Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 11/23/1992 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING CON[MISSION APPROVED lIIINUTES 6 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 211992 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. STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, Senior Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri ROLL CALL: All Present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Norman to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0-0. U. MEMBERS REPORTS NQNUTTES MOTION: Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to approve the Minutes of the October 26, 1992 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 5-0-2. Sandstad and Clish abstained. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BEARPATH by Sienna Corporation. Request for rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 38 acres and Preliminary Plat of 420 acres into 77 single family lots and 12 outlots. Location: North of County Road 1 and West of Dell Road. Franzen presented a letter from Sienna Corporation requesting a continuance to the December 14, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Clinton to continue the Public Hearing to the December 14, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 7-0-0. B. OAKPOINT SCHOOL by Eden Prairie School District. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the Public Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 10 acres. Location: 13400 Staring Lake Parkway. Sandstad voiced displeasure with the proponent because plans were not available for commissioner's review until this evening. Bauer requested that the proponent go into more detail in presenting the plan because the Commission had not been able to review the plans in advance. Steve Thompson, representing the proponent, presented the plans for expansion to Oakpoint School to included: 16 classrooms, expansion of the media center, a two-story addition adjacent to the existing cafeteria. Thompson stated that the addition would have little impact to the site. The southern portion would be an infill area. The northern portion was more restricted in space due to the wetland area and the location of significant trees. Thompson reported that the proponent did not anticipate any tree loss. The grading for the project should not affect the present drainage patterns. A portion of the sewer system would need to be shifted. No additional parking spaces would be required; the parking for the additional 20 staff members had been anticipated at the time of the original plan. Three to four additional buses would be added to the bus loop, which had also been anticipated in the original plan. There would be no changes to the hard-surface area on the site. Sandstad asked if steps would be included for the sidewalk area where the grade was steep. Thompson replied that at this time, steps were not anticipated. Bauer asked Franzen why a N.U.R.P. pond would not be required for this addition. Franzen replied that because this was only an addition it would not be required and the original plan had proposed a special sewer system which filtered the silt. • Norman asked if the additional classrooms would be designed similar to the existing ones. Thompson replied that the interior design for cluster classrooms would be duplicated from the original plan. Clish asked for a further explanation of the grading plan. Thompson replied that the plan was to maintain the prairie grass in the area to the north; therefore little grading would be done. Thompson noted that it had been difficult to promote additional growth of the prairie grass because the School had had difficulty in obtaining a burning permit from the City. Norman asked if the windows to the south would be maintained. Thompson replied that the addition to the south would be in the area of the windows; however the public should not see any significant change in the facade. The building would actually be shifted and the large circular window would be located in the conference rooms. The additional would be created to look similar to what currently exists. A rounded forum will still exist. Thompson believed that the additions would actually improve the interior look. Thompson presented the interior floor plans. The addition to the cafeteria would be used to create the addition of a third serving line. Wissner asked how big the multi-use area was. Thompson replied approximately 2000 square feet. Norman asked if any additional gym space would be added. Thompson replied that currently the gym space was under used in this facility. Thompson added that the additional space requirements related to teacher supervised areas. 2 Franzen reported that the main concern for this property by residents even before the school purchased the property was to protect the trees and the view of the creek. The proponent has maintained a 150 foot setback from the creek. Franzen noted that until 1990 this plan for the ' addition would not have required review by the Planning Commission. Franzen stated that a lot of preplanning had been done by the proponent with the original plan. The exterior architecture for the additions would be the same as the original plan. Other pretreatment of the water runoff exists and, therefore, the requirement for a N.U.R.P. pond did not apply. Significant tree loss was not anticipated. Staff would require the location of the mechanical units. Franzen noted that because the Commission had not the opportunity to review the plans before the meeting that it may be appropriate to continue the item if the Commission had concerns about the plan. Sandstad asked if the storm water runoff would be increased due to the addition. Franzen replied that the additional runoff would come from he roof area and the parking area and could be handled adequately by the present system. Sandstad asked what the roof area was. Thompson replied the roof area was approximately 17,000 square feet. Thompson added that the additional water runoff had been anticipated and the manholes had been designed to handle the extra runoff. Bauer requested clarification on when N.U.R.P. ponds were required and when they were not. Norman questioned