Planning Commission - 10/08/2018 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2018 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew
Pieper, Ed Farr, Mark Freiberg, Michael DeSanctis,
Christopher Villarreal, Carole Mette
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner
Matthew Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural
Resources; Rod Rue, City Engineer;
Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Absent was commission members Mette and Higgins.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Freiberg moved seconded by DeSanctis to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Kirk moved seconded by Farr to approve the minutes of September 24, 2018.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
VI. PUBLIC MEETINGS
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
SMITH VILLAGE
Location: 16389 & 16397 Glory Lane
Request for:
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 2
• Guide Plan change from Industrial and Church/Cemetery to Medium High
Density
• Residential on 7.16 acres
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.16 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.16 acres
• Zoning District Change from Pub and I-Gen to RM-2.5 on 7.16 acres
• Site Plan Review on 7.16 acres
• Preliminary Plat of two lots into five lots and one outlot on 7.16 acres
Mark Nelson, of United Properties representing the development team, presented a
PowerPoint and explained the application. The 7.16-acre property located east of Eden
Prairie Road, north of Highway 212 and just north of the Minnesota River Bluff LRT
Regional Trail, would be developed into a multi-family unified residential project with
three product types. Common Bond proposed Trail Point Ridge along Eden Prairie Road
and included workforce housing in a four-story building with 58 units, ranging from one-
to three-bedroom units, and ninety percent having rents attainable for middle-income
workers.
Both surface and underground parking was proposed. United Properties Development,
LLC proposed a 100-unit three-, four-, and five-story building on the east side of the
property. The building included for-sale homes for active and independent seniors at least
62 years of age. Homes would be sold as a membership share of stock into the
cooperative. Both underground and surface parking were proposed. All of the homes
would be two-bedroom units and most included a den and/or sunroom. This proposed
building will include a number of amenities for the residents such as a craft room, fitness
center, great room, et cetera. For the Smith Village Townhomes, the Halley Land Corp.
proposed two three-unit townhome buildings along the regional trail. Each of the six for-
sale townhomes would be custom homes approximately 3,500 square feet with two- or
three-car garages.
Additional information and revisions to the original application have been provided
relating to the school bus drop-off and pick-up plan, landscaping, building placement on
site, and better integration of the site with the neighborhood. Nelson displayed the view
from the trail to show the limited visual trail impact. The owners of the Smith House
Coffee Shop raised new concerns in an email dated October 1, 2018. Those concerns
include the landscaping between the cooperative and the parking area; the trail
connection being adjacent to the site possibly causing the business to lose a parking stall;
the name "Smith Village" which would be the marketing name for only that part of the
development but could be changed; and the parking plan. Nelson displayed a view from
the Smith House and stated he would continue to work with staff on all of these concerns.
Additional concerns included would the development stand the test of time and be
sustainable; increased traffic along Eden Prairie Road, which was studied by a consultant
hired by the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 3
Farr asked if the applicant was prepared to accept the six staff conditions itemized in the
staff report, and Nelson replied he would.
Klima presented the staff report. The applicant had continued to work with staff since the
September 10, 2018 presentation. The changes included providing access to the City's
future ground water storage tank area to the south of the site, landscaping revisions, et
cetera. A waiver is requested for the site landscaping. City code allowed developer to
count 25 percent of the planting beds toward the overall caliper inches. The proposed
landscaping was acceptable to staff and staff recommended approval of the waiver as
requested and with the final calculations. The building height waiver also required final
measurements. A small change in materials needed to be made to the fagade to bring it
compliant with City code class materials. Letters from residents had been included in the
staff report, some stating concerns and providing additional comments, and three letters
of support were also provided. A PUD approval was usually requested when a mix of
uses was being provided and flexibility within the City code was needed, and this was not
atypical.
Inclusionary housing recommendations were still being revised at the September 10
meeting. Staff reviewed the original requests against the Code and recommended
Applewood include three units at 60 percent AMI, four units at 80 percent AMI, and
three at 100 percent AML Common Bond would seek TIF through a separate process.
Staff would continue to work with the developer on this. Changes that staff proposed to
the conditions of approval were: a revision of the plans to reflect the access by the water
storage tank and the attached easement language when the development agreement is
signed; the building setback along Glory Lane would be 16.7 feet; and fulfillment of
specifics of building height and landscaping caliper inches. When these are finalized,
staff would amend the waiver language. Staff recommended approval subject to the
conditions in the staff report.
