Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 02/23/1987 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, February 23, 1987 7: 30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS *(7: 35) A. TJH PLAT, by TJH Partnership. Request for Preliminary Plat of 1 .6 acres into one lot. Location: North and west of Commonwealth Drive, east of Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing. *(7:50) B. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF MINNESOTA. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential and Public Open Space to Elementary/Secondary School on 55.6 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Public on 55.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 55.6 acres into one lot and road right-of-way for construction of a private school. The request also includes a change of the City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.35, entitled "Public District", Subdivision 2, to allow private schools as a permitted use. Location: North of Bryant Lake, west of Rowland Road, and east of Beach Road and I-494. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI . NEW BUSINESS VII . PLANNER'S REPORT VIII . ADJOURNMENT *NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER,, THAN LISTED. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, February 23, 1987 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Chuck Ruebling MEMBER ABSENT: Robert Hallett STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to approve the agenda as printed. Motion carried--6-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to approve the minutes of the January 26, 1987, Planning Commission meeting as written. Motion carried--5-0-1 (Dodge abstained) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. TJH PLAT, by TJH Partnership. Request for Preliminary Plat of 1.6 acres into one lot. Location: North and west of Commonwealth Drive, east of Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing. Planner Enger explained that the proposed platting consisted of a request to eliminate a lot line and create one lot out of an existing two lots in order to accommodate the expansion of an existing office structure on the property. He stated that, previously, it was common for such simple "housekeeping" procedures to be handled administratively by City Staff. However, it has been found that by requiring the platting of the property, • Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 23, 1987 easements are easier to keep track of, whether they are being added, or eliminated by such actions. This was particularly key with respect to utility easements. Chairman Schuck asked if it would be possible to save tree #4 as labeled on the plans. Staff responded that this would be checked, and accomplished, if possible. Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of the TJH Partnership for Preliminary Plat of 1.6 acres into one lot for use by an office building, based on plans dated January 30, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report . dated February 20, 1987, with the added condition that proponent attempt to save tree #4, as labeled in the plans. Motion carried--6-0-0 B. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF MINNESOTA. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential and Public Open Space to Elementary/Secondary School on 55.6 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Public on 55.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 55.6 acres into one lot and road right-of-way for construction of a private school . The request also includes an amdnement of City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.35, entitled "Public District," Subdivision 2, to allow private schools as a permitted use and private schools with boarding as a permitted use, and to require park dedication of such uses. Location: North of Bryant Lake, west of Rowland Road, and east of Beach Road and I-494. A public hearing. Ms. Tracy Whitehead, representative from International School of Minnesota, stated that the existing offices of the proponent were located in New Brighton. She stated that the plans for the first phase of the development included construction of approximately 37,000 sq. ft., with the final phase to include a total of approximately 120,000 sq. ft. for the use. Ms. Whitehead stated that, compared to other possible uses for the property, she believed that this use would be less intense, creating less traffic, • requiring less City service in terms of water, sewer, etc., than other uses. She added that the proponents were not developers who would be walking away from the property at the completion of construction of the project, but that they viewed this as an investment in the community, as well . Ms. Whitehead stated that the use on the site would also be positive in that it would create jobs in the community and that proponents believed it was compatible • Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 23, 1987 with the surrounding uses of single family residences and the Hennepin County Park Reserve District (HCPRD) Bryant Lake Regional Park use. Mr. Gar Hargens, architect for proponents, reviewed the plans with the Commission. He stated that the intent was to design the structures into the topography of the site, working with the hill on the property. Mr. Hargens noted that the more level areas of the property were proposed for parking areas. It was noted that currently, there were 80 students in the school, with a future potential for approximately 1,400 students, total, according to Ms. Whitehead. Mr. Hargens noted that the future construction phases included construction of residences on the school campus for boarding of students. Mr. Jim Steilen, attorney for proponents, reviewed issues of concern as presented in a letter to the City which was delivered to Staff the afternoon of the Planning Commission meeting, February 23, 1987. Mr. Steilen stated that the concerns were: 1) Park Dedication Fees--Mr. Steilen stated that the proponents did not believe that the use of a school introduced the need for park facilities in a community in the way that residential uses did. He stated that the park- like facilities that would be constructed as part of the school campus were intended to meet that need. Referring to State Statute, Mr. Steilen stated that the law required that a need be created by a use before park dedication could be required, and that it was proponents' position that that need would not be created by the use proposed. 