Loading...
Planning Commission - 03/11/2019 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2018 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Christopher Villarreal, Carole Mette CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Matthew Bourne, Parks and Natural Resources Manager; Carter Schulze, Assistant City Engineer; Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary A. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Vice Chair Farr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent were commission members Pieper and Weber. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: DeSanctis moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. D. MINUTES MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by DeSanctis to approve the minutes of February 11, 2019. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. E. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS F. PUBLIC MEETINGS G. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BEVERLY HILL Location: 9800 Eden Prairie Rd and 16540 Beverly Drive Request for: • Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 6.86 acres • Preliminary Plat of two lots into seventeen lots and two outlots on 6.86 acres PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 11, 2019 Page 2 John Anderson, project manager, displayed a PowerPoint and explained the application. Mark Gergen, also present, was the proposed owner of the property and Great Oakes 2nd, LLC, the developer. The application called for a 17-lot single family detached subdivision north of Beverly Drive and west of Eden Prairie Road. The 15-foot strip of land to the north was owned by D. R. Horton, developer of High Pointe at Riley Creek. The Minnesota Airport Commission (MAC) property also sat to the north. An existing house along Eden Prairie Road would remain,but two other structures, one along Beverly Lane and the other at the center of the parcel where the cul-de-sac would be located would be demolished. Anderson displayed the preliminary plat and explained the street had yet to be named. In addition to the 11 lots on the cul-de-sac, there would be three lots along Beverly Drive and three along Eden Prairie Road (plus the remaining northern lot). A storm water pond/retention and infiltration area would be constructed on a triangular parcel to the northwest, and another infiltration basin would lie along Eden Prairie Road. The site plan showed the placements of the houses and the basins, as well as the existing house that would remain. The grading plan showed most of the houses would be walk-out structures on the cul-de-sac, with flat lots along Eden Prairie Road and Beverly Drive. Constructing a cul-de-sac allowed the developer to retain many of the trees in this wooded area. The landscape plan called for replacement plantings of 150 trees that would be removed,but even more trees would need to be removed were a through street constructed instead of a cul-de- sac. Anderson explained how the development conformed to the City's lot standards and zoning; lot sizes were variable to accommodate the grading and frontages of the site. Covenants and architectural guidelines would apply to home construction and would be submitted with the application. All homes would be constructed by custom builders,be a mix of two-story and rambler styles, and range in price from approximately $500,000.00 to $900,000.00, or even higher on the cul-de-sac. Anderson stated he and the owner took no issue with the conditions in the staff report, and they were working with D.R. Horton on an agreement about the easement to the north to construct a sidewalk from the cul- de-sac to Prospect Road. Mette asked if Anderson's company was the custom builder. Anderson replied Great Oakes 2nd, LLC would hire the contractor and sell lots to a custom builder. He was in communication with local builders with whom he had previously worked. He envisioned one or two builders for the development. Farr asked if lot eight on the preliminary plat had a utility easement which seemed to contradict the site plan. Anderson replied in the original submittal and on the grading plan lots eight, nine, 13, and 14 had a water collection basin utility easement originally planned to have an outlet to the pond,but after the last round of comments, this easement would be eliminated, and the development would be able to drain along Beverly Drive instead. Farr noted this would save a heritage PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 11, 2019 Page 3 30-inch red cedar(tree 71)previously slated for removal and commended the change. Farr stated tree 75 was another heritage tree slated for removal in lot 14 and asked if this could also be saved. Anderson agreed to look at this possibility; there were tight grades on this location but he could speak to the engineer about shortening the wall. Klima presented the staff report. The applicant requested a rezoning and a preliminary plat for 17 detached, single family residential lots to be known as Beverly Hill. The site was approximately 6.8 acres and consisted of two existing single family homes and accessory structures. The proposal complied with all zoning, setback, and lot size requirements and was consistent with the guiding for low density residential development. The proposed density was 2.47 units per acre. No PUD approval or waivers are requested as a part of the applications. Staff and the developer were working to provide a pedestrian connection between lots three and four