Pieper asked if fees would be part of the discussion tonight. Klima replied staff did not
recommend approval the waiver of the park dedication or the Sac and Wac fees, which in
the case of Common Bond, maybe more appropriately addressed under the TIF
discussion.
Farr asked how much weight the issue of the water storage tank access should be given.
Klima replied as of the September 10 meeting the City had not received the information
regarding access. The applicant continued to work with the Public Works Director,
though the plans had not yet been revised to reflect this. A separate sketch was provided
in the packets, and the applicant and the Public Works Director were in agreement as to
the location and the language. Farr replied the blue line in the color sketch did not seem
to indicate the entire access. Rue replied the easement would extend down south of where
it appeared to end on the sketch, into the regional rail property. Farr observed a straight
line here whereas the plans indicated a more circuitous route, and urged a three-
dimensional solution to the access. Rue replied this was a 10 percent grade, sufficient for
access. Should the applicant desire an ADA-accessible trail, it would have to utilize
switchbacks. Three Rivers and the Hennepin Rail Authority were also involved in the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 4
discussion. Kirk asked for and received confirmation the staff and developer have an
informal agreement which needed to be finalized on paper and in the plans.
John Pullis of 8101 Curtis Lane (Lake Park Townhomes) spoke in support, stating the
multi-generational, multi-income project was consistent with his and his wife's values,
she being a member of the Human Rights and Diversity Commission.
David Saltzman of 17635 Wiedman Way, and employee of Southwest Transit and
member of the Eden Prairie Housing Coalition, spoke in support, stating it made
excellent use of existing property and blended different types of housing. The affordable
workforce housing offered in Common Bond was especially desirable, since"limited
income" did not necessarily mean "poor" but stable and needed professions such as
teachers and fire fighters, etcetera. The Eden Prairie Housing Coalition was in support of
the mixed-use concept.
Donald Hanson of 7936 Timberlake Drive gave a PowerPoint presentation and spoke in
support of the project but with the same major concerns he raised at the September 10
meeting. He proposed to reduce the building height to three stories, removed the
townhome portion of the project, modify the mixed-use section from three elements to
two; and to model the project, especially the color scheme, after the Sterling Ponds senior
apartments. He invoked the "100 Year Rule," the legacy of any project a century from
now, to prevent the unintended consequences of granted variances. He stressed lack of
sufficient setback, such as at Eden Gardens, preventing the widening of Eden Prairie
Road in the future, and proposed complementary colors to the sky to camouflage the
project's impact on the prairie (original landscape of Eden Prairie).
Cari Larsen of 17971 Junegrass Lane spoke in support of the project, stating the mixed-
use development was important for maintaining the availability of affordable housing.
Abdi Fatah Yusuf, a ten-year resident of Eden Prairie, spoke in favor of the Common
Bond project, stating affordable housing was difficult for residents to find.
Mike Bedglund of 10984 Jackson Drive and a thirty-year resident of Eden Prairie and a
real estate broker, spoke in support, stating change was the only constant and this was a
well-thought-out project that addressed specific needs, including affordable housing.
MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Kirk to close the public hearing. MOTION
CARRIED 8-0.
Pieper asked Nelson if he was prepared to address the residents' concerns, specifically
the use of Sterling Ponds as a model, the color scheme, and the reduction of a four-story
to a three-story. Nelson noted the four-story Trail Pointe Ridge apartment building had
gone through a multi-layered funding process that would be in jeopardy were it reduced;
also, the underground parking, more expensive than surface parking, maximized the
green space and storm water, making the marketing of a four-story development crucial.
The townhomes were also a driver of the development funding and could not be removed
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 5
from the plan. Nelson stated the existing color scheme utilized earth tones and attractive
materials.
Villarreal noted a condition required funding for the Trail Pointe Ridge and asked how
this would be done. Diana Dyste, project manager of Common Bond Communities, low-
income housing tax credit for a primary source of funding. Common Bond submitted an
application in June and expected grant award announcements in October or November.
Common Bond was also able to secure Hennepin County funding, and 70 percent of the
funding source was through equities secured from the tax credit.
