Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 11/27/2006 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Jon Duckstad, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Al Gray, City Engineer Mike Franzen, City Planner Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Koenig. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 8-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 13, 2006 MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 6-0. Pitzrick and Rocheford abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. WINDSOR PLAZA Request for: Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 2 Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.44 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.44 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural, Commercial Regional Service and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 4.44 acres; Site Plan Review on 4.44 acres; Preliminary Plat of 5.81 acres into two lots and road right-of-way. Jay Scott, of Solomon Real Estate Group,presented the proposal. Mr. Scott stated he would like to highlight some of the recommendations listed in the staff report. He pointed out his group will bring the final project to the December 11, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. He stated their project is a catalyst for the Town Center design. Mr. Scott pointed out that this project is an assembly of 4 different parcels; 3 office buildings and Randy's Bobby & Steve's Auto World. He stated this is a transitional piece of property and it needs to work well with the mall but also has to be a transitional piece of property for the Town Center area. Mr. Scott said in regards to the parking issue, their company has hired independent consultants to address this issue. He stated they tried to cut out unnecessary use of parking. They also studied the shared parking analysis, due to restaurants, office and retail areas. They did not over park the project but adequately designed it to accommodate the parking issue. Dan Anderson, project designer, pointed out the window model presented this evening was an example of color and texture of the proposed building. He stated it would give a good prospective of what some of the building would resemble. Mr. Anderson utilized the overhead projector to show products that would be used in the design of the building. He pointed out the restaurants would also tie in with the same design. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated this staff report is different than the traditional staff reports. Franzen stated they are more concerned with the design of this project because it will be placed in the Town Center area. He stated this project is about articulation of design. They want to incorporate the "best of the best things" that were seen on their recent tour of other cities. Franzen said they would also like the landscaping plans and final building plans to come before the Planning Commission prior to them obtaining their building permit. He stated the City would like to make sure what they propose is exactly what they would like in the Town Center area. Franzen stated he would like the project proponent to address the five issues in the staff report and present their project to the December 11, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Gary Cook, of 8108 Eden Road, asked if Eden Road is going to go through from Singletree Road to Regional Center Road. Gray said there would be a transportation corridor going through the area, and it would be a 2-lane road. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 3 Pitzrick asked about the cream-color material on the building and asked if it was drive-it material. Mr. Anderson stated it was drive-it material. Pitzrick stated he felt the side of the building along Flying Cloud Road appeared to be only 3 feet away from the trail. He felt this would be a problem with plowing in the winter. Fox stated the trail along the road is similar to what is throughout the City. As far as snow removal, the City would like to shift responsibility to the building owners. Powell stated he felt the three foot barrier from the trail to the road is too small. Franzen stated this issue could be addressed at the future meeting. He stated maybe there is a possibility that the trail could be put somewhere else in the project that would make it not so close to the road. Pitzrick asked where the loading dock would be located. Brian Klutz, project designer, commented the distance between the curb to the trail is actually 6 feet. He then stated the loading dock would be under the parking ramp; which would be in the basement level of the building. Pitzrick asked if they were looking to achieve lead certification on this project. Mr. Klutz stated they did previously make an attempt to achieve this in a prior list that was given to the City. Dan Carson, lead civil engineer, described what a lead certification consists of. He pointed out you receive points for using certain products, such as paint or recycled water. The goal would be to incorporate a variety of elements into the site. Pitzrick asked how much of this design would be carried forward to future projects. Franzen stated not all of the buildings would look exactly the same; they would only want certain elements in the designs of the buildings. He stated the City would establish certain criteria and let the architects come up with their own design. Stoelting asked how the vehicles will flow through the site and where the parking would be located. Dan Carson utilized the overhead projector and pointed out where the entrances would be located. He said all parking would be located in the parking garage. He said presently it is a three level garage but they could change it to four levels if that is what the City would want. Mr. Carson also stated there would be secured parking below the building. He said the trucks would be utilizing the underground parking area for their deliveries. Mr. Carson also utilized the overhead projector to show where the pedestrian walkways would be located. He also said there would be multiple access points off the trail system. Stoelting asked where the bus shelter would be located. Mr. Carson said they do not have a bus shelter located on this project. Seymour asked Staff about the traffic issues in the area. Gray stated this project will produce increased traffic but they see no problem with this project creating traffic problems. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 4 Powell asked if the current intersection of Singletree Road and 212 could possibly become non-existent in the future. Gray stated as the intersection shifts that could possibly be an outcome. Stoltz asked if Staff was satisfied with the parking on the site. Franzen stated they were satisfied with the parking on this site. Stoltz stated he feels that a pedestrian level does need to be designed for this project. Pitzrick asked again if drive-it material is a durable type of material. Mr. Carson stated this product has changed since years past and it is a very durable and warranted material. He stated they are confident in this product. Pitzrick addressed the sidewalk issue and stated that before this project is approved they should make sure they have the right spacing between the trail and the road. Franzen stated when the project proponent returns for the December 11, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, he should have two functional drawings showing pedestrian walkways and traffic flows. Stoelting reiterated the meeting on December 11, 2006, will allow the project proponent more time to develop this project. Stoelting asked Mr. Scott if he had any objectives to the continuance. Mr. Scott said he did not have any objectives to the continuance. Franzen asked if the Commission Members would need a model of this project or would a drawing be appropriate. Mr. Scott stated they will have a computer model at the next meeting. He stated it might not be detailed enough to show the pedestrian walkways. Kirk stated he wanted the details to the sidewalks addressed in the motion. Seymour pointed out in regards to asking architects to bring in models; if the Commission asks one developer to do that, they need to ask all developers to bring in models. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Stoltz, to recommend a continuance to the December 11, 2006 meeting and to revise the development plans according to the staff report and other requirements as identified by the Commission, including detailed sections of the sidewalk area along Highway 212. Motion carried 8-0. Pitzrick asked to amend the motion to address the issue of drive-it material. Kirk amended the motion to add that there would be staff evaluation of the drive-it material. B. RANDY'S BOBBY & STEVE'S AUTO WORLD Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.08 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.08 acres; Zoning District Change Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 5 from Highway Commercial and Office to Commercial Regional Service on 1.08 acres; Site Plan Review on 1.08 acres. Dan Anderson presented the proposal. He started out by requesting Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated this project is similar to the first project that was presented this evening. He also stated an issue that should be addressed would by the traffic flow in and out of this property. Franzen stated they did their own study to see if there was adequate room for vehicles to maneuver around the gas pumps. They found they need more room in the north/south dimension to this site. Stoelting asked Franzen how many additional feet that would amount to. Franzen stated it would be 9 additional feet of horizontal space. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Pitzrick asked if the project proponent anticipates additional space for this project in the future. Mr. Anderson stated that if the need would arise for additional space in the future they would be willing to accommodate the change at that time. Pitzrick stated he wanted the architects to be creative in their design of the gas pump island area. Mr. Anderson stated they have no problem with creating a pleasing architectural design to this project. MOTION by Pitzrick, seconded by Kirk, to recommend a continuance to the December 11, 2006 meeting and to revise the development plans according to the staff report. Motion carried 8-0. VII. GUIDE PLAN UPDATE 0 Introduction to Transportation Monique Mackenzie and Marie Cote presented the Transportation Guide Plan Update. Some of the Transportation Chapter Components are as follows: 1. Traffic forecasts. 2. Mapping. 3. Highway system issues and plans. 4. Bicycle and pedestrian transportation. 5. Transit systems. Trends and Influenciniz Factors 1. Aging population. 2. Increasing congestion. 3. More expensive fuel and energy costs. 4. Better transportation alternatives. 5. Interest in active,healthy lifestyles. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 6 Roadway ystem Maintenance Study will focus on how to accommodate existing growth in the area. Some of the Focused Chanze Areas are as follows: 1. Land use changes. 2. Limits to expansion of road network. 3. Emphasis on walking facilities. GTA Transportation Objectives 1. Reduce peak period traffic congestion. 2. Increase transit use. MCA Transportation Objectives 1. Locate appropriate density at right locations. 2. Take advantage of the light rail transit system to support higher density development. Key Questions to be addressed reizarding the Transportation Study 1. Should the City dedicate transportation resources to updating existing roadways or developing new roadways. 2. Should we have transportation improvements for non-motorized travel in Eden Prairie. 3. Are there certain areas where transportation improvement areas should focus. 4. What funding sources should be considered. Stoelting asked if the Commission should be focusing on the new roadway corridors or existing roadways. Stoelting was also concerned about the feasibility of constructing new roadways in Eden Prairie. Gray addressed these issues by stating in the last 15 years, Eden Prairie has done a lot of improvement to the roadways and it does anticipate the possibility of developing some new corridors to handle the new growth and construction of the City. He stated the City will be improving the corridors throughout the City to handle new development. Gray pointed out the challenge would be financing improvements to roadway corridors. He stated it would be a benefit to the City if it had the Light Rail System. Gray pointed out the LRS would be a substantial corridor that would connect Eden Prairie to other parts of the metro area. Stoelting reiterated it is not really new corridors that are being addressed but rather the Light Rail System and improving existing roadways. Stoelting asked if there was any prioritization, in the concept of dollars, as to which improvements would be considered first in line. Gray stated the City has been working with MNDot to receive some funding for these projects and some of the first priorities would be Anderson Lakes Parkway and Preserve Boulevard, and also Pioneer Trail and the 169/494 interchange. He stated the City would need a considerable amount of money to fund these projects. Gray also pointed out the Golden Triangle area would need a lot of input/output access points. Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 7 Kirk stated he strongly supports non-motorized travel both in the MCA and residential areas of the city. He also stated the old Hwy 212 is a dilemma. He pointed out it is an old road and also a dangerous road, however, it is an area where we are trying to preserve the prairie bluff environment. Marie Cote stated they anticipate a lot of volume in the future for the new Hwy 212; which would take traffic off of the old Hwy 212. Pitzrick stated he would like to see pedestrian bridges set up in the Singletree/Hwy 212 area, and Singletree/Prairie Center Drive area for pedestrian traffic and to function as landmark signage. Marie Cote stated some of these roadways would not be conducive for pedestrian bridges due to the high level of traffic. She stated pedestrian transportation is very important to the transportation study and they are looking at addressing all options. Powell asked if the development of the Community Center would increase traffic congestion on Valley View Road. Randy Newton, City Graphic Engineer, stated the improvements to the Community Center would not add congestion the Valley View Road. We need to look at the impact on the power line on the high density area of the MCA and what options we have to remove the power line. VIII. PLANNERS' REPORT Franzen stated there will be 6 items scheduled for the December 11, 2006, meeting. This will include: 1. Windsor Plaza 2. Randy's Bobby & Steve's Auto World 3. Staring Preserve 4. St. Andrew Condominium Site. 5. Amendment to the Bluff Country Village. 6. Presentation on Rain Water Gardens There will be no Planning Commission Meeting on December 25, 2006 due to the Holiday. IX. MEMBERS REPORTS Stoltz asked Franzen if there have been any new developments with the Bent Creek Golf Course. Franzen stated there have been no new developments since the November 13, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. X. CONTINUING BUSINESS XI. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2006 Page 8 XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. Pete Rocheford left prior to adjournment. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m.