2) Setback to Parking Area--Mr. Steilen stated that proponents felt that moving the parking back from the lake another 75 ft. would not accomplish much toward lessening the visibility of the parking area. He expressed concern that doing so would impact the design of the entire site and would require relocation of all uses on the property. 3) Roadway Width--Mr. Steilen stated that the 25 ft. wide road accessing the property was the width of a standard road. He noted that parking on the property was located in such a manner as to avoid the need for parking in the roadway. He added that, from an aesthetics point of view, proponents felt that a 25 ft. wide road would be preferrable to a 32 ft. wide road to help maintain the campus-like atmosphere of the development and to have less asphalt on the property. 4) Crosstown Highway Access Design--Mr. Steilen stated that proponents agreed with the new design for the access and would dedicate land required if they could be assured that they would not be assessed for the improvements and if the access could be reduced from 240 ft. to 160 ft. in length. He noted that this would not only reduce the cost of the road construction, but would also reduce the tree loss due to construction of so • much roadway, and would allow for better slope conditions. 5) Roof Redesign--Mr. Steilen stated that the proponents preferred the "flat" roof for the structures and felt that the Staff recommendation for more residential character was inappropriate. , He added that the proponents did not believe that a mansard roof would be appropriate, either. • Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 23, 1987 Mr. Steilen concluded by stating that the most important issue to the proponents was that of the park dedication fee. He asked that the Commission consider action on this matter on as fast a track as possible as they were proposing to be open for the 1987 Fall school term. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of February 20, 1987, with the Commission. Other than standard recommendations regarding public utilities, storm water drainage, erosion control, parking, landscaping/screening, and relationship to the surrounding neighborhood, the following specific items were discussed as matters of concern. With respect to the road within the development, Planner Franzen stated that the standard road width was 32 ft. for commercial developments. Upon checking with the other school uses in the community, Staff had found that the road to the high school and the new elementary school were constructed at a 32 ft. width. He added that the smallest road width in the project vicinity was 28 ft. Staff was recommending that the road be at least 32 ft. wide. With respect to screening of the parking areas, Planner Franzen stated that the Staff recommendation was for screening of the parking areas from the lake and from higher elevations which had direct views to the parking lot. He noted that this would require an additional 75 ft. of setback along with berming and plantings in order to accomplish the screening of the parking. Planner Franzen stated that the parking area would be visible from Beach Road and from I-494, adding that this was similar to the visibility of the Rainbow Foods parking lot from the residential neighborhood to the north of it. He stated that relocation of the parking lot in combination with plantings of larger overstory trees would accomplish the necessary screening of the parking. Regarding the request for residential character to the structures, Planner Franzen noted that there were a number of ways to accomplish residential character with architectural features, which would include a mansard roof on the structures. He stated that Staff was not recommending that a mansard roof be used, but instead had offered this as a suggestion as to how residential character could be accomplished for the development. Planner Franzen added that Staff would be willing to consider other methods of introducing residential character to the structures. With respect to the right-of-way required for the construction of the Crosstown access to the property from the north, Planner Franzen stated that it was possible that approximately 150 caliper inches of oak trees would be removed by construction of the access as shown. However, he stated that this amount of oak trees, compared to the number of trees on the overall site, became a very small percentage of the trees. Planner Franzen noted that in cases where safety was a matter of concern, Staff generally recommended in favor of removal of the trees in order to provide for safer road access for people using the road. Regarding the recommendation for park dedication fees, Planner Franzen stated that the proposal had been reviewed with the Community Services Department and that the recommendation from their staff was for park • Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 23, 1987 dedication fees for the property. He noted that this was a matter for the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission to discuss, also, and that the Planning Commission may wish to refer this item to that commission, with any comments they may have. With respect to the emergency vehicle access, Planner Franzen stated that Staff was recommending that such an access be created to Rowland Road in order for emergency vehicles to have an alternative access available. Without it, there would be only one access to the property. Regarding the recommendation for no lighting of the athletic fields, Planner Franzen stated that this was recommended due to complaints received throughout the community where such lighting had existed. He stated that this was a highly visible site and that lighted fields would be easily visible from the adjacent residential neighborhoods. With respect to the requested amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, Planner Franzen stated that Staff had considered the possibility of this use within a commercial, or commercial service area, such as the Major Center Area. However, proponents were requesting boarding as part of their use, which was not allowed within any of the commercial areas. Also, as a school for children of specific ages, Staff noted that all the public schools