Freiberg praised this unique collaboration among three developers and stated subjecting
the "100 Year Rule" to this project was not realistic, as one trying to imagine the future a
century ago would not be likely to imagine today's reality, and it was difficult to project
even ten years in the future. Rather, Eden Prairie had needs to be addressed today, and
this project addressed those for this site. Weber agreed, saying the project more than fit
the site and its advantages far outweighed its disadvantages. He saw no comparison to the
Sterling Heights development. DeSanctis also expressed support but stated he wanted to
see an aggressive landscaping plan. It fell under the 975 caliper inch requirement, and
there should be a concerted effort to increase the number of trees due to the proximity of
Highway 212 and the changes in our climate. Farr also expressed support. The coffee
shop owners' concern with the height could be mitigated by a three-dimensional shadow
study; the three clustered facades would have a blended, not an individual, architectural
style; and at the September 10 meeting Farr had suggested the applicant screen the
development with trees and shrubs to accommodate the waiver for the 35 foot setback to
20 feet, and he wished to see more consistency on this. Kirk also expressed support for
the project saying the compromises were good ones and in the right direction for Eden
Prairie.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Weber to recommend approval of Smith Village
project based on information contained in the October 5 staff report and the plans stamp
dated September 24, 2018 with the following conditions: staff recommendation 2a:
easement language would be understood to be at the time of development agreement;
staff recommendation 2d: the building setback along Glory Lane would be 16.7 feet; and
there could be details in the waivers prior to City Council meeting. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
EDEN BLUFF 4TH ADDITION (CH ROBINSON)
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 11.67 acres
• Site Plan Review on 11.67 acres
Brian Hennen, manager of Procurement and Real Estate for CH Robinson, gave an
overview of the application. The 11.67-acre property located on the corner of Liatris
Lane and Charlson Road, part of a larger CH Robinson office campus. In its continued
growth, CH Robinson delayed the building of a fourth office building, and there is no
timetable for it to be built. Their parking on campus was at capacity, driving an imminent
need for more parking spaces. Hennen held community meetings with the Hennepin
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 6
Village community in 2017 and 2018, and also hosted a meeting with Hennepin Village
board members. The current application represented a compromise.
Paul Holmes, Vice President/Principal of Pope Architects, displayed a PowerPoint and
detailed the application. The project for the Eden Bluff site had been approved in 2008.
The immediate need was for more parking, with a later timetable for the fourth building.
After neighborhood comment on the originally proposed three-story building, the future
building and the present parking application asked for a two-story, 80,000 square foot
building, expandable to the west to 120,000 square feet, and 175 surface parking stalls.
This plan had one access point to Liatris Lane in response to a traffic study done in
August, 2017. It included a dedicated right-turn and dedicated left-turn lanes onto
Charlson Road. The building height was 22.5 feet high to the roof and 30 feet high to the
parapet, and followed the Eden Prairie Design Guidelines adopted in 2016. Holmes
displayed the views of the trees planted in 2004 which were now essential screening, and
a view with the completed parking and future parking. The nearby townhomes would
look over the building site. Holmes displayed the drainage plan which collected storm
water into two undergrown containment vessels and drained into the pond. The landscape
plan would add trees to the screening between parking and the townhomes and in
planting islands, and would also be screened from Liatris Lane.
Klima presented the staff report. In 2006, a PUD was approved for Phases two through
four of the overall CH Robinson campus, which included this property. The approved site
plan for this property included a one-story 81,900 square foot L-shape building with 614
parking stalls. The 2006 approved plan also included access via two driveways onto
Liatris Lane and a shared driveway with the existing CH Robinson building to the east.
An existing storm water management area was located along the south property line of
this lot. The current application included the construction of surface parking and
construction of a 120,000 square foot, two-story office building using a phased
development approach.
The project is proposed to be constructed in phases. The first phase included the
construction of a parking lot with 175 parking stalls on the east side of the site, west of
the existing CH Robinson building. The second phase proposed to include construction of
a new 80,000 square foot, two-story office building and an additional 607 parking spaces.
The proposed site plan would also include a potential third phase that could
accommodate a 40,000 square foot, two-story future expansion of the building. Full build
out of the building would bring the total square footage of the building to 120,000 square
foot.
As a part of the PUD process, the applicant was seeking one waiver from the City Code
to allow an off-street parking lot on the property without a primary structure and allowing
the parking lot to serve an adjacent lot. The applicant had identified a need for additional
parking for their current employees before the need for additional office space. The
proposal was to construct a portion of the parking on this property prior to constructing
the proposed new building. The proposed Phase I parking would ultimately serve the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 7
overall campus and future building. Letters from the public were included in the packet
and available on the table for Commission members. Staff recommended approval of the
project subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Farr noted Phase One included no temporary storm water treatment other than the
existing ponds and asked if this would be adequate until the underground treatment plant
were constructed. Rue replied the pond was built in earlier phases and a trunk line fed it.
Underground infiltrations would be provided in the future.
