Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 10/28/1996 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 28, 1996 7:00 p.m. 0 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell,Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, City Planner Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-- ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Public Hearing: A. ALBIN CHAPEL by Albin Chapel. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 2.47 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.47 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.47 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.47 acres,Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres into 2 lots and Code Amendment to allow funeral homes as a permitted use in the Office Zoning District. Location: Rowland Road and Old Shady Oak Road. Continued Public Hearing: B. BEARPATH 7TH ADDITION by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open Space to Low Density Residential on 68 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 420 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 68 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 68 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 68 acres into 38 lots. Location: North of Bearpath Trail and south of Rice Marsh Lake. C. CARPENTER NORTH by Walter Carpenter. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review of Phase Two Grading on approximately 7 acres. Location: North of Valley View Road and west of Prairie Center Drive. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1996 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht,Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner, Student Representative Jessica Lind STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, City Planner, Scott Kipp, Senior Planner, Ric Rosow, City Attorney and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL Chair Clinton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Habicht,Kardell, and Sandstad were excused. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Wissner,to approve the Minutes of the October 14, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ALBIN CHAPEL by Albin Chapel. Request for Planned unit Development Amendment Review on 2.47 acres,Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.47 acres, Site Plan.Review on 2.47 acres,Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres into 2 lots and Code Amendment to allow funeral homes as a permitted use in the Office Zoning District. Location: Rowland Road and Old Shady Oak Road. Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted that the developer had made the recommended changes from the last Planning Commission review of this proposal. The developer was present to answer any questions, Jim Albinson,2200 Nicollet Avenue South, President of Albin Funeral Chapel, stated they have met with the seller of the adjacent property to discuss purchase arrangements to acquire the land to address the concerns of the Planning Commission raised at the previous review of the plans. He showed a three-dimensional rendering of the building and described the exterior building materials. They are in agreement with the stipulations contained in the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, October 28, 1996 Page 2 Ismail inquired about the signage which would be used on the building and Albinson responded that there would be no signage on the building but they propose to have a sign located at the shared entrance to the site on their property. The sign would read "Albin. Chapel." Wissner inquired about the landscape plan and how it had changed and Albinson responded that there will be more landscaping because the building had been shifted to the north. The Public Hearing was opened. No one present wished to speak. Foote commented that he liked the building architecture and would support the proposal. Wissner stated she was pleased the proponents had made the changes requested by the Planning Commission. Ismail commented he was a bit concerned about the existence of two such similar businesses in Eden Prairie but assumed the proponent had done his homework and determined that there was sufficient population in the surrounding areas to support two funeral homes. Clinton stated he was pleased with the plans and glad the proponents had held a neighborhood meeting to discuss issues with the area residents. • MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to close the public hearing and recommend approval of the request by Albin Chapel for Planned unit Development Amendment Review on 2.47 acres,Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.47 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.47 acres,Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres into 2 lots and Code Amendment to allow funeral homes as a permitted use in the Office Zoning District based on plans dated October 25, 1996, and subject to the recommendations ofthe Staff Report dated October 25, 1996. Motion carried 4-0. B. BEARPATH 7TH ADDITION by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open Space to Low Density Residential on 68 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 420 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 68 acres,Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 68 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 68 acres into 38 lots. Location: North of Bearpath Trail and south of Rice Marsh Lake. Franzen introduced Ric Rosow, City Attorney, who was present to address the legal issues raised at the last Planning Commission meeting. Rosow stated that he understood the Planning Commission was concerned about the legality of approving a plan located within the Highway 212 right-of-way area. The Planning Commission should review this plan as they would review any other plan and • apply the same standards regarding its conformance to the City Codes and regulations. If the Commission finds that this plan does not meet those requirements they can move to deny the request. At the same time, if the plan meets those PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, October 28, 1996 Page 3 requirements they can recommend approval of the plans. Franzen noted the plans have not changed since the last meeting and the staff recommendation is the same. The Public Hearing was opened. Larry Zieske, 18803 Magenta Bay, stated the comments he made at the last meeting were still applicable. He believed that things change and so do the overall strategies for development within cities. He was concerned that the open space around Rice Marsh Lake was unique and should be preserved if at all possible. He requested clarification regarding the Planning Commission using the Highway 212 right-of-way as part of its consideration