Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 04/14/1975 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, April 14, 1975 . 7:30 PM City Hall Invocation --- Pledge of Allegiance, --- Roll Call COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Don Sorensen, Norma Schee, Roger Boerger, Richard Lynch , Herb Fosnocht, Joan Meyers, Dick Feerick. STAFF MEMBERS: Dick Putnam, Chris Enger, Jean M. Egan I. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 24 , 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. II. MEMBERS REPORTS. A. Chairperson Don Sorensen B. Council Representative Joan Meyers C. Fosnocht & Boerger D. Other members. III. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. A. Edengate Townhouse Project, located north of Duck Lake Trail and east of Lochanburn on a 120 acre site. The proposal is for 206 units, 78.9 acres of community park and 6 acres of neighborhood park. B. Revised Cinema Signage Plans for the Homart Eden Prairie Shopping Center. C. Northmark II, request by The Preserve for preliminary plat approval for 78 lots with setback and lot size modifications. The Preserve is also seeking rezoning to RM 6.5 The site is located east of Northmark I and north of Basswoods dl . D. Area A of The Preserve Commercial Plan, request for conceptual approval for office, commercial and multiple uses, and preliminary plat approval: Area A is located west of the Gelco Office Building, south of W. 78th Street and north of Anderson Lakes. E. Ordinance No. 135 Amendments. 1. Amendment for Industrial Districts pertaining to office use in Industrial Districts. 2. Amendment to include PUD District. F. Eagle Enterprise, parking number variance . Discussion of changes and previous commission action. IV. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS. A. Modern Tire, rezoning from Rural to Highway Commercial for the construc- tion of a 501x100' addition. The site is 1/2 mile north of Flying Cloud _ Airport at 9051 Flying Cloud Drive.. B. Frank Cardarelle, rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park The site is located west of 6440 Flying Cloud Drive. V. PLANNER'S REPORT A. 4/5 Study, review of City action. B. Holiday on Monday, May 26, 1975,(Planning Commission meeting night ) C. Upcoming Projects. 1 . Areas B, C,D,G, in The Preserve Commercial Plan 2. Parkview Apartments by Eden Land 3. Edes Gas Station rezoning. , 4. Olympic Hills rezoning and platting. 5. Leonard Holte rezoning VI. ADJOURNMENT. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Approved, • Monday, April 14, 1975 7:30 PM City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Sorensen, Richard Feerick, Richard Lynch, Roger Boerger, Joan Meyers, Herb Fosnocht, Norma Schee STAFF PRESENT: Dick Putnam, Jean M. Egan I. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 24, 1975 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Boerger moved, Lynch seconded, to approve the March 24, 1975 minutes as published. Themotion carried with 5 ayes , 3 abstains ( Schee, Meyers, Fosnocht ) . II. MEMBERS REPORT A . Chairperson Don Sorensen. Sorensen expressed concern that some older industrial /commercial property in the City lacked proper landscaping and screening. Fosnocht expressed a similar concern. Sorensen also expressed the concern that some signs within the City do not comply with the City's Sign Ordinance. • Commission members Boerger and Lynch agreed that violations exist and the staff should investigate such violations. Sorensen asked the planner to request the Building Inspector Exercise greater vigilance in reviewing signs . B. Council Representative Meyers. No report. C. Fosnocht & Boerger. Commission members Fosnocht and Boerger felt they would have information to the commission regarding report format at the following meeting. D. Other Members . No reports. III. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. A. Edengate Townhouse Project, located north of Duck Lake Trail and east of Lochan- burn on a 120 acre site. The proposal is for 206 units, 78.9 acres of community park and 6 acres of neighborhood park. The planner informed the commission that a public hearing would be held on May 6th before the council. Bob Kruell , Northwest Eden Prairie Homeowners Group Steering Committee Is member, stated that the homeowners concerns reflect some of those of the Park & Recreation Commission. Tie asked the commission to accept their April 11 , 1975 memo and to record it within the April 14, 1975 Planning Commission Minutes. Approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 14 , 1975 Sorensen responded that official recording of such material is not necessary at the Planning Commission level , but they would acknowledge receipt _ • of the April 11, 1975 memo. The Planning Commission acknowledged receiving the memo from the Northwestern Eden Prairie Homeowners Association signed by Mr. Mavis dated April 11 , 1975. Mr. Tom Erickson, representing the developer Mr. Pautz, asked if the staff report would be considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. Sorensen replied that the report would be discussed but action may not be possible at this meeting. Schee asked for clarification of the last sentence on page 4 of the April llth memo. Mavis responded the developer had indicated that no land on his 40 acre tract lends itself to recreational purposes. Glen Keller added the Park & Recreation Commission has investigated land purchase north of Lochanburn but the owner is unwilling to sell -a small parcel for a neighborhood park. Schee then asked for clarification of # 8 on page 5 of the memo. Mr. Kruell responded the surrounding residents are concerned about the continuation of multiple uses in the area if the townhouse project is approved and they question the advantage of accepting unusable land as a trade off. Feerick asked if the 400 foot buffer would be measured from building to building • or lot line to lot line . Mr Kruell said he believes the commission should address the problem. Kruell added that the wording within Resolution 356A does not reflect what the residents remember concerning the buffer. Sorensen asked Mr, Kruell if they felt a PUD became invalid when the property exchanges owners. Kruell replied affirmative. Sorensen stated that PUD approvals are attached to the land and can be exchanged unless otherwise stipulated. Sorensen asked if the staff had estimates of the cost of the Duck Lake Trail improvements? , if it is needed if the development does not occur ? , who will pay for the improvements ? , and would the improvements be needed if the new north/south and east/west roads were constructed. The planner stated he was unaware of the Duck Lake Trail improvement cosh how it would be assessed, but believed its construction would be necessary irregardless of the townhouse development. Sorensen asked how the skating rink referred to on page 16 of the staff report would be maintained. The planner said Pautz has indicated that the rink could continue and be maintained as has bean done in the past. Fosnocht questioned whether the proposed tennis courts would be suffici.'ent if they are intended for community use. The developer indicated that the courts • were to be private not public. Approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 14, 1975 Sorensen asked if stacking lanes should be recommended for the project. The planner felt cars entering would not require stacking lanes and the best • alternative would be to connect the project to the new north/south road . Meyers expressed the concerns that the townhouses did not make the best use of the natural slopes, traffic problems may arise if all units are constructed instead of phasing the units, .1 driveway entracte to Duck Lake Trail was inadequate, and she asked if the 3. 25 parking spaces / unit was to accommodate future conversion to condominiums. Mr. Pautz stated that the project has 1 access because they are not asking for access through Lochanburn. He said tla t conversion to condominiums is possible , but at least 10 years in the future. He further stated that the hill forms make it difficult to construct the buildings unless a more extensive and expensive road system is constructed and that the grading and number of units in the Edengate project are less than what was approved in the original PUD plan. Meyers asked if multiple tenants were expected and if so more traffic could be expected. Pautz responded that they do expect some multiple tenants . Meyers requested that the watershed district investigate the parkways construction through the floodplain. The planner believed roads must cross creeks and floodplains in Eden Prairie to connect areas. He informed the commission members that the floodplain map • in the Purgatory Watershed District Study is incorrect and referred them to the floodplain map in the staff report which illustrates the parkway outside of the floodplain. Motion: Fosnocht moved, Boerger seconded, to continue the project to the next Planning Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried unanimously. B. Revised Cinema Signage Plans for the Homart Eden Prairie Shopping Cerfer. Jan Porter, stated the present submission is basically the same sign . He.then introduced Mr. Griswald who is Director of Construction for United Artist. Mr. Griswald backgrounded the history of cinema location and advertising. He stated that no inclusive study as to the best form of advertising has been done, but the only thing cinemas have to advertise is what is on the screen and such advertising is the basis of their economic success. The planner asked for the dimension of the present sign. Mr. Porter replied the reading portion of the sign measures approximately 21 feet by 12 feet. Fosnocht asked if the staff had reviewed the sign. The planner responded affirmative , adding the sign was within the height restrictions, but exceeded the square footage allowed in the Sign Ordinance. • Sorensen felt the sign should conform to the Sign -Ordinance and he inquired if the films advertised could be placed on the building or inside the mall. Approved Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 14, 1975 Mr. Griswald replied that to cover a mall the size of the Eden Prairie Center they would need a large number of signs and then they could reach only the • shoppers. Motion 1 Schee moved, Feerick seconded, to accept the revised cinema sign dated April 8, 1975, presented by United Artist for the Eden Prairie Shopping Center. Discussion Boerger asked if the possibility of subleasing the sign existed. Porter replied negative. Lynch questioned if the motion should state that Homart relinquishes their sign option in lieu of the United Artist Sign. Sorensen said the motion had been made and additions should