Deane Conklin of 15529 Junegrass Lane, President of Hennepin Village Master Board
and President of the Heritage Townhome Subdivision Association, also a retired banker
at the Chase Manhattan Bank with an undergraduate degree in economics and an MBA in
Finance, raised his and current residents of Heritage Village objections to the project.
Most homeowners made their home purchases after 2006 and thus had been unaware of
the prior approvals, and were blindsided by the Eden Bluff business park PUD. He
displayed a 2006 color exhibit used in marketing homes by the prior developer that
showed a blank area with prairie grass on the development site, and stated no mention
was made of this future development to homeowners buying homes in this development.
Residents were concerned about property values, traffic, and safety. The Hennepin
Village Master Board considered the impact of this project on other homeowners, not just
those that would overlook the site. Citing the staff report, Conklin raised concerns about
land use and traffic impacts. The Traffic Impact Study was conducted during a non-
school vacation month in August, 2017, a month that did not include school bus
movement and not representative of either peak-use or normal levels. The queuing and
backup issues raised in the report and experienced at CH Robinson were a concern even
in the study month of August. The construction of a roundabout at Charlson Road and
Spring Road would mitigate backup issues. Conklin called for a refresh traffic study
based on a school day, work day weekday before any building permits. He suggested
leveraging the Grace Church parking lot with a shuttle. CH Robinson's CFO cycled to
work; Conklin asked if this and other out-of-the-box solutions would be considered by
CH Robinson and the commission members. He called for a four-way stoplight on
Charlson Road and Liatris Lane and the consideration of a roundabout at Charlson Road
and Spring Road before construction of the parking. Drainage and landscaping, especially
along the southern border, were also major concerns. Residents did not have the most up-
to-date information, and the Hennepin Village Board would entertain retaining an
engineer at its upcoming meeting on October 15. Conklin urged the developer to use the
City's geocoding software to inventory trees as Hennepin Village had been required to by
the Natural Resources Department of the Parks and Recreation Department. He urged a
requirement to use the geocoding software, an independent engineer retained by the
Hennepin Village board be allowed to review the drainage plan, and the aforementioned
traffic study refresh be added to the staff report as conditions of the development.
Victoria Pellar Price of 15487 Junegrass Lane spoke against the project, likening it to a
"shotgun wedding." She stated she, like others, was completely unaware of the prior
approval and stated the major objection was the fact their only entrance/exit point(at
Liatris exit) was being cut in half. This T-section was utilized by school buses,bicycles,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 8
pedestrians, and parents with strollers and she stated the homeowners could not imagine
that street being turned into an access point for the CH Robinson parking lot. She was
concerned about safety and access in light of the increasing traffic, and called for no
approved expansion until a refreshed traffic study was done that reflected the school
calendar year. When Highway 61 closed, traffic accessed the area from Spring Road,
causing bothersome congestion. The top of Junegrass Lane was a steep incline and every
winter her and her neighbors' cars became stuck, forcing residents to back down the
street to Charlson Road to turn or to turn on Plumstone Road in order to reach their
homes. Given the existing traffic difficulties, she was concerned about the addition of
700 automobiles attempting to reach the CH Robinson site.
Kenneth Dedeker, Eden Prairie resident 10064 Indigo Drive and President of Prairie
View Townhome Association and Vice President of the Hennepin Village Master Board,
echoed Conklin concerns regarding traffic, particularly at peak workday hours. He also
called for a refreshed traffic study and a four-way stoplight. He complimented CH
Robinson for moving the access from Plumstone to Liatris,but reiterated that not enough
had been done.
Charles Batchlor of 15211 Plumstone Drive expressed concerns about traffic, as he had a
son who caught the bus at Plumstone and Liatris, and stated the potential for loss of
property values at the construction of a parking lot and office building close to these
homes.
Kaju Kalidindi of 15457 Junegrass Lane echoed others' concerns and added if the Liatris
Drive access to CH Robison were to be reserved only for emergency vehicles, this would
lessen the congestion already seen by the residents. He was unsure how the drainage
would affect the homeowners,but wondered if the present drainage contributed to the
mosquito level in the area.
Venkal Marikondy of 15473 Junegrass Lane echoed others' concerns about the impacts
of traffic of this commercial construction on the residential area. He emphasized how
pervasive the apprehension among the residents was.
