Loading...
Planning Commission - 07/22/1996 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 22, 1996 7:00 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBER: Michael Franzen, City Planner Scott A. Kipp, Planner I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE--ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TIRES PLUS by Tires Plus. Request for PUD Concept Review on 19 acres, PUD District Review on 1.15 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Commercial Regional Service District on 1.15 acres and Site Plan Review on 1.15 acres. Location: Eden Road and Glen Road. is B. LIL' RED GAS PUMPS by John Richmond. Request for Site Plan Review on 1.49 acres and Preliminary Plat of 1.49 acres into 1 lot and road right-of-way. Location: Southeast corner of Valley View Road and County Road 4. Contact: John Richmond C. BENT CREEK COVE by Taurus Properties Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan.Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 2.5 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.5 acres,Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 2.5 acres and Preliminary Plat of 2.5 acres into 10 lots. Location: Valley View Road and Howard Lane. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS - Tree Committee Results IX. ADJOURNMENT APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 1996 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht,Ismail Ismail,Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad,Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen,City Planner Scott Kipp, Planner Elinda Bahley,Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.by Chair Clinton. Commissioner Ismail was absent; all other members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Wissner, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-JULY 8, 1996 MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Wissner,to approve the Minutes of the July 8, 1996 Eden Prairie Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 5-0-1 with one abstention by Kardell. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TIRES PLUS by Tires Plus. Request for PUD Concept Review on 19 acres,PUD District Review on 1.15 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Commercial Regional Service District on 1.15 acres and Site Plan Review on 1.15 acres. Location: Eden Road and Glen Road. Franzen indicated Tires Plus has submitted a letter asking for a continuance until the August 12, 1996 meeting. Tires Plus is buying the existing Hardees Restaurant and it will be remodeled with an additional 4000 square feet. The next meeting will be a long one with at least three difficult projects. Staff recommended a continuance to the August 26, 1996 meeting. MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Foote, for a continuance to the August 26, • 1996 meeting. Motion carried 6-0. Planning Commission Monday, July 22, 1996 B. LIL' RED GAS PUMPS by John Richmond. Request for Site Plan Review on 1.49 acres and Preliminary Plat of 1.49 acres into 1 lot and road right-of-way. Location: Southeast corner of Valley View and County Road 4. John Richmond, owner, reviewed the development proposal with the Commission. The proposal is to add one more pump, a new canopy, and replace the existing pumps. Foote was concerned about the location of the islands.Richmond replied the islands are going to be closer to the building. Kipp commented that currently the property boundaries extend into the center line of Valley View Road and County Road 4. The proposal is to plat the 1.49 acre site into one lot and road right-of-way. Hennepin County is requesting an additional 10 feet of right-of-way dedication for County Road 4, while the City is requesting 10 more feet of dedication along Valley View Road to accommodate the intersection improvements. The total right-of-way dedication will result in the lot size of 1.01 acres, therefore, requiring a variance from the required 2 acre lot size in Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Due to the right-of-way dedication, it • appears this variance would have merit. The gas canopy will be 17 feet from the lot line. If the property not been platted, the canopy would have met the setback requirements. Due to the right-of-way dedication there is merit for the variance. The location of the canopy does not create any traffic or pedestrian conflict, and no residential property will be impacted by the placement of the canopy. The canopy is the best location for the customer's use and for external circulation. A traffic study was done to look at maneuvering and access. The access comment was that potentially there is some stacking out on Valley View Road for an occasional left turn which was noted on one observation. Since this is a small neighborhood convenience store with some common stacking of vehicles at times, Staff believes it is