for this plat. He was concerned about the development being an impediment to having Highway 212 built in the future and he believed the Planning Commission should consider this in their deliberations. The property was zoned for rural development when the proponents purchased it and he did not see why it should be changed now just to afford the developers a large profit when there were so many uses and needs for our tax dollars. Charlene Ashley, 18947 Magenta Bay, stated she was present representing her neighborhood and wished to state for the record that they were in opposition to having this land built upon. Foote inquired how much of the Highway 212 right-of-way has been purchased by MnDOT to date and Franzen responded approximately 50%,primarily that located between I-494 and County Road 4. The land between County Road 4 and Chanhassen has not yet been acquired. Wissner asked about the staff recommendation to leave Outlot A(40.95 acres) as currently guided Open Space and Natural Environmental Water (Rice Marsh Lake). Franzen responded that approximately 30-32 acres was actually water body and the rest was protected by the Shoreland Ordinance. Ismail inquired if staff met with the proponents regarding revision of the plans. Franzen responded the proponents would prefer a recommendation from the Planning Commission requiring them to revise their plans prior to City Council and Park Commission review. Foote commented he was uncomfortable with the process,but since 50%of the right- of-way for Highway 212 had been purchased by MnDOT he assumed the remainder would eventually also be acquired. He stated he would approve the plan as long as Lot 6 was removed from the project. Ismail commented he was concerned about these issues and he would abstain from voting on this project because of personal objections to the project. Wissner commented she was not comfortable with the legal ramifications but understood the City's and proponent's positions and believed the project should be moved forward to the City Council. Clinton commented that he was concerned about the degree of tree loss in the plans and believed the proponents should meet the stipulations set forth in the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, October 28, 1996 Page 4 MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote to close the Public Hearing and recommend approval of Bearpath 7th Addition by Bearpath Limited Partnership for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open Space to Low Density Residential on 68 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 420 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 68 acres,Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 68 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 68 acres into 38 lots based on plans dated October 11, 1996 and subject to the recommendations of the StaffReport dated October 11, 1996. Motion carried 3-0-1. Ismail abstained. C. CARPENTER NORTH by Walter Carpenter. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review of Phase Two Grading on approximately 7 acres. Location: North of Valley View Road and west of Prairie Center Drive. Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted that this included the 1991 approved Concept Plan for this property. Staff recommended approval of the request. Walter Carpenter, 4724 Emerson South, Minneapolis, reviewed the history of the project and the requirements for the grading permit for Phase II of their project. They have addressed the wetland problems on the site. The Corps of Engineers has given them permission to use their property in Chanhassen for wetland mitigation purposes • for this site and it will be reviewed by the Watershed District next week. They have no plans to build on this site and have no buyer lined up to purchase the property for development purposes. They held a neighborhood meeting on 10/16/96 at the New Testament Church which 15 people attended. Don Brauer,250 Prairie Center Drive,noted he was the consultant on the project and reviewed the reasons why the project needed to be completed in two phases. This was because they were using the material excavated from the top of the hill to fill in the lower portion of the site. When the 1991 Wetland Act went into effect they had to meet those requirements with more mitigation area. He described the areas to be graded and noted there would be much less wetland loss than if they were not providing wetland area in Chanhassen. Ismail asked about the street and if it would become a through road. Franzen responded that staff had not considered extending Prairie Center Drive because it would become a shortcut through a residential neighborhood and it was approved with access being provided via a cul-de-sac only. Wissner asked when the proponents would do the rest of the grading on the site and Brauer responded that it would be completed next spring as it was too late in the year to finish it now. He noted that Mr. Carpenter was marketing the land for future development. Carpenter noted that the south half of the site would be commercial and the north half would be high density residential as was illustrated in the 1991 Concept Plan. He does not know what will eventually be constructed on the site;the plan was provided to obtain the grading permit. He has been holding discussions with multiple home PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday,October 28, 1996 Page 5 builders regarding future construction on the site. The Public Hearing was opened. Kevin Bloom, 7465 Scott Terrace, stated he was concerned about the buffering between this development and the existing residential property to the north. He requested the Planning Commission review the screening for the development. Carpenter stated that the grading was completed between this site and the residential property and their intent was to leave as much of the hill as possible. They have planted 15 foot trees adjacent to Mr. Bloom's property. He stated nothing would be changed on the north side of the hill. Discussion ensued regarding the location of the road and the trees that would be left on the site. Wissner inquired if the top of the hill had received its final grading and Carpenter responded affirmatively. Nancy Berg, 7435 Scot Terrace, noted she had written a letter to the Planning Commission expressing her concerns about the impact of the grading on this property on her home and retaining walls which hold the house in place. She was upset that apartments were on the Concept Plan because it would adversely impact her property • value. There is presently significant erosion on the property and she was concerned about where the water would go when the property was developed. She was also concerned about what would happen to the trees. Brauer responded