Loading...
Planning Commission - 01/08/1996 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, January 8, 1996 7:00 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp,Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner Scott Kipp,Planner I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. KINDERCARE - SHADY OAK ROAD by Tandem Corporation. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.7 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.7 acres and Preliminary Plat of 4.83 acres into 2 lots. Location: City West Parkway and Shady Oak Road. B. ROGER'S COMMERCIAL GUIDE PLAN CHANGE by Roger Lindeman. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.91 acres. Location: 9125 Flying Cloud Drive. C. BEARPATH 1996 PUD AMENDMENT by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for PUD Amendment and Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres. Location: Bearpath Trail and Dell Road. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION January 8, 1996 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Katherine Kardell, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Ismail Ismail, Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D.Franzen, City Planner, and Barbara Anderson,City Recorder I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL Chair Kardell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Schlampp moved, Wissner seconded, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Schlampp noted a typographical error on page 9 and Commissioner Sandstad's name was spelled incorrectly. MOTION: Clinton moved, Foote seconded, to approve the Minutes of the December 11, 1995 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. Motion carried 6-0. Kardell abstained. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. KINDERCARE - SHADY OAK ROAD by Tandem Corporation. Request for Zoning District change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.7 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.7 acres and Preliminary Plat of 4.83 acres into 2 lots. Location: City West Parkway and Shady Oak Road. Franzen introduced Erik Johnson of RLK Associates in Minnetonka. Johnson reviewed the history of the site and the surrounding property. He discussed the grading and drainage plan for the site and the traffic figures which were provided by Benshoof and Associates. He discussed the site design and traffic circulation patterns and reviewed the landscaping plan,which will provide transition between this site and the adjacent properties. He noted that the play areas would not be located adjacent to Shady Oak Road. He reviewed the access and the parking for the site. Greg Ryder of Kindercare was also present to answer any questions from the Commissioners. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1996 Page 2 Sandstad inquired about the 10 foot retaining wall on the site and how high it would be. Johnson responded that it will be at least ten feet in height but they intend to break it up and use plantings in between the sections to soften the view. Sandstad inquired about the grades on the private drive, and Johnson reviewed those figures. Ismail inquired if there was another day care center in this area and how this would affect the business. Johnson responded that there was a New Horizon Day Care Center in the area,but the Kindercare would be a more modern facility which would cater to a larger age range of children. Ismail commented he was unsure that this location was the best location for this type of facility. Schlampp inquired about the exterior building finish and the location for the proof of parking spaces on the site. Johnson responded they have proposed a brick exterior finish for the building and the proof of parking spaces were located in the play area, which could be converted to parking spaces if the building were sold and converted to another use. Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted that staff supported the proposal and recommended approval, subject to the recommendations in the staff report. He noted N that staff recommended the addition of large conifer plantings between the outdoor play area and Shady Oak Road. Ismail inquired if the developer had agreed to the conditions imposed by staff. Johnson indicated they were in agreement with the staff recommendations. Wissner inquired if there was a stop sign at the intersection of Chase Pointe and City West Parkway. Franzen responded that there was not one presently,but perhaps it should be considered. MOTION-Wissner moved, Clinton seconded,to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 7-0. The Public Hearing was closed. Foote expressed concern about similar uses being located adjacent to each other. Kardell commented it appeared there was sufficient need for.this type of use, and compared it to a McDonald's and a Burger King being located in the same vicinity. MOTION: Wissner moved, Clinton seconded, to recommend approval of Kindercare for Tandem Corporation for Zoning District change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.7 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.7 acres and Preliminary Plat of 4.83 acres into 2 lots, located at City West Parkway and Shady Oak Road subject to the conditions as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 5, 1996.Motion carried 7-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1996 Page 3 B. ROGER'S COMMERCIAL GUIDE PLAN CHANGE by Roger Lindeman. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.91 acres. Location: 9125 Flying Cloud Drive. Roger Lindeman stated he was the owner of Roger's Body Shop and he had initially purchased this property with the idea of expanding his business onto this site. However, he had decided that it was too close to his present location to open an additional body shop and he requested a change from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial to allow for another business to be located on this property. Lynn Eichman stated they are proposing that it become a commercial use because the existing Body Shop services the area adequately. They propose that a convenience store/gas station be located on the site which would be advantageous for the traffic on Highway 169. He noted that the property to the north was zoned Industrial and they believe the proposed use would fit in well with this zoning classification. Wissner asked about the access to the site. Franzen reviewed the City's plan for a road to connect from Damel Road to Sunnybrook with an access onto Highway 169 opposite from the Hennepin Technical College intersection. • Franzen gave the staff report and noted that there are two gasoline/convenience store operations located within a half mile of the site, and staff believed that another similar use would not be the best use of the property. Staff recommended denial of the request based on the reasons listed in the staff report. The Public Hearing was opened. Jim and Sherry Simchuck, 9145 Flying Cloud Drive, noted they live immediately adjacent to the site on the south. They expressed concern about the station being a good neighbor as it was proposed to be open for 24 hours a day. Sherry stated she was not in favor of looking out her window at people filling their cars with gas, and did not want to have a gas station as an immediate neighbor. Kardell asked now the street might develop and Franzen responded that it was originally discussed when the body shop use was proposed. The road would extend east to a Darnel court extension. Schlampp inquired if the applicant could construct a body shop now and Franzen responded yes. Schlampp asked what reasons there were to deny the request. Franzen referred to the StaffReport. Franzen added that the proponents did not have to show a site plan for the property in order to make the guide plan change request. If the gas station/convenience store had not been included in the plans, staff would have assumed any commercial use could go onto the property. Schlampp expressed concern about the reasons for denial recommended by staff. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1996 Page 4 Sandstad commented he saw other problems with the request in that gas station/convenience stores have canopies over the pumps which are very brightly lit and have a large amount of light spillover onto adjacent properties creating an adverse effect. He did not support the proposed use on the site. Wissner commented she believed that the proposed use was not needed since there were two other existing gas/convenience stores in the area. Clinton stated he did not believe that the proposed use was needed,but if a different commercial use were proposed in the future he would consider it. Foote stated he could not support the proposal from a traffic perspective and he was opposed to granting the reguiding request. Schlampp commented that since the proponent had approval for an industrial use he did not support the proposed use for the property. MOTION: Sandstad moved,Foote seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Sandstad moved, Foote seconded to recommend denial of the request of Roger Lindeman for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.91 acres located at 9125 Flying Cloud Drive based on the reasons listed in the Staff Report dated December 5, 1996. Motion carried 7-0. C. BEARPATH 1996 PUD AMENDMENT by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for PUD Amendment and Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres. Location: Bearpath Trail and Dell Road. John Vogelbacher and Ron Hardy were present representing Bearpath Limited Partnership. Vogelbacher stated that the golf course had been designed to quality standards when the PUD was approved and they have no-maintenance properties they call villas and some townhomes which are on smaller lots adjacent to the golf course. They are requesting the waiver to the front yard setback requirement to accommodate the smaller units. He explained that the design of the villa units incorporates a courtyard design with the garage located on the front part of the house,pushing the living portion of the house farther back on the lots. This brings it into closer proximity to the golf course, unless they are allowed to decrease the front yard setback to 20', which will allow them to maintain the size of the living space of the house and still keep the 30'rear yard setback from the golf course. Clinton inquired if this problem of golf balls coming into the yards had not been anticipated when the project was developed and Vogelbacher responded that the style of house and driveway had not been designed when the initial PUD approval was PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1996 Page 5 requested. Sandstad commented he supported the PUD concept and felt that the project would not suffer if the Planning Commission were to approve the reduction in the front yard setback requirements. However,he stated he was surprised to find gates had been erected across the Hennepin County right-of-way along the LRT Corridor trail. Vogelbacher responded that the gates operate to control traffic onto Bearpath Trail but do not restrict pedestrian access to the trail. Wissner inquired if the homes were custom designed with different builders, and Vogelbacher responded affirmatively, except for the townhomes which are all constructed by the same contractor. Foote inquired if the lot sizes were the same as originally approved, and Vogelbacher responded affirmatively. Kardell commented that from a visual perspective it made sense to have the garages sideways on the lots, and she supported that concept. Franzen reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended of the request based on the conditions set forth in Alternative#2. Regarding the issue of access into the community, it had been understood that the pedestrian access would not be restricted. At the time of approval it was uncertain if it would be used for LRT or as a pedestrian trail. If pedestrians using the LRT trail want to enter into Bearpath they can signal the clubhouse and the gates would be opened and people can enter the development. Vogelbacher stated that pedestrian access is still available because the gates will be opened to pedestrians who wish to enter the Bearpath development. Kardell stated she understood that the LRT trail was not going to be cordoned off and she was very surprised when she saw that gates had been erected. Clinton recalled that it was originally proposed that a fence would be constructed along the trail but it would not be closed off. Sandstad stated he was uncomfortable with having the gates up and perhaps they should be removed. Wissner inquired if the City Council had granted original approval of the project with the idea that the trail would be open to the residents. Schlampp recalled this was correct, but it did not have anything to do with the present request before the Commission. Foote inquired when these gates would be shut and Vogelbacher responded that at present the security gates are not operational. He commented that they may have misunderstood,but the Development Agreement states that pedestrian access to the site will be allowed to the public. They are allowing access to the public but they believe they have the right to request that access be gained through the gatehouse or through access through other gates which can be opened by the guard at the gatehouse. Their intention is to have all traffic enter the development through the gatehouse, as they want to know who is coming into their community. The Public Hearing was opened. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1996 Page 6 Reed Johnson, 9166 Breckenridge Lane, described the location of his house, and noted this is an area which would be impacted by the amendment to the PUD. He stated that the Planning Board of Bearpath had been relatively consistent in enforcing the setbacks. He was unsure he supported having garages 20' from the front property lines as he believed this could create a tunnel effect on the streets. He questioned if this would apply to all lots within the development or only those indicated in yellow in the plans submitted by the developers. Franzen stated that the City Code has all setback requirements for all residential districts established and to change those requirements requires a variance,which can be granted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The Planned Unit Development designation is used for projects in which the development is constructed in phases. As part of the PUD process the City has the authority to grant waivers from standard setback requirements if it will improve the quality of the development. Vogelbacher stated that the setback waiver would be applied to construction of courtyard-driveway type homes. They have a 30' rear yard setback for homes adjacent to the golf course, and this will not be used for all the homes in the development. It is to provide flexibility for those homes that wish to use this type of architecture. Bob Engelke, 9214 Breckenridge Lane, stated they live on the west side of Breckenridge Lane. His home is constructed with this style of architecture and is located 30'from the road. He stated he was opposed to granting the waiver as he felt the setbacks should be uniformly enforced for all the residents of the development. He understood that the gates across the trail should be up and operating by now, and he supported having all traffic, vehicular and pedestrian, entering the community through the gatehouse. Bill and Dolores Reimer, 9190 Breckenridge Lane, stated they supported the comments made by the two previous homeowners. They purchased their lot with the understanding that the front yard setback requirements were 30 feet and they did not support this change. They believed there would be an adverse impact on the streets in the neighborhood if the waiver were to be granted. They wanted to have the setbacks consistent on both sides of the street. Mark Heffelfinger,9196 Breckenridge Lane, stated they have gotten a few golf balls in their back yard,but none through the plate glass windows yet. He has seen other developments of homes surrounding golf courses and he did not feel that safety was a major factor in the setback issue. He thought that if they got much more snow that they would need more snow storage space. He liked the idea of a variety of design throughout the development but he felt that the setback should be kept at the 30 foot idistance. If there was a specific need for a variance it should be considered on an individual basis. Rodney Hardy, Principal and an owner of Bearpath Development, 5300 Oaklawn PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1996 Page 7 Avenue, stated that every plan goes before a 5-member committee and they have followed the guidelines as set forth in the PUD Agreement. Most lots are sold and having seen where the golf balls have been found they are concerned that if they use the setbacks in the PUD standards they should have an alternative for those homes on lots which would be impacted by the fairways. If they have to come before the Planning Commission on a lot by lot basis,it will take up a lot of time for everyone concerned. They felt that this would be the best means of achieving this because the Architectural Committee has the ability to make decisions on a lot by lot basis. Regarding the issue of the gates on the trail,it was the represented that the corridor was going to be fenced off which provided the need for the gates. The pedestrian gates will be manually controlled by the gatehouse and can be opened by the operator. Sandstad commented he appreciated the work that the Architectural Committee had done on the project but he did not recall the gates being approved. He believed that the Bearpath development should hold a neighborhood meeting with all homeowners present to discuss this request, as it was evident that all homeowners did not agree with the variance request. He believed the item should be continued to resolve the gate issue, allow the proponents to hold a homeowners meeting,including those who owned property but had not yet built homes, and to determine exactly which lots would be affected by the reduced front yard setback variance. Discussion ensued regarding the gates across the right-of-way and how other gated communities are operated. Vogelbacher stated that pedestrian and bicycle traffic is allowed through the gatehouse, but the development was private property and the owners had the right to know who was coming into the development. He emphasized that this was not public property, no uses of public funds had been made in its construction, and they have the right to provide security for those people who live within this development. Sandstad stated that these were matters which impacted the present request as far as he was concerned, and the idea of being grilled by a gatehouse attendant in order to gain access to a neighborhood was offensive. He wished to table the request until the next Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to research the original approval request, provide copies of minutes, etc. to Commissioners and determine whether gates had been approved at the present locations. Foote inquired who provided police and fire protection for the community and Vogelbacher responded those were provided by the City of Eden Prairie. All streets, street lighting, utilities, trails, etc. had been paid for and were maintained by the developers. The issue of security for the residents of the community was an important one, and residents needed to feel that their community was safe and secure. MOTION: Sandstadt moved, Clinton seconded,to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1996 Page 8 MOTION: Sandstad moved, Clinton seconded, to recommend Continuance of the PUD Amendment and Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres for Bearpath Limited Partnership for two weeks to allow staff to research the history of the development and provide the Commissioners with Minutes,Plans, etc. which were approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, and to allow the proponents time to hold a neighborhood meeting. Motion carried 7-0. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS Kardell reported on the progress the City Council had made regarding the revision of the process of appointing citizens to serve on the various Boards and Commissions of the City. The Housing, Transportation and Social Services Board will be working with staff to devise plans to change policies and draft an action plan for dealing with housing and transportation issues. VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None. VII. NEW BUSINESS Ismail requested a performance report from staff on the Planning Commission for 1995 regarding actions taken as to how the City Council had acted. He also requested that some feedback from the Council be given regarding how they believed the Planning Commission had performed. Kardell noted that the Council had discussed appointing a liaison to each Board and Commission. VIII. PLANNER'S REPORTS Franzen stated that new projects proposed in 1996 included hotels, very large office and industrial buildings, and large multiple-family projects. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Clinton moved, Ismail seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.