Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 07/24/1995 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION July 249 1995 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner Don Uram, Economic Development Manager Kathleen O'Connor, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chair Katherine Kardell. Ismail Ismail was absent; all other members were present. H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Wissner to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0-0. . III. MINUTES Schlampp moved, seconded by Wissner to approve the Minutes of July 10, 1995 as published. Motion carried 5-0-1 with one abstention by Sandstad. IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC_HEARINGS A. FUDDRUCKERS, INC. & RIO BRAVO CANTINA by Fuddruckers, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 4.02 acres, PUD Concept Review on 4.02 acres, PUD District Review on 4.02 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 4.02 acres, Site Plan Review on 4.02 acres and Preliminary Plat of 8.53 acres into 2 lots, one outlot and road right-of-way. Location: U.S. Highway 169 and Technology Drive. This is a continued item from the July 10 Planning Commission meeting. The project was continued to allow the staff and the proponent time to meet with the DNR and make plan revisions per the July 7 Staff Report. Uram reviewed the plan revisions for the project. The revisions include: 1. Modifying the grading plan so as to allow the grading to be "pulled back" from the lakeshore to a width of between 20 and 40 feet. 2. Allow NURP pond to remain as currently designed. 1 3. Relocate the trail along Lake Idlewild next to the base of the retaining wall. This trail will become City owned and will require an easement from the property owner. 4. Reducing the front yard parking setback to 10 feet along both street frontages. This change allows for Fuddrucker's to move from a shoreland setback of 65 feet to 70 feet. 5. Modifying the landscaping plan. Minor revisions to the landscape plan are still necessary, including the relocation of all landscaping out of the right-of-way and increasing the height of evergreens from 4 to 6 feet. 6. Site access will be from Technology Drive at an existing shared access with American Baptist Homes and a new access farther to the east. At this time, the convenience center is not in favor of making a connection to their parking lot. The proponent will continue to work for this access. Staff met with the DNR on-site and have clarified all issues related to their letter of July 5. The DNR concurs with staff s recommendations on plan revisions and understands the need for variances. The staff recommends approval according to the revised plans and the Staff Report dated July 21, 1995. MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Fuddruckers, Inc. for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 4.02 acres, PUD Concept Review on 4.02 acres, PUD District Review on 4.02 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 4.02 acres, Site Plan Review on 4.02 acres and Preliminary Plat of 8.53 acres into 2 lots, one outlot and road right-of-way based on revised plans dated July 20, 1995, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 21, 1995. Motion carried 6-0-0. B. KINDERCARE by'Kindercare. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 2.75 acres. Location: Highway 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. This is a continued item from the June 26, 1995 meeting. The Planning Commission directed the developer to revise the development plan to relocate the outdoor play area in the center of the site and place the building and parking • areas adjacent to Highway 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. 2 Franzen introduced John Dietrich, consultant, from RLK Associates who reviewed several site plans that have been considered and introduced the current proposed plan. The new plan indicates that the play areas are to be located to the north and east of the building. There will be a 35 foot setback from Highway 169 with a berm at a 3:1 slope. The developer will plant three rows of 12 foot trees on the south and west sides of the site. The NURP pond will remain the same. Clinton asked about the provisions for signage. Dietrich explained that there would be a pylon sign at the corner, 20 feet off the property line at the south and west. Also, a ground level monument sign at the entrance. Wissner questioned whether Kindercare uses climate control at all times, or do they occasionally open the windows. She was concerned about the noise level due to traffic on Highway 169 and how that might interfere with the children's learning. John Finlimore from Kindercare explained that generally they use climate control. However, on nice days they may choose to open the windows. He did not anticipate that highway noise would be a problem due to the planned berm and the fact that the rooms for the older children face away from the street. Schlampp asked where the run off will go once it leaves the NURP pond. His concern is that it will increase flooding potential for properties to the north. . Franzen stated that Kindercare had met the City sign code, and a further analysis will be done to address the questions of drainage. These will include: 1. Where will the runoff go? 2. What is the size of the drainage area? 3. How high will the pond rise? 4. What year storm event will be used? The staff recommends that the project be continued to the August 14th meeting based on the six conditions listed in the July 21st Staff Report and the additional questions on drainage. MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to continue the public hearing until August 14, 1995 and direct City staff to publish for the August 15, 1995 City Council meeting. 