.33 acres into four lots and road right-of-way. Thomas Parker, of Prairie Estates,presented the proposal. He started out by thanking Staff and Commission Members for the approval of his previous project known as Prairie Estates. He introduced Charlie Howley, the civil engineer on the project, who illustrated the project utilizing the overhead projector. He illustrated where the house would remain on the project and also illustrated the grading plan. He pointed out that there would be no impact to significant trees on the property. He stated that sewer and water currently serves the existing house and is available to serve all of the proposed lots. Mr. Howley said that they will not be changing the storm water drainage. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that Staff recommendation is for approval based on page 3 of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Pitzrick asked about moving the dirt that is located on the property. Mr. Howley stated that it is from the first phase of the project and would have to remain on the project for four months. Pitzrick asked if it would impact the wetland. Mr. Howley stated that is would not be impacting the area. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 7 Koenig addressed the issue of drainage and said that there should be infiltration before any drainage reaches the wetland. Mr. Howley stated that the water is not running into a NURP pond but rather flowing naturally. Gray stated that with this small of a project, it is not practical to include a NURP pond. He stated that the swales should do the work of a rain water garden. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Koenig, to approve the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.33 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.33 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to R1- 13.5 on 2.33 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 2.33 acres into four lots and road right-of-way based on plans stamped dated August 10, 2006, and the staff report dated August 25, 2006. Motion carried 8-0. VII. 2008 COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN UPDATE DISCUSSION MCA and Golden Triangle Reports Monique Mackenzie and Greg Ingraham presented the update. Key points of direction or discussion for MCA: 1. Use of"trip budget" tool to direct location and intensity of new development. With this tool you can allocate density in areas. 2. Commitment to a compact, walkable Town Center. Key points of direction or discussion for the Golden Triangle: 1. Should plan for land use and not location. 2. Manage conversion of industrial property to office use. Plan summaries for both documents: 1. Describe land use pattern, density, character and public investments. 2. Current status of plans would be advisory. 3. It should be an official guiding role. Common theme in both reports: 1. Role of LRT. 2. Mixed land uses expected in both locations. 3. Higher density is expected in the area. MCA and GTA Distinctions 1. Intensification Pattern. 2. Land use alternatives. 3. Public safety concerns. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 8 MCA Planning Principles 1. Walkable area in Town Center. 2. Improved way-finding. 3. Transportation improvements. Golden Triangle Area study objectives: 1. Reduce peak period traffic. 2. Improve property tax. 3. Increase transit use. 4. Explore opportunities for commercial development. Plan summary for Golden Triangle Area: 1. Diversify land use to reduce traffic. 2. Create transit oriented center at lesser intensity than MCA. 3. Guide market-based development to achieve goals. Golden Triangle would like direction for: 1. Specify desired future land use. 2. Use more detailed methods to control overall traffic. Powell asked how high the water tower was and if the high rise plan would be higher than this. Both project proponents confirmed that the high rise plan would not be higher than the water tower. Stoelting asked what is needed of Commission members. Monique Mackenzie stated that they are presenting the updates and looking for any discussion or direction on any issues brought forward tonight. Pitzrick questioned a potential use for a third option for circulation in the MCA to accommodate segways or other personal electric vehicles. Janet Jeremiah, from the City of Eden Prairie, elaborated in detail on the development. She pointed out that the City is not initiating development,but that the City would be using the private market as a catalyst. She also stated that the Commission should be looking at this as a comprehensive plan. Ms. Jeremiah pointed out that a lot of the development is dependant on the private market. She also pointed out that there is more revisioning that needs to be completed. Franzen stated that he sees vision as two-thirds of the way there. Greg Ingraham pointed out that the MCA plan is more specific but the Golden Triangle plan needs to be more flexible. VIII. PLANNERS' REPORT Franzen stated that there will be two items on the agenda for the September 11, 2006, meeting. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2006 Page 9 IX. MEMBERS REPORTS X. CONTINUING BUSINESS XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 8-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:03 p.m.