within the Eden Prairie School District were located in areas guided Public, • Elementary/Secondary areas of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Therefore, for consistency, and based on proposed use by the proponents, the change to Public, Elementary/Secondary was considered, instead of to commercial . Planner Franzen stated that all the issues raised by Staff in the Staff Report of February 20, 1987, had been discussed with the proponents in meetings between them and the Planning Staff, with the exception of the road width of 32 ft. Planner Enger discussed land use issues for the proposal with the Commission. He stated that the previous proposal for the property by Crow/Chasewood was one which would have shifted a land use out of the Major Center Area to this site. It was a use which was clearly not appropriate for the site based upon the intensity of the land use and the impact of that intensity on this site. With respect to the proposed school, Planner Enger stated that it was Staff's opinion that this was a regional sized land use. During Staff review of this proposal, one of the questions raised was whether the Major Center Area was the only appropriate location for regional types of land uses. He stated that this would be one of the questions the Commission would need to answer for this proposal . Specifically regarding this proposal, Planner Enger noted that this was different from an office building in that there are very few schools of this • size, or type, in the metropolitan area, and certainly within any one community. This was not the case with office buildings. In that regard, the City would not be setting a precedent of any sort by allowing such a land use in this location. This was not the case with the previously proposed office complex for this site. Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 23, 1987 Planner Enger stated that this proposed use was not site-intensive. It was a use which responded to the specific site in that the natural areas of the trees, the adjacent Hennepin County Park, the lake, etc., would be compatible with the school use. Sensitivity to the natural features of the trees, lake, rolling hills, etc., could be accomplished by this proposed use. This was not necessarily the case in the Major Center Area which was designed to cater to more intense land use. A question had been raised as to how this property had become designated as Medium Density Residential/Public Open Space according to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Planner Enger explained that, initially, the area around Bryant Lake had been designated as Low Density Residential, totally. The first proposal for development of this property was by Metram Properties, and was proposed prior to the Crow/Chasewood development. Metram had received approval for a transfer of the density from a major portion of the 60+ acres to the northwest portion of the site which allowed for an overall density matching the Low Density Residential Guide Plan density for the 60+ acres, but which also allowed for the dedication of the sensitive natural features and lake front areas to the City for preservation. This proposal was translated to match the Comprehensive Guide Plan by indicating an area for Medium Density Residential in the northwest portion of the site and Public Open Space for the remainder of the property in 1982 at the time of amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The two uses were considered • compatible with each other and City approved the plan. Specifically, 25 acres were to be developed at a Medium Density Residential level and approxmately 40 acres were to be dedicated to the City for purposes of augmenting the Bryant Lake Regional Park and for servicing the park needs of the future residents of the area. Of course, the development never took place, but, the approval remained in place. Planner Enger noted that this proposal was more spread out across the property than the Metram proposal. The Metram proposal used approximately 25 acres for structures and parking, whereas this proposal used twice that amount of land for its structures, parking, and athletic fields. He noted that there was no open space proposed for dedication to the public with this proposal, whereas the Metram proposal was for approximately 40 acres of dedication to the City. Planner Enger stated that the City Attorney would be brought completely into the process on the Park Dedication issue raised by the proponents. Mr. Don Poupard, 6251 Beach Road, stated that he did not like the idea of park dedication fees and that he was not in favor of it for this property. He noted that he concurred with the Staff recommendation regarding more residential character for the structures and regarding the entrance to the Crosstown Highway. With respect to the park dedication fee requirement, Mr. Poupard referred to previous City transactions and problems with Hennepin County Park Reserve District and questioned whether this proponent was suffering from a problem actually created by the City in the past. Planner Enger explained that the transaction referred to by Mr. Poupard was a negotiated dedication of park property to the City from the Metram proposal . The City intended to use the property obtained by the dedication to augment Bryant Lake Park, which, at that time, was owned by the City. • Planning Commission Minutes 7 February 23, 1987 All of the requirement for park dedication was negotiated and agreed to by Metram prior to any knowledge, or discovery, by the City of a "double billing" of the Metropolitan Council that had occurred approximately ten years prior to the Metram proposal . Planner Enger stated that the requirement of the Metram dedication was not precipitated in any way by the short-fall with the Metropolitan Council . Mrs. Elaine Sorenson, 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated that many of the people in the surrounding neighborhoods had lived close to Bryant Lake for a long period of time. She stated that many proposals had been made on this property, but that she and her neighbors were enthusiastic about the proposed school development, more so than any other than had been reviewed. She stated that she felt this would provide the City with a prestigious educational alternative, as well . Mrs. Sorenson stated that she felt the architecture