3 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. LAUKKA-JARVIS DEVELOPMENT by Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. Request for • Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to amend the MUSA line, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.2 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.2 acre, Preliminary Plat of 43.2 acres into 52 lots. Location: South of Riverview Road and east of Riverview Drive. Peter Jarvis from Laukka-Jarvis Development reviewed the proposed plans for the site. He advised the Commission that it is their intent to dedicate 12 acres of open space and 17 acres of flood plain to the City. He went on to explain that approximately 15.2 acres is slated for development. The type of home to be offered is expected to appeal mainly to young professionals and empty nesters. Jarvis presented artist renditions of the development pointing out that the homes would offer three floor plans, nine elevations, and three variations of options. Construction would include vinyl siding, chimney caps, and accents of brick, stone, and ornamental metal. Each home would have a front fence and gate as well as a side yard privacy fence. Lots on the south end of the project would back up to the bluffs, while interior lots would open up to a common pond and wooded area. The price of the homes would run from approximately $225,000 up to $300,000. Jarvis stated that the winding pathway behind the development is no longer a part • of the proposal because the neighbors did not like it. However, they do propose a trail along the east end of the property as well as a rustic path in the woods around the NURP pond. Franzen stated the staff recommends approval of the plan as proposed, according to Alternative I of the Staff Report, subject to changes in architecture, landscaping and road alignments. Or, as he pointed out, the Commission may choose Alternative II or III. Wissner asked how much additional bluff area would be open to development should someone propose a single family development. Jarvis explained that such a proposal could include approximately 13 additional acres, about 50% of which is wooded area. Richard Crosby,, 10366 Concord Drives expressed concerns about additional traffic in the area. He feels traffic is already heavy on Concord, and this development would add much more. He is also concerned about tree loss and erosion. He stated that there are a number of large oak trees at the top of the property that would be removed for the project. Crosby also felt that the design does not fit into the neighborhood community. He would like to see a more traditional single family home development. 4 Steve Ruffmg, 10422 W. Riverview Drive,is not concerned about the proposed density. However, he does not like the one larger single family lot on the corner of the project. He would like to see a different transition to the neighborhood. Mark Wall, 10400 W. Riverview Drive, also does not like the one larger single family lot on the corner. He feels it does not fit. Tammy Schulman, 12076 Riverview Road, dislikes the one larger single family lot. Additionally, she feels that the proposed project does not fit the neighborhood. She stated that it is currently a family neighborhood and would like to see more of the same. She expressed concern for the additional traffic. She also felt that the project would cause the area to deteriorate both naturally and culturally. Sharon Clements, 10299 Concord Drive, is concerned about the traffic that will be generated for Concord Drive. She pointed out that Concord is a very curvy street and drivers already drive to fast on it. Wally Hustad, 10470 Whitetail CrossIM had three major concerns; precedence, density, and transition. In regards to precedence, he stated that the area along the bluffs has historically been the estate area with large lots. He feels the density of the project is too dramatic a change in the area. He also feels that transition to the area is poor and is concerned about both utility and road access. He is against the proposed trail along the west side of the property. Laura Blumel, 10540 W. Riverview Drive, also feels the project is a poor transition to the neighborhood because of the small lot size. She is concerned about the bluff area that is being dedicated to the City that is really a bribe or carrot. She inquired as to who will be responsible for maintaining the area, controlling dumping, and be liable for injuries incurred by people who enter the bluffs. She fears the City will eventually turn the area into a park. She would like to see the open space retained as private property. She would also like to see the road to the northeast of the project completed to divert some of the traffic off of Concord Drive. Kelly Huhler, 12300 Riverview Roads is concerned about the extra traffic the project will bring to the area. She cited vehicles speeding, juvenile parties, dumping, and fire setting, as problems that residents are already experiencing. She is afraid that introducing a new trail in the bluffs will increase these problems. Chris Anderson, 10346 Concord Drive, is also concerned about the amount of traffic on Concord Drive. Gail Diehl, 10530 W. Riverview Drive, objects to the density of the project. She would like to see the natural openness of the area preserved. • Kevin Bluml, 10540 W. Riverview Drive,requested that an analysis be done on the traffic patterns, volumes, and the intersections for the area. 5 Kift Bayerle, 10488 W. Riverview Drive, dislikes the density of the development. Greg Huhler, 12300 Riverview Road, fears that the proposed density will generate too much traffic for the existing road structure to handle. Jeff King, 11817 Riverview Road, feels the increased traffic for the area will be too dangerous. He does not feel that this is an appropriate development for the area. Kardell asked about the lighting for the development. Jarvis indicated that the area would have normal street lighting. Additionally there would be a light on each garage that would go on automatically at dusk. Franzen talked about the proposed trail plan and how it is impacted by the Wild Life Refuge Plan. He also stated that the City will examine how Riverview Road might be developed to provide access to the 19 acres to the west of the project. They will also address concerns about the MUSA line, which Franzen pointed out will only require minor adjustments. Jarvis stated that the density factor is not significantly different in the number of homes it will allow. He explained that the proposed development is expected to generate less traffic than the traditional single family development. He pointed out that young professionals and empty nesters generally make fewer trips than young families