to Prospect Road. City staff consistently recommended to potential developer the assembly of properties and looking at economies of scale and roadway connections in developments in this area. Architectural guidelines were included in the staff report, and the applicant was proposing restrictive covenants. Staff had received comments from MAC, due to its proximity; no alarms were raised, and conditions included noise attenuation, (non-fruit bearing) tree planting, et cetera. There could be additional conditions set prior to the City Council meeting,but nothing out of the ordinary. The staff report included language on inclusionary housing, although the Planning Commission was not being asked to make a recommendation on this at this time; this was,rather, an opportunity to initiate this conversation with the developer. Villarreal asked if there was anything to stop this developer from asking for duplexes. Klima replied the site was guided for low density, and attached duplexes not allowed in the R-1 zoning districts. Villarreal suggested there was an opportunity to expand the type of housing constructed on these open spaces to make the best use of acreage. DeSanctis asked what would give access to the new city park to the northeast of the development. Bourne replied there was a trail and a sidewalk along Eden Prairie Road, perhaps a quarter or half of a mile in length. Farr asked if best efforts had been made to assemble multiple properties and Klima reiterated staff s message has been consistent that assembly is preferred and of mutual benefit to the City and developers, and she was confident this had been explored. Chris Bunn, of 9850 Eden Prairie Road, stated he was a resident since 1998 and was not aware of this development until October, 2018 when he reached out to Gergen. He stated the lots proposed were inconsistent with the lots in the area. Whereas the average did not show this, the standard deviation, i.e., having both very small and very large lots, was large and would have a disparate impact on the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 11, 2019 Page 4 area. The setbacks were also inconsistent with the zoning, and to his mind the developer was making the greatest use of the land at his expense, since no other neighbor was as close as he was to this development. Two additional units were never accounted for in the assessments, and these would be subsidized by current property owners. This development seemed similar to Stable Path, but no builder was identified and he was concerned about what kind of architecture and housing values would go into these lots without more details provided up front. He also did not see how such small lots as called for in this development met the"2.5 units per acre" requirement of the guiding. Dan Blake, of 16831 Cedar Crest Drive and owner of Pemtom Land Company, stated the developer never contacted him about the assembly. He asked if there was a mechanism for a discussion about and enforcement of architectural guidelines and dedicated builders outside of a PUD. He was also concerned about the zoning, this parcel being R1-9.5 whereas surrounding parcels were zoned R1- 13.5. Transitions could be important or not,but they were not discussed. Otherwise, he had no opposition to this development. He agreed with no northerly extension of the street through the site; however, to his mind this reduced options in the future for Prospect Road connections. Farr clarified Blake owned the 1.6 to 1.8 acres north of the development site and east of Eden Prairie Road. Collin Gebhard, of 16723 Beverly Drive, stated he had understood Cirrus Way would never be connected due to the constraints of MAC,but wanted to urge consideration of a connection to Prospect Drive. Meher Medida, of 16627 Beverly Drive, stated he was concerned with traffic. Prospect Road was already busy in winter, and feared the position of the cul-de- sac would increase traffic. He urged this development conform to those City guidelines as well. Farr asked Schulze to detail the grade and slope of Beverly Drive and the cul-de- sac. Schulze replied the intersection of the cul-de-sac with Beverly Drive was within City's standards and could be found elsewhere in the City. There would be a landing constructed allowing motorists to slow and stop on a less grade. Farr asked for and received confirmation there was no unusually high volume of accidents on Beverly Drive, even with the recent harsh winter. Farr asked if the City ever planned to extend Prospect Road and what options were available. Schulze replied the City looked at preliminary designs of a connection at Eden Prairie Road, wrapping the westerly edge of Prospect Road into Cirrus Way, or a connection of Prospect Road to Eden Prairie Road somehow, perhaps with second cul-de-sac, and added a connection with Cirrus Way was not out of the question. He did not have a timetable for any of these options. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 11, 2019 Page 5 Mette asked if this property was completely assembled and a blank slate, how would one provide a connection. Klima replied the City and developers had done preliminary review and there was no singular option. The concern here was to preserve and reserve opportunities to make a connection in the future via a flexible design that accommodated overall City goals and development proposals. Farr asked for an explanation of the covenants to enforce new construction. Klima replied private covenants recorded against the property and would not be enforced by the City but recorded against the property. The zoning ordinance does not have architectural and building material standards for single family residential developments as it did for commercial construction. Another option was to have specific language regarding architectural and material diversity built into the development agreement, and staff was working on this. Farr asked Klima for more details on special transitions between different zoning classifications. Klima replied the City has a variety of single-family zoning districts, and there were multiple instances of an R1-9.5 abutting an R1-13.5 designation and other R1 districts abutting each other. The City strove to provide transitions where appropriate. In this case a transition zone was being provided, through a variety of lot sizes and many factors went into this. All the lot dimensions conformed to the R-19.5 standards. Villarreal asked the difference between the mean and the average of the lot sizes. Klima replied she did not have specific numbers but could provide broader context as to how density is calculated: Eden Prairie calculated density based on the gross area of a development site, including storm water treatment areas, park land, etcetera. Historically this was how all density calculations were done since the 1980s, perhaps the 1970s, and was done in this case. The number of lots assembled did fall into the 2.5 units per acre density requirement for this zoning classification. Farr noted it was not within the commission's purview to tackle the assessments issue but asked for comments from staff. Schulze stated when Eden Prairie Road was being put it this was likely the best determination at the time based on potential future development. Klima recommended Mr. Bunn contact the City Engineer's Office if there were further questions. Villarreal asked Anderson to what extent did he expect these houses to be developed with or prepared for charging units in the garages for electric vehicles. Anderson replied this was not a standard at this point,but was also not prohibited. Each house would be customized for the individual buyer. He and Gergen would have an ongoing relationship with the development,but the location of the electrical panels would be based on the locations of the boxes, which would be based on the location of the utilities. Villarreal replied since Xcel would have to upgrade the distribution system of neighborhood, and asked who would be responsible for aligning the construction of the houses to the electrical grid. Anderson replied the builder would design the house, and he and Gergen who was also a licensed realtor would work with the builder. The design came from the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 11, 2019 Page 6 electric company, and he had asked staff for a list of utility contacts. Once the design was received he could look at where the transformers and panels would go, but typically that came with the design. Villarreal urged having an optimal panel placement to accommodate electric charging garages. He also asked where and at what height new trees would go in. Rooftop solar was more beneficial facing south and southwest, and he urged the developer to consider planning for the impact of shading. Anderson replied rooftop solar was not part of the considerations, and there were not many lots that could take advantage of a south/southwest facing. A variety of trees were to be planted, and a developer could not do much with the dense tree cover to the west of the development. Farr asked Anderson to summarize the neighborhood meeting held. Anderson replied 15-20 residents, mostly within the neighborhood, attended. Most questions dealt with house size, price points, and possible debris and dirt from construction. He and Gergen provided business cards and contact information. There had been additional general questions regarding access and traffic on Beverly Drive during construction, traffic shut down on Eden Prairie Road (which he did not foresee happening), et cetera. Farr replied he received mixed results regarding Anderson's best efforts to contact other property owners regarding the assemblage and asked Anderson to describe the larger process and the reaction of the other property owners. Anderson replied the project began late summer, 2018. He met with City staff to discuss a cul-de- sac versus a through road. Anderson did not contact Bunn, since he could split his property nevertheless, nor the property owners to the north, a property that was not adjacent to this one. The 40-50 foot drop in elevation at lots 6 and 7 downhill prevented a through road, requiring removing many trees to reconcile elevations. A cul-de-sac was the better solution. The D. R. Horton site would not benefit the developer so they did not acquire that site and it would not affect Cirrus Way or Prospect Road. He added there came a point where one could spend money on items that looked rational on paper but did not truly benefit the site, especially since a steep hill was a challenge. Farr asked him to clarify what was meant by a "barrier lot" on the D. R. Horton site. Anderson replied he spoke to the owners in 2018 and received some possible prices. There was electric, gas and cable in that lot. He did not know why it was still owned; to his mind it should have been dedicated as an outlot. Farr asked staff for D. R Horton's existing utilities and the ability to grade from this property. Schulze replied he