that they had been more concerned about the terraced walls when the grading commenced at the top of the hill, and they had exercised great caution and care when doing that portion of the grading. Now that was completed, and the grading was well below the retaining walls, and there should not be any problems with those being disturbed or weakened by the grading. The drainage will be contained on the site. The trees which have been removed will be replaced, and there are no more trees which will be lost when they complete the grading. The drainage will be addressed because the land will be flatter and the erosion will stay on the site until it is developed. At that time it will be addressed by a drainage plan provided by that developer. Foote inquired how many feet away from the apartment building the retaining walls were located and Brauer responded that they were about 150 feet away. The residential lots are very small lots and it was only about 30 feet from Berg's deck to her property line. Marilyn Bernick, 7445 Scot Terrace, was concerned about what might happen when the land was developed. She had been told that this area was zoned for commercial development and was concerned about what might be built there. Clinton responded that each site plan would require City review and approval before any construction could occur on any of the sites. This was only a Concept Plan,not an approved plan indicating what uses would be proposed for the site. It was an idea of what might be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, October 28, 1996 Page 6 proposed only. Allan Moore, 7400 Butterscotch Road, stated he lives adjacent to Willow Park and was concerned about the final development of the site and its impacts on the park. He understood that this was only a concept of what might be built on the site and was proposed in order to obtain the grading permit. He was concerned about setting the stage for what may be proposed for this property in the future. He felt that any tree loss on the site was significant and when trees are lost it is difficult to replace them. He believed the landscape would change significantly. The term commercial development is very general. He commented it was unfortunate that the land had to be graded so significantly in order for it to be developed. David Wick,7353 Butterscotch Road,was concerned about what the plans would be for future development. Carpenter stated he had no plans and has not met with any developer who had a specific proposal. It will some type of multi-family development but exactly what type he did not know. Wick stated he was opposed to having an apartment complex built on the site. Clinton stated the Planning Commission is only acting on a grading plan not on the concept plan. The Commission must have good reasons to reject any proposal and property owners have the right to develop their property. The City Council has the final say on every development project. Wissner commented she related to the concerns expressed by the residents present, particularly those regarding tree loss, and any change within the community can be difficult to accept and become accustomed to. However, she believed it was time for this project to move forward and be completed. The Commission has to follow the guidelines and staff had assured her that the grading has been done in a responsible manner. The screening,berming,and tree loss issues will be addressed later on when the land is developed. Foote inquired if the park could be expanded and Franzen responded there was not any available land which could be acquired for that purpose. Ismail commented that the Commission considered the input from the citizens very seriously and he wished to assure those present of that situation. MOTION: Foote moved, Ismail seconded, to close the Public Hearing and recommend approval of Planned Unit Development Concept Review of Phase Two Grading on approximately 7 acres based on plans dated October 25, 1996 and subject to the recommendations of the StaffReport dated October 25, 1996.Motion carried 4-0. • V. MEMBERS' REPORTS None. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday,October 28, 1996 Page 7 VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None. VII. NEW BUSINESS -Joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council Franzen noted that the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council was scheduled for November 19, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. He had identified some issues that the Planning Commission might wish to discuss with the Council. Foote commented that housing and roadway connections would be an important issue to discuss. Wissner stated that overdevelopment of Eden Prairie was something that citizens were always bringing up and she would like to hear where the Council stood on that issue. She believed some philosophical direction on the direction of development based on the existing Guide Plan was relevant and whether the City wished to continue in that direction. She noted that the City has acquired land to preserve open spaces and perhaps some goals and visions needed to be reviewed to determine if that was the way the City wants to continue in the future. Clinton commented that the City did not advertise areas where they have preserved green space and open lands, and believed that perhaps some public relations work needed to be done in this area. Ismail was concerned about the rate at which the City appeared to be • developing and whether that process could be slowed somewhat. He believed the City was developing too fast and the amount of land left to be developed was rapidly shrinking. Franzen commented that there are 20 more proposals this year than last year,but believed that next year things would slow down somewhat. . VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen noted there were three projects which were scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting on November 12, 1996. Wissner noted Commissioner Doug Sandstad's efforts in the area of making buildings more handicapped accessible long before it was required by law, and wished the record to reflect her commendation. Sandstad was attending a meeting of the New Hope City Council to receive an award from the Disabled Community recognizing his efforts on their behalf. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, October 28, 1996 Page 8 IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Ismail,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: November 8, 1996 SUBJECT: Joint City Council-Planning Commission Meeting This meeting will be held on Tuesday,November 19, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. The topics will be as follows: Topic One: Future Land Uses For Southwest Eden Prairie Topic Two: Road Connections