be made in separate motions. Amendment Lynch moved, Meyers seconded�to amend the motion to note Homart agrees to relinquish their option to the major pylon sign previously discussed as a condition to the granting of the United Artist Sign. Vote on Amendment The amendment carried 5:2 with Schee and Sorensen voting nay. Vote on Motion 1 The motion carried 4:3 with Meyers, Fosnocht and Sorensen voting nay. Motion 2 Sorensen moved Meyers seconded, that the United Artist Sign be referred to the •, council for approval or disapproval. ( Meyers seconded for discussion purposes ) Discussion Schee and Feerick believed the Planning Commission spent adequate time in reviewing the sign and their approval should stand as made. Vote on Motion 2 The motion failed 1:6 with Sorensen voting aye. C. Northmark II, request by The Preserve for preliminary plat approval for 78 lots with setback and lot size modifications. The Preserve is also seeking rezoning to RM 6. 5. The site is located east of Northmark I and north of Basswoods dl . . Don Hess, The Preserve, said the original ' PUD provided for a 22 acre park for an elementary school/ park site and that past plattings ( Westwind & M.Z.Jones Apartments) , have defined some of the park boundaries already. He stated the city staff and Preserve staff disagree about the amount of acreage necessary for a school / park site. Sorensen said he recollects that the school/park site size was not agreed to at the PUD approval, but was to be worked out. Hess stated The Preserve believes 22 acres is adequate for the school/park including parking and bus unloading facilities. He said they can work up.to 26 acres, but feel 22 acres is adequate . Approved Planning Commission Minutes -5- _.April 14, 1975 The planner stated he does not feel the staff has been remise in working with The Preserve. He felt a 22 acre park would place constraints on park develop- ment and would not allow space for proper buffering. Schee asked how the school is involved. Mr. lessen, City Community Services Director, said the school has a co-interest and has been involved in the discussions with The Preserve. lessen added that the 22 acre park could work, but the staff sees problems of safety, size and buffering from the adjoining platted areas. Meyers asked if adult park uses were included in the staff's school/park plan design. lessen replied affirmative. Meyers asked what the Park & Recreation Commission had recommended. lessen replied the Park & Recreation Commission decided 22 acres would work with fencing along the north,bordering the single family lot lines. _ Motion: Boerger moved, Schee seconded, to continue the Northmark II preliminary platting and rezoning request to the April 28th Planning Commission meeting with the strong recommendation that the staff and Preserve negotiate their differences and arrive with a plan ( s ) to be evaluated. riscussion• Sorensen asked for the differences between the 22 acre and 32 acre site proposals . The planner responded that Chris Enger's 32 acre park design includes 4-6 acres of buffer space and more flexibility in park development. • Boerger said he feels the 22 acres would be too tight. Sorensen said he had requested more staff input and report on other aspects of the proposal. Fosnocht suggested uses be fitted into the plans the staff and Preserve would be presenting at the following meeting. Feerick moved, Schee seconded, to call question on the motion. The question carried with Meyers and Sorensen voting hay.. Vote on Motion: The motion carried unanimously. D. Area A of The Preserve Commerical Plan, request for conceptual approval for office, commercial and multiple uses, and preliminary plat approval. Area A is located west of the Gelco Office Building, south of W. 78th Street and north of Anderson Lakes. Loran Galpin , Development Concepts, said no staff report has been possible yet because the Preserve is trying to work out land sale conditions and the supper club use has been withdrawn until they do further work with Les Blacklock . Galpin then illustrated where walkways will be constructed from the -offices to the restuarant and said if needed a walkway can be placed along W. 78th Street instead of through the project. Sorensen noted that the plan did not have a double lane exit. Galpin said it is . not planned, but there will be 3 lanes out on the east side. 'approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- - April 14, 1975 Sorensen asked what type of signage would be proposed, Galpin responded that signage has not yet been addressed. • Meyers asked what the walking distance would be from Gelco to the family restaurant. Galpin estimated the distance to be about 1500-1600 feet. Meyers asked if the single family residents have been contacted. Galpin said they have had contacts with the residents, but the residents have not attended meetings. Motion: Schee moved, Meyers seconded, to refer the item to the staff for a report. The motion carried unanimously. E. Ordinance No. 135 Amendments . 