with their many activities. • Sandstad asked about the plans for the isolated single family lot that many of the residents have objected to. Jarvis indicated that they are prepared to loose that lot. Kardell summarized the concerns heard from the residents. They included traffic . increase, distribution patterns and stop signs; density issue and loss of openness; tree loss on the top of the bluffs; community issues, different types of homes appealing to empty nesters rather than families; public safety issues due to trails and the traffic they might bring into the bluffs; visual transition, utilities, and access to other property; and the issue of precedence. Schlampp stated that he sees nothing wrong with the homes appealing to an alternate lifestyle, adding diversity to the area. However, he feels that the City will need to complete a further traffic study, and Concord Drive needs a sidewalk. Additionally, he feels that the developer needs to soften and improve the transition. Foote feels that the isolated single family lot needs to be eliminated. However, he does feel that the proposed project is the best way to develop the area. Wissner stated that she was excited about the proposal. She encouraged people to see the Parkers Lake project in Plymouth to get an idea of what the proposed development will look like. Wissner agrees that the isolated single family lot should be eliminated, a further traffic study should be done, and a sidewalk 6 should be placed on Concord Drive. Sandstad pointed out that the Commission considers what is in the best interests of the entire community. This goes beyond the immediate neighbors and the developer. He agrees with the need for diversity. He also agrees that the isolated single family lot should be removed. He stated that he believes this project would generate less traffic than additional single family homes. Clinton stated that his main concerns for the area also include traffic, speed, and flow. He too, believes that the City must maintain a balance in the types of homes offered, and does not see density as an issue in this case. He also feels the single family lot should be removed. Kardell said she is excited about the project. She feels there needs to be a further traffic analysis to look at what alternative access roads may be possible, as well as the street radius issue. She also feels the City needs to address concerns of access to adjacent property. Wissner inquired why the developer wants to keep the home that is currently existing on a lot in the project area. Jarvis explained that they feel it is a nice home and can be worked into the development. It will undergo some changes so that it will blend in. MOTION 1: • Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote to continue the public hearing to the August 141 1995 meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS Tree Committee Franzen stated that at this time, Stuart Fox is summarizing the comments of the Tree Committee. The summary will be returned to the Tree Committee for their review then passed on to the Planning Commission and Parks Commission. VH. CONTINUING BUSINESS VHL NEW BUSINESS IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS A. Deadline for Agency Action (see memo) Franzen discussed the memo regarding Deadline for Agency Action. B. Training Sessions (see memo) Franzen presented ideas on training possibilities for the Commissioners. These included: 7 1. Seminars on how to be a Planning Commissioner. Government Training Services sends out flyers each year offering these seminars. • 2. Work Shop Sessions. This session, or sessions, would be conducted by City staff and would cover information on planning and zoning, typical City code issues, and past policies. 3. Continue to add special reports on various subject matters to the Planning Commission Handbook. Franzen believes that at least one special report could be drafted per month and a time slot could be reserved on each agenda for presentations by City staff in conjunction with these reports. The suggestions for training were favorably received by the Commissioners. C. Cable Broadcast of Commission meetings (see memo) There are three practice runs scheduled. These include meetings for July 24, and August 14 & 28. The Planning Commission's Cable TV premiere is scheduled for September 11, 1995. Commissioners feel it would be a good idea to review at least one of the practice tapes during either of the August meetings, as time allows. The Planning Commission discussed the decision of the City Council to extend Forest Hills Road to Baker Road. The Commission noted that the traffic study and new drainage solution to potential flooding was information that should have been submitted • to them at the first meeting. The Commission indicated that the City Engineer should be present at meeting where roads, traffic and drainage are issues especially for infill projects. Franzen stated that the City Engineer would be present at the next meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Foote to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. 8 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 24, 1995 7:00 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner Don Uram, Economic Development Manager I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. FUDDRUCKERS, INC. & RIO BRAVO CANTINA by Fuddruckers, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 4.02 acres, PUD Concept Review on 4.02 acres, PUD District Review on 4.02 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 4.02 acres, Site Plan Review on 4.02 acres and Preliminary Plat of 8.53 acres into 2 lots, one outlot and road right-of-way. Location: U.S. Highway #169 and • Technology Drive. B. KINDERCARE by Kindercare. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 2.75 acres. Location: Hwy 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. LAUKKA-JARVIS DEVELOPMENT by Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to amend the MUSA line, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.2 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.2 acres, Preliminary Plat of 43.2 acres into 52 lots. Location: South of Riverview Road and east of Riverview Drive. VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS X. ADJOURNMENT