Vijama Ravella of 15099 Plumstone Drive objected to the development due to the
difficulty of getting to Charlson Road with the addition of half(350) of the projected
extra cars (700). He echoed the concerns about the necessity of pushing cars in the winter
due to the steep road and congestion, and asked for a creative solution. He was a new
resident and was disconcerted by the present level of traffic—seven bus stops on his
street. He urged the commission members to consider the safety of the residents.
Saidaar Bommareddy of 15172 Plumstone Drive expressed his concerns about buying a
home in an area that appeared to be completely different than what the development now
shows, due to him being unaware of the prior approvals and having never been told about
them by the seller. He expressed concerns that his property values have already gone
down due to the CH Robinson development, a trend he feared would continue. He also
called for a refreshed traffic study conducted during a peak use month. He invited the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 9
commission members to witness the traffic for themselves on Liatris Lane, where a bus
stop could not be considered due to the traffic configuration.
Rebecca Prochaska of 15787 Porchlight Lane also called for a refreshed traffic study and
for alternatives such as using the parking at Grace Church with a shuttle service.
Venkal Chandue of 15371 Plumstone Drive stated the traffic was not a concern ten years
ago when he moved to Eden Prairie but already was a concern even before the
construction of this development. He was also concerned for the cyclists and pedestrians
using the roads.
MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by DeSanctis to close the public hearing. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
Pieper noted the many concerns regarding traffic. Rue replied he assumed the August,
2017 traffic study took these concerns into account and utilized adjustment factors from
MnDOT which was typical in writing such a study,but he would check with the
consultant. A refresh was possible and even going beyond that to analysis and examining
alternatives was possible. The traffic study talked about two main concerns: the Spring
Road and Charlson Lane intersection and the roundabout at that intersection; and the
"office entrance" on the east side of the CH Robinson campus, north of Charlson and
Flying Cloud Drive. Distribution of traffic was talked about in the report, and the
majority of traffic to the office park was from Flying Cloud Drive. Therefore, most traffic
numbers were coming from the east and would not access the neighborhood. He
suggested some access improvements, such as the proposed channelized right turn at
Liatris, geometric improvements to discourage people turning left, and a median three-
quarter access to create more right turns.
Pieper asked Hennen to address the traffic and parking. Hennen replied 175 parking spots
followed the City's recommendation. CH Robinson was asked to do the study in July,
2017, so August was a choice. There was no timeline to build the building and Hennen
stated it could be deferred. The 175 parking spots would not be part of the entrance/exit,
but come out of the eastern side from Flying Cloud Drive.
Farr asked, given the delay of Phase II and Phase III, what the shelf life of the traffic
report was. Rue replied the study stated a projection of 2019 and presuming nothing
would change on the proposal, this report would have a long shelf life,but it did not look
at 2030 or 2040 as the comprehensive plan did, so could have a longer time horizon with
this improvement in mind. Farr asked if traffic report addressed the impact of the 175
parking stalls. Rue replied the traffic study dealt with the building of the 120,000 square
foot building rather than the interim traffic concern. Farr asked how to measure traffic
inconvenience and congestion at intersections and stop signs, and if the traffic report
stated there were acceptable levels of service after the Phase II and Phase III
development. Rue replied the study dealt with the two access intersections (Spring Road
and Charlson, and Charlson and the office park) which were of most concern, and the
latter was at maximum queue or desirable queue. The middle intersection of Liatris and
Charlson was not addressed by the study. Farr asked if there were neighborhood
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 10
complaints at other intersections. Rue replied the summer of 2018 was a good test with
the closure of Flying Cloud Drive, causing more traffic on Charlson Drive. He expected
the study's numbers to be consistent with future traffic projections.
Pieper asked the process for the developer coming forward only to build the parking lot.
Klima replied staff always encourages sharing of the complete development proposal
rather than looking at it piecemeal. If it came in at Phase I, the question would arise about
subsequent phases. This entire plan had been approved in 2006. If the request was just to
complete the first phase, a PUD amendment would be needed to address the waiver to
allow the offsite parking,because the existing approval does not allow for offsite parking
(due to the property being in separate parcels). Moving the property line to accommodate
the different parcels would also involve time and process.
Villarreal asked what the process was if the applicant wanted to build the property to the
2006 agreement. Klima replied the process would go through a land alteration permit and
a building permit, and the 2006 conditions agreed to would have to be met. Villarreal
asked if there was a condition to redo a traffic study. Klima replied she was not sure of
specific development agreement language, but it was not a typical requirement to redo
any traffic study when the construction actually begins. Villarreal asked for and received
confirmation from Hennen that there were existing concerns with parking. Hennen
admitted the project was at capacity for parking. CH Robinson had hoped to break
ground before winter but was now looking at alternatives for parking until 2019.