1 Amendment for Industrial Districts pertaining to office use in Industrial Districts. The planner informed the commission that he had met with Mr. Perbix that afternoon and,they had arrived at the changes to Section 8 of Ordinance 135 as listed in the April 14, 1975 memo. Sorensen inquired about the option of allowing offices with warehouse uses. The planner responded that such an option would be difficult to enforce. • Fosnocht asked and er what district tennis clubs, roller rinks, etc. , would be located. The planner said that those uses are expected to be within the Major Center Area. Meyers asked if the suggested changes would prevent industrial buildings from becoming totally office. The planner responded negative. Sorensen stated that he felt the Zoning Ordinance was intended to establish exclusive districts. The planner said he feels the ordinance was intended to be flexible and make the best use of the land. Fosnocht asked if all office uses could locate in an Industrial District next to a mixed office/industrial building. The planner said he would recommend pure office uses be located in Office Districts. Sorensen inquired if an office use would require more parking and if so would parking variances be requested. The planner said variances may or may not be needed. The commission members were concerned that multiple uses may be requested in other districts if office is allowed in industrial. The planner felt such multiple uses would occur primarily in the MCA. • Boerger scat ed that he did not object to office uses in Industrial Districts if they conformed to office requirements. Schee agreed with Mr. Boerger. approved Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 14, 1975 The planner stated that the city attorney would be asked to appropriately _ • word the concerns of the commission for an amendment to the ordinance. Motion: Boerger moved, Schee seconded, to recommend to the City Council that Section 8 of Ordinance 135 be amended to reflect any use permitted in Office Districts shall be permitted in Industrial Districts. Said offices shall comply.- with all requirements of Section 6 herein. The motion carried 5:2 with Sorensen and Meyers voting nay. ..... 2 . Amendment to include PUD District. Covered later. F. Eagle Enterprise, parking lot variance. Discussion of changes and previous com- mission action. Sorensen requested the planner place the Eagle Enterprise parking lot variance request and action taken at the Commission's April 14, 1975 meeting on the April 24th agenda to allow the members who were absent at the April 14 th meeting to express their opinions. • Sorensen asked if the two members who voted in favor of the action taken at the April 14th meeting objected to reconsideration of the action. Neither Boerger or Feerick objected. Feerick Moved, Boerger seconded to reconsider the action taken by the commission at the April 14th Planning Commission meeting regarding Eagle Enterprise's parking lot variance request. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Sorensen then asked for the commission's opinions and comments on the April 14th action taken by the commission. Fosnocht stated that he would have voted against the action taken at the April 14th meeting because he felt Eagle Enterprise should conform to the City's parking requirements. Schee suggested adding an addition to the ' previous action to read : 10. That Eagle Enterprise work with Immanuel Lutheran Church and consider the question of.shared parking now and in the future,and in that case readjust the landscape buffer. Meyers expressed concerns related to access= to the shopping center. • The planner stated that access standards are under the control of the State and County Highway Departments. approved Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 14, 1975 • Sorensen suggested amending # 4 of the April 14th action to read; 4. That the necessary improvements to Co. Rd. 4 and T.H. 5 permitting safe and high quality access to the center site shall be accomplished prior to granting an occupancy permit for the commercial space. These improvements are to be made by -" the highway departments or the developer. he further requested adding an.additional recommendation to read; 10. That Eagle Enterprise shall enter into present and future parking facilities with Immanuel Lutheran Church provided said church is agreeable. Lynch stated he feels the shopping center plan with a parking lot variance is more desirable than the center plan without a parking lot variance. Discussion followed related to the 4/5 Study reconsideration by the count:il and how it might affect the Eagle Enterprise project. Meyers stated that the council has requested the city attorney to give his opinion on the council's action regarding the 4/5 Studyand the council is concerned about zoning and transportation in the area. Schee and Lynch felt the item presently before the commission should not be discussed in conjunction with possible action on the 4/5 Study. • Lynch moved, Schee seconded, to recommend to the Board of Appeals approval of the variance request by Eagle Enterprises varying the parking requirement as established in Ordinance 141 from 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of G.F.A.,to 6 spaces per'1,000 square feet G.L.A._ for the construction of a neighborlmd shopping center as : modified by the March 19, 1975 : Planning Staff Report with the following additions .: 1. Enlarge the landscap e buffer area adjacent to .Co. Rd. 4 and T.H. 5 and design appropriate earth forms and landscaping to screen passing traffic from the massive impact of the parking area to standards acceptable to the city staff. 