Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 10/26/1992 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COAL IISSION APPROVED MIlVUTES is MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1992 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Ken Clinton, Cynthia Clish Katherine Kardell, Karen Norman, Doug Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner. STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, Senior Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: Sandstad and Clish absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0-0. H. MEMBERS REPORTS M. MINUTES Minutes for the September 14, 1992 Planning Commission were continued until a quorum from that meeting were present. MOTION: Norman moved, seconded by Wissner to approve the Minutes of the September 28, 1992 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 4-0-1. Kardell abstained. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PETFOOD WAREHOUSE by Prairie Entertainment for PUD Concept Amendment on 6.42 acres,PUD District Review on 6.42 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the C-Reg-Ser District on 6.42 acres, and Site Plan Review on 6.42 acres. Location: Eden Place Center. Franzen reported that this was the 7th proposal to be reviewed for this site. Franzen believed that this project would fill a void in the existing center. • Paul Strother, representing the proponent, stated that the prior PUD represented a smaller building than proposed. A small retail user had been requested for this space. The parking has been increased for Ciatti's and Frank's Nursery and Crafts parking requirements were less than what had been provided. The Petfood Warehouse parking requirements would be small. The view from Highway 169 and the rear of the building would be the same as approved in the original PUD. Landscaping would be added along the fence for screening. Strother noted that . as part of this proposal the trash container area would be enclosed for Ciatti's. Clinton stated that the parking for Ciatti's at noon was still inadequate. Strother replied that the peak time of business for Petfood Warehouse would not be the same as Ciatti's and, therefore, should not create a problem. Bauer concurred that parking was a major problem for this center. Franzen replied that Staff had visited other Petfood Warehouse locations in the area and concurred with Strother that parking requirements would be small and the shopping time was short term. Franzen noted that Ciatti's was using approximately twice the number of spaces required by City Code. Bauer asked if there would be a special parking area designated for Petfood Warehouse customers. Strother replied that this could be done; however, it was not part of the plan at this time. Franzen replied that it would be nice to designate special parking for each of the businesses in the center. Kardell asked if there would be any dog training classes held at the facility. Bob Engelstad, representing the proponent, replied that there would be no training available at this location. He added that the only live thing in the store would be fish. Engelstad also noted that the average stay for a customer was 20 minutes. Franzen reviewed the Staff recommendations as outlined in the Staff Report and recommended approval of the project. There was no public comment. MOTION 1: Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 2: Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Prairie Entertainment for a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 6.42 acres based on plans dated October 23, 1992, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 23, 1992. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 3: Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Prairie Entertainment for a Planned Unit Development District Review on 6.42 acres based on plans dated October 23, 1992, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 23, 1992. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 4• Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Prairie Entertainment for a Zoning District Amendment in the C-Reg-Ser District on 6.42 2 acres based on plans dated October 23, 1992, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 23, 1992. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 5: Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Prairie Entertainment for Site Plan Review on 6.42 acres, based on plans dated October 23, 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 239 1992. Motion carried 5-0-0. B. SUBURBAN CHEVROLET by Metropolitan Corporation for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 16.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.2 acres with waivers, Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser District on 16.2 acres and Site Plan Review on 16.2 acres. Location: Southeast corner of Valley View Road and Plaza. Drive. Franzen reported that the major difference between this proposal and the previously approved proposal was that the existing building would be taken down. The proponent would be presenting all of the phases at once to save time. Herb Margolis, representing the proponent, stated that originally an auto plaza was proposed for the site. Several neighborhood meeting had been held to address the concerns of the residents. Margolis showed the plan as originally proposed and approved. Margolis noted that 40 candle power had been approved for lighting of the used car area. He emphasized the importance of the used car business for the overall success of the facility. A 10 foot high berm would be provided to help screen the lighting from the neighbors. Green space in excess of City • requirements would be provided. Margolis noted that obtaining financing had been difficult because all of the franchises were not in place. With this proposal phases would be added as franchises were obtained. The towers proposed in the earlier plan would all be moved to the front of the showroom only. All of the building would remain within the space of the existing building with the exception of 1 small corner. Margolis noted that the City had requested the green space along Plaza Drive be increased from 30 feet to 45 feet. A 6 foot berm would along be located along Plaza Drive. Margolis noted that from a car you would not be able to see over a 4.5 foot berm. The overhead doors were designed to blend in with the architecture of the building. The proponent has agreed to provide a City Logo sign on the site. Margolis stated that as soon as more than 1 dealership was obtained the name of the facility would be changed to Auto Plaza in lieu of Suburban Chevrolet. Margolis stated that the City had added a requirement for a N.U.R.P. pond. The location of the pond would be close to the power line and would also cause the loss of approximately 30 spaces for cars in the front of the facility, which is the important display area. Margolis noted that the proponent had kept everything the same or improved the plan from what had originally been approved and believed that the requirement of the N.U.R.P. was unreasonable because it had not been required in the original plan. The berming and landscaping had been increased as requested by the City. Margolis stated that the success of the business would be jeopardized if spaces in the front of the facility would be lost. The proponent would like the plan grandfathered in without the requirement for the pond. • Bauer asked if additional spaces would not be gained by the original building being removed. Margolis replied that the proponent had provided green space where the existing building was located along the front. Margolis added that the requirement of the pond would cause a loss of 3 approximately 60 spaces in the front of the facility and there had only been an 80 space gain in the entire plan. The important issue was where the spaces were located not the number. • Norman asked if the building couldn't be shifted back further to allow for additional spaces in the front of the building. Tom Grossman replied that the design of the building could not be changed. He noted that a specific traffic flow was necessary for this type of business. It was necessary for the centralized location for the parts department and the service bays needed the center aisle. Norman asked what the advantage was to tear down the existing building. Grossman replied that it was an economic decision. Financing could not be obtained without 3 franchises in place and the franchises would not come until the site had been proven successful. Margolis noted that if the building was taken down properly some of the material could be used as fill for the berms. Clinton asked what was the significance of the towers. Margolis replied that the building was down in a hole and the dealership signs would be located on the towers. Wissner asked if the Factory Outlet sign would be improved. Margolis replied that it would be improved somewhat. He added that appearance was a very sensitive issue for the success of the business. Franzen reported that the City would need to grant a waiver for the outdoor display of the cars and noted that screening was very important. Staff had looked at the deficiency in the Ford project and took special care in the review of the sight lines for this project. The requirement for extra berming was somewhat of a trade for the waiver. Franzen noted that even with the • extra berming and landscaping some cars would still be visible. Franzen stated that the requirement for N.U.R.P. ponds had been in existence for approximately 1 year and other plans had returned to the Planning Commission for improvements and had been required to provide a pond. The only logical place for the pond would be the southwest comer. Franzen noted that fill could be obtained for the berms by the creation of the pond. Franzen added that possibly the City could help the proponent in finding additional fill. Norman asked the requirement for the size of the pond. Franzen replied that approximately 1 acre would be necessary. Franzen noted that the Watershed District could require the pond and overrule any decision by the City. He added that Staff would continue to look into this issue. Grossman stated that the problem was not the cost of the pond, but the lose of spaces for the used car display area in the front of the facility. Grossman stressed that the used car business was a driving force in the success of the business. Kardell asked when the original proposal was passed and when the requirement for N.U.R.P. ponds was passed. Franzen replied that the plan was approved in December and the N.U.R.P. pond requirement was passed in January. Norman believed that it was important for everyone to work toward a healthy environment for the future. Norman appreciated the economics of the project but recommended that Staff and the developer work together to resolve the N.U.R.P. pond issue. Franzen believed that the plan could be revised to provide the spaces needed for the cars in the front of the building. 4 Bauer stated that he had supported the plan when originally proposed. He believed that no matter what was done for screening and berming cars would still be visible. Bauer said that he would not be comfortable in supporting the plan until the N.U.R.P. pond issue was resolved. • Bauer believed that both the parking and the pond could be provided. Margolis requested approval of the plan with the provision that the N.U.R.P. issue be resolved. Franzen noted that the plan could return to the Planning Commission for the November 9, 1992 meeting and still be reviewed by the City Council in December as scheduled. Margolis emphasized that the proponent was not opposed to the pond, but to the lose of spaces for cars. MOTION 1: Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 2: Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Metropolitan Corporation for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 16.2 acres based on plans dated October 23, 1992, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 23, 1992 revised to read: Item A.1 Modify the landscape plan to meet City Code requirements and subject to a final briefing at the November Planning Commission meeting with a resolution of the N.U.R.P. pond issue. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 3: Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Metropolitan Corporation for a Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.2 acres based on plans dated October 23, 1992, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 23, 1992 revised to read: Item A.1 Modify the landscape plan to meet City Code requirements and subject to a final briefing at the November Planning Commission meeting with a resolution of the N.U.R.P. pond issue. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 4: Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Metropolitan Corporation for Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser District on 16.2 acres, based on plans dated October 23, 1992 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 23, 1992 revised to read: Item A.1 Modify the landscape plan to meet City Code requirements and subject to a final briefing at the November Planning Commission meeting with a resolution of the N.U.R.P. pond issue. Motion carried 5-0-0. 5 MOTION 5: Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Metropolitan Corporation for Site Plan Review on 16.2 acres, based on plans dated October 23, 1992, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 23, 1992 revised to read: Item A.1 Modify the landscape plan to meet City Code requirements and subject to a final briefing at the November Planning Commission meeting with a resolution of the N.U.R.P. pond issue. Motion carried 5-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS VIE. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 PM. Motion carried 5-0-0. 6 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING CONBMSION Monday, October 26, 1992 Is 7:30 p.m. CONEMSSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Cynthia Clish, Katherine Kardell, Karen Norman, Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Donald Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA H. MEMBERS REPORTS M. NIINUTES • IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS I. PETFOOD WAREHOUSE by Prlie Entertainment for PUD Concept Amendment on 6.42 acres, PUD District Review on 6.42 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the C-Reg-Ser District on 6.42 acres, and Site Plan Review on 6.42 acres. Location: Eden Place Center. 2. SUBURBAN CHEVROLET by Metropolitan Corporation for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 16.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.2 acres with waivers, Zoning District Amendment within the C- Reg-Ser District on 16.2 acres and Site Plan Review on 16.2 acres. Location: Southeast corner of Valley View Road and Plaza. Drive. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS VH. ADTOURNM[ENT