was not fully aware of what was there. However, generally utilities were within four feet of the surface and would present a challenge for connecting a road. Farr questioned forethought on development when the utilities went in. Schulze replied a road connection may have been considered, but the likelihood the utilities were buried deep enough for this was low. Bunn approached again for a further comment. He objected to the blanket approval of lots by the commission and the loose obligations of the builder; the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 11, 2019 Page 7 City had no specific agreement as to what to enforce regarding the style of houses constructed. The development called for two additional driveways on Eden Prairie Road. He understood there would be no more driveways on this road; another property had constructed a long driveway specifically to avoid opening out on Eden Prairie Road. He was concerned about precedent being set here, and asked if neighboring parcels such as his could enjoy the same zoning and subdivide his lot. Farr replied Bunn's property was not subject to this development, but he encouraged Bunn to contact zoning staff regarding a potential subdivision of his property. Bunn's site had frontage on two roads: Eden Prairie Road and Beverly Lane. The commission was voting on a rezoning and preliminary plat only. The commission was not reviewing a site plan of architectural standards; staff had worked hard with the developer to make this a voluntary agreement. He asked staff to comment on the additional driveways to be constructed on Eden Prairie Road. He understood this to be driven by topographical features. Schulze replied this section of Eden Prairie Road had relatively low traffic volume and their addition did not contribute to traffic or safety issues. DeSanctis stated Flying Cloud Drive was under phased construction and asked for the anticipated traffic volume once the connector was complete. He asked if a traffic study was planned. Schulze replied traffic would grow on Flying Cloud Drive, but traffic had actually decreased in recent years and the addition of 16 units on this cul-de-sac would not make much difference. No traffic study was planned at this time. Farr asked if any speed limit triggered a recommended a driveway T-bone instead of backing out. Schulze replied on this 30-mile-an-hour road this was not needed. Villarreal asked what usually triggered a traffic study. Schulze replied more commercial type development typically triggered one. The lowest tier trigger was around 100 trips; this would not rise to that level. This could change in the future; perhaps an analysis rather than a study would be done. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Villarreal to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Villarreal stated on the whole cul-de-sac made sense to him. Bunn was concerned there were too many lots shoehorned into this section and added a traffic study should be considered, being that more houses could be added along Beverly Road in the future. Higgins noted there were lots across Eden Prairie Road that were very large, and this development could trigger subdivisions there in the future. Kirk stated there were always tradeoffs in development, and the commission strove to find the best balance. He hoped the developer would maintain the R1- 13.5 setbacks. Traffic was always stated an issue,but rarely was it a major one in a residential area. DeSanctis stated the concept was reasonable,but he aired his concerns: how this development contributed to affordable housing, and the long term City plan of sustainability and carbon mitigation. He urged the inclusion of language to the development agreement for solar, e-vehicles and smart homes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 11, 2019 Page 8 Mette stated this was the best plan for a site which presented unique grade challenges. She had no problem with the zoning; the lots along Eden Prairie Road could not be configured differently due to the nature of the site and drove the lot size disparity. It would generate a tax base while offering a future ability to connect Prospect Road. She did not see a reason to eliminate two homes. Affordable housing was not as yet a requirement and was the most challenging policy to enforce for single family detached units. Higgins noted there had been adequate effort to satisfy City requirements on a site that had been highly sought after by developers, and encouraged Bunn to further communicate with City staff. Farr commended the site plan for preserving trees. He appreciated DeSanctis's and Villarreal's concerns on sustainability, and had confidence in City engineering staff to design roads properly, especially in single-family residential areas. He saw no safety concerns and had no objection to the zoning change. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Mette to recommend approval of the zoning district change from rural to R1-9.5 on 6.86 acres and the preliminary plat of the two lots into 17 lots and two outlots on 6.86 acres based on the staff report dated March 7, 2019 and plans stamp-dated March 1, 2019. MOTION CARRIED 5-1 with one nay vote (Villarreal). H. PLANNERS' REPORT I. MEMBERS' REPORTS J. CONTINUING BUSINESS K. NEW BUSINESS L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Villarreal moved, seconded by DeSanctis to adjourn the meeting. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Chair Farr adjourned the meeting at 8:31 p.m.