2 . Eagle Enterprises shall submit detailed designs related to the buffer , particularly on the northwest property line adjacent to the church and the single family properties to ensure adequate screening and buffering from the service areas of the mall. 3. Work"jointly with the developer and the highway departmert to ensure proper design of all entrances and exits to the center site. Moving the center entrance to T_H.5 west approximately 600-700 ' from the Co. Rd. 4 intersection would be desirable and should. _ be discussed with the highway departments. 4. Ensure thatthe necessary improvements to Co. Rd. 4 and T.H. 5 • permitting safe and high quality access to the center site are accomplished prior to granting an occupancy permit for the commercial space . These improvements are to be made by the highway departments or the developer :approved Planning Commission Minutes -9- -April 14, 1975 • 5. Angle parking shall be installed to provide safe parking lot movements consistent with the provisions of Ordinance- 141. 6. The developer shall provide parking lot landscaping similar to that used in the Eden Prairie Center by Homart. This will ensure adequate number of shade trees in the parking areas to assist in defining the parking rows and to provide shade and visual amenities in the parking lot. 7. Approval of the parking variance is baaed exclusively upon the shopping mall design prohibiting exterior signage other than the major tenants ; supper market, drug , or hardware, and internal site directory signing for other stores with limited signage identifying the shopping mall itself related to the major roads. The variance does not apply to the typical strip mall with individual merchant signing along the front of the building. 8. That Eagle Enterprises shall continue the pedestrian system along Co. Rd. 4 to T.H. 5 and connect with a safe internal pedestrian. system to the shopping mall . 9. That Eagle Enterprises shall design transit service facilities that meet the standards of the MTC . 10. That Eagle Enterprise shall enter into present and future shared parking facilities with Immanuel Lutheran Church,provided said church is • agreeable. The motion carried 5:2 with Sorensen and Meyers voting nay. IV. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS. A. Modern Tire, rezoning from Rural to Highway Commercial for the construction of a 501x100' addition. The site is 1/2 mile north of Flying Cloud Airport at 9051 Flying Cloud Drive . Mr. Tim Duvick, Modern Tire, said the proposed addition would be on the back of the existing building and would be used for warehouse and space to work on larger trucks such as garbage trucks. Sorensen asked if the building was owned by the Duvicks during the City's rezoning process in 1968-69. Mr. Duvick replied they bought the building in 1968 and were operating in January 1969 before the City's rezoning was complete. He added that when he purchased the property it was zoned commercial Sorensen asked Mr. Williams, adjoining property owner, if he had any comments Mr. Williams had no comments and said he was present just to listen. The planner said he felt rezoning would be appropriate. Sorensen asked the planner to address the possibility of a variance, the property's legal status and • development of the property since 1968 in the staff report. approved Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 11, 1975 Lynch asked how the previous addition was obtained. Mr. Duvick replied • George Hite, past city manager, granted Modern Tire a building permit. Motion: Lynch moved, Schee seconded, to refer the item to the staff for a report. The motion carried unanimously. - B. Frank Cardarelle, rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park. The site is located west of 6440 Flying Cloud Drive. The planner informed the commission that the proposal does conform to the Smetana Lake Plan. Sorensen asked if Mr. Bloomberg owned any of the property that is to be rezoned. Mr. Cardarelle said he had a purchase contract on the property. Cardarelle added that sewer and water is in and he desires to rezone the property. Sorensen referred the item to the staff for a report. V. PLANNER'S REPORT . A. 4/5 Study, review of City action. The commission members discussed the city's past action and believed the City should reconsider its action. • Motion: Feerick moved, Schee seconded, to recommend that the City Council immediately reconsider its action on the 4/5 Study and provide areas of concern they wish the commission to explore. The motion carried unanimously. B. Holiday on Monday, May 26, 1975. Boerger moved, Fosnocht seconded, to move the Monday, May 26, 1975,Planning Commission Meeting to Thursday , May 22, 1975 because of the Memorial Day Holidayon May 26th. C. Upcoming Projects. 1.Areas B,C,D,G in the Preserve Commercial Plan. 2 Parkview Apartments by Eden Land 3 Edes Gas station rezoning. 4 Olympic Hills rezoning and platting. 5 Leonard Holte rezoning. The planner briefly noted the upcoming projects. The planner informed the commission that he would be meeting with the MCA owners to discuss drafting the MCA Ordinance on Thursday, April 17 at 3:00 PM. The planner told the commission that the PUD Ordinance has been referred to the commission for work on a more comprehensive ordinanceo •VI. ADTOURNMENT. Lynch moved, Boerger seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 1:05 AM. The motion carried unanimously. Respectively Submitted lean M. Egan