was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, pointing out that there were other homes on Bryant Lake with flat roofs and that she felt the flat roofs of the proposed structures did not conflict with the existing residential character of development around the lake. Gartner stated that she felt this site appeared to be an ideal location for this proposed land use. Ruebling stated that he concurred with Gartner. He added that he felt the road should be 32 ft. wide if this was the standard used in the community at this time. With respect to the screening of parking, Ruebling stated that he felt the proponents should follow the Staff recommendation and meet the Code requirement for screening of parking, adding that he appreciated that this would be difficult on this particular property, but that he believed it should be done to the best of the ability of the proponent. Regarding an emergency access to the property, Ruebling stated that he felt it was important to include such an access for the property. He asked if there were any problems with obtaining the emergency vehicle access to Rowland Road through the Hennepin County Park Reserve District property. Mrs. Whitehead stated that it was proposed for emergency access only, but that this was still being worked out with the Park Reserve District. With respect to architecture, Ruebling stated that he felt the proposed development should be residential in character, as recommended in the Staff Report. Regarding the park dedication fee question, Ruebling stated that he felt the most important consideration was that all developers be treated equally, and consistently. He noted that all other private developers were charged such fees and that this private development of the school should not be treated any differently. Anderson asked if churches were charged park dedication fees. Planner Enger stated that he was unsure of the policy on this, but that he would check and inform the Commission of the policy. Anderson stated that he felt the proposed development was attractive and that it would be an asset to the community. He stated that he felt the 32 ft. wide road was appropriate, particularly if this was the road width of the public schools in the City, as well . • Planning Commission Minutes 8 February 23, 1987 Bye expressed concern about the architecture. She stated that the example shown of the Fresh Water Biological Institute also included a substantial amount of mechanical equipment on the top of the roofs. Bye stated that she did not feel this was acceptable, especially given the visibility of the site. Regarding the issue of park fees, Bye stated that she preferred to refer this issue to the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission for review. Mr. Hargens, proponents' architect, stated that there would not be any need for the vents on the roofs of the school structures, whereas they were necessary for the research needs of the Institute. Dodge stated that she concurred with the concerns of Bye regarding the architecture for the proposed development and that she felt it should be more residential in character. She stated that she concurred with the' Staff recommendation that some other methods, other than roofs if the proponents preferred, be used to introduce residential character to the structures. Mrs. Elizabeth Close, Close Architects, representing proponents, stated that the roofs were designed as they were for purposes of erosion control, as well as aesthetics. She stated that pitched roofs on these structures would be massive and possibly more intrusive on the landscape than the flat roofs proposed. • Mrs. Whitehead stated that they had tried to leave the woods alone on the property and had made every effort to work the buildings into the hills, instead of having to destroy the hill . Also, several buildings were proposed, rather than one long structure in order to be sensitive to the natural features and to provide interest on the property. She stated that the flat roofs, in their opinion, provided the most unobtrusive view possible of the structures. Dodge stated that, with respect to the park dedication fees, she concured with Ruebling, that the primary consideration was consistency of treatment of all developers in the City. Chairman Schuck stated that he did not feel that pitched roofs were the only manner in which to introduce residential character to the structures, although it was a common characteristic. He stated that he agreed with the Staff recommendation regarding the need for more residential character and that he was willing to consider other methods of introducing residential character to -the proposal. He added that he felt the project was attractive and that the land use was appropriate for the site. Chairman Schuck stated that he felt strongly about the elimination of lighting of the athletic fields for the property, as well . Regarding the park dedication fees, Chairman Schuck stated that he was unsure as to an appropriate action for this use and that the matter should be referred to the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission for consideration. Gartner stated that she felt the City should be consistent with the treatment of developers and that if others had been charged for park dedication fees, then this project should be included, also. • Planning Commission Minutes 9 February 23, 1987 MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council amendment of City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.35, entitled "Public District," Subdivision 2, to allow private schools as a permitted use and private schools with boarding as a permitted use, and to require Park Dedication of such uses. Motion carried--4-1-1 (Chairman Schuck abstained; Ruebling against) MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to continue public hearing on this item to the March 9, 1987, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow proponents opportunity to amend the plans taking into consideration the items of concern of the Planning Commission at this meeting, and as listed in the Staff Report of February 20, 1987. Further, that the Planning Staff be directed to publish this item for review by the City Council for its meeting of March 17, 1987. Motion carried--6-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Dodge, seconded by Ruebling. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.