Kirk noted for the residents, safety and traffic concerns were overwhelming. He
wondered how big the traffic problem were at 175 new spaces (in the near future) as
opposed to 700 (the total), and asked if the traffic study should be refreshed comparing
175 and 700. He also asked if the commission members could build into the approval of
this project a requirement for a new parking study prior to the implementation of Phase
II, the date range of which was presently unknown. Farr replied he was not sure time
would change findings or recommendations until traffic behaviors change. If the
assumptions stay the same, a refresh would not uncover new findings. Kirk replied even
if the data didn't support a refresh it raises yellow flags, and the perception of the
residents was there was a significant problem already. Farr stated a microanalysis of
school bus movements and cars at peak was probably not addressed by the traffic report.
Kirk agreed, and stated he and Farr both saw a need for a deeper dive into the traffic
improvements. Freiberg emphasized the issue of trust and added he would like to see a
traffic refresh both to shore up the confidence of residents and arrive at a compromise.
Kirk agreed, and asked if this was needed immediately. Freiberg replied it should be done
as soon as possible. Conklin interjected,but Pieper requested to continue the discussion
with the Commission. Hennen agreed a refreshed traffic study was possible. Discussion
followed on a timing of the refreshed traffic study as a condition in a motion for approval
of the project.
Farr observed the discussion was getting bogged down in traffic when Phase II and Phase
III had not been discussed. He stated staff appropriately guided the applicant toward a
waiver of the PUD since the original building plan overlapped with its current parking
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 11
request(175 stalls). Pieper asked for and received confirmation from Klima that there
were no waivers regarding building height. Klima replied the only waiver was being
sought for offsite parking. Farr noted the residents of the townhomes looking out to the
north would see more architecture than roof, since the project asked for a two-story
building rather than a one-story, and he had no problem with the height and orientation of
the building.
Villarreal noted the applicant was asking for approvals of future Phase II and III. The
concerns were the traffic study as it applied to the impact on the residential area, and a
better understanding of the landscaping and trees. He suggested requiring the applicant
complete a full tree inventory and to do temporary screening during construction. Kirk
agreed with that approach, and added Farr made a good point about the asset of the height
of the building—it was not necessarily an asset to the homeowners nearby but it was also
not a detriment. No one at this meeting was responsible for what was or was not
communicated to the residents when they were purchasing their homes,but there was,
since 2006, always a building and always a development project for this land, and the
information about this development(including the future building) was always available
to the public whether or not the public was aware of it. He emphasized the commission
was trying to find middle ground to give the public and the developer a win-win option.
Villarreal summarized the concerns: a second traffic study and a tree inventory plus
temporary screening during construction. Weber asked if the commission was requiring a
new traffic study before the construction of Phases II and III or even earlier. DeSanctis
argued the central issue here was requesting a second traffic study. That would show a
good faith effort but also address safety as well as the real time and immediate livability
of this community. Such a study would be commissioned during the peak period of use,
such as autumn or winter. Kirk asked if this should be commissioned before the
construction of 175 parking spots (immediate construction) or the 700 parking spots
(future construction). He added he would support doing such a study before the Phase II
implementation. Freiberg agreed, and requested it be done immediately. Discussion
followed on crafting a motion with conditions.
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to recommend approval of the Eden Bluff
Fourth Addition project based on information contained in the October 5, 2018 staff
report and plans stamp dated October 1, 2018 with the following amendments to the staff
recommendations: 1B: "revised landscape plan is required to include a landscape in all
parking lot islands required by City Code, and the revised landscape plan shall also
include a detailed plan for temporary screening between Phase I and Phase II parking
lots. The temporary screening shall be required to be installed during Phase I; further,
approximately 15 coniferous trees scheduled for the south side planting as a buffer for the
Phase II development shall be planted permanently or temporarily at this time during the
Phase I construction and relocated as required in the landscape plan during the Phase I
construction. The second amendment to the staff recommendation would add condition 6:
"The development agreement shall require an updated traffic report to address the safety
of the existing residential neighborhood, both pedestrian and vehicular, prior to the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 12
application for a building permit for the Phase II project." MOTION CARRIED 6-1
with one nay vote by Freiberg.
VIII. PLANNERS' REPORT
IX. MEMBERS' REPORTS
X. CONTINUING BUSINESS
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Kirk to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
Chair Pieper adjourned the meeting at 10:09 p.m.