the safety of a pond when children were so close. Franzen reported that a N.U.R.P. pond would be required for additions of 15 acres or more for residential areas or 5 acres or more for commercial areas. Bauer said that he would like to be better informed on details for the N.U.R.P. pond • requirements and recommended that it be included as a workshop item. Sandstad asked if this were a new proposal if a N.U.R.P. pond would be required. Franzen replied that a N.U.R.P. pond or a sump pump system in the manhole would be required. Thompson stated that the School District was not looking for any special favors. The School District always had plans approved by the Watershed District and proceed according to their recommendations. Kardell asked for further information on the encroachment into the wooded area along the creek. Franzen replied that certain areas along the creek could actually be clear cut. Thompson replied that the additions were approximately 200 feet away from the area in question. Bauer stated that he was comfortable with the site plan but would like a report at the next meeting regarding N.U.R.P. ponds. Sandstad asked if the prairie grass area could be extended. Thompson replied that the School District would be happy to extend the area; however, it would require cooperation from the City. Franzen replied that the School District would have to obtain a burning permit from the Fire Marshall. Sandstad asked if the Planning Commission could offer any support for the expansion with the Fire Marshall. Franzen replied that it is more of an issue related to what the fire code can allow. Franzen added that the City would not have a problem with the expansion of the prairie grass area. Sandstad asked Staff to talk with the Fire Marshall and return to the Planning Commission with a report on the results. 3 MOTION 1• Kardell moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-1. Norman itabstained. MOTION 2: Kardell moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie School District for Zoning District Amendment in the Public Zoning District based on plans dated November 20, 1992, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 20, 1992. Motion carried 6-0-1. Norman abstained. MOTION 3: Kardell moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie School District for Site Plan Review based on plans dated November 20, 1992, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 20, 1992. Motion carried 6-0-1. Norman abstained. C. BURNET OFFICE BUILDING by 1501 Partnership. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 1.6 acres and Site Plan Review on 1.6 acres. Location: Highway 5 and Terrey Pine Court. Bruce Schmitt, representing the proponent, stated that 1501 Partnership would be leasing the • building to Burnet Realty. The plan meets all City Code requirements. Schmitt noted that this was the last development in the PUD. The architecture would be a Georgian style. A small addition to the south could be added at a later time if needed. Parking would be provided around the entire building. Sandstad asked if the driveway to the south was private. Schmitt replied that it was private. Norman asked why Burnet was moving. A representative from Burnet Realty replied that the current space was too small. Wissner said that she had heard that Burnet Realty was doing very well in Eden Prairie and asked if the move was to allow for additional agents to be brought in. The representative from Burnet Realty replied that additional agents would be added. Schmitt reported that the exterior of the facility would be brick with a shingle roof. The circulation of traffic will work well. Norman stated that she had a problem with the allowance of a variance for the 55.8% impervious surface when City Code only allows 30%. Norman believed this to be a large difference. Franzen replied that 55.8% impervious area was not unreasonable for an office building of this size. Franzen added that the water would not go into the lake but would drain down Highway 5. Norman believed that the reasons for exception should have been more clearly stated in the report. Franzen noted that the property was approximately 600 feet from the lake. 4 Clish stated concern regarding access to Highway 5. Sandstad replied that it must have met MnDOT requirements. Franzen replied that Staff had not received any comments from MnDOT regarding the entrance. 10 MOTION 1: Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 2: Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of 1501 Partnership for Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District based on plans dated November 16, 1992, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 16, 1992. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 3: Norman moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of 1501 Partnership for Site Plan Review based on plans dated November 16, 1992 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 16, 1992. Motion carried 7-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS �VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Clinton to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 PM. Motion carried 7-0-0. 5 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING CONDMSION Monday, November 23, 1992 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION 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. NI[NUTES • IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BEARPATH by Sienna Corporation. Request for rezoning from Rural to Rl- 13.5 on 38 acres and Preliminary Plat of 420 acres into 77 single family lots and 12 outlots. Location: North of County Road 1 and west of Dell Road. (To be continued at the December 14, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting.) B. OAKPOINT SCHOOL by Eden Prairie School District. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Rural Zoning District on 23 acres and Site Plan Review on 23 acres. Location: 13400 Staring Lake Parkway. C. BURNET OFFICE BUILDING by 1501 Partnership. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 1.6 acres and Site Plan Review on 1.6 acres. Location: Highway 5 and Terrey Pine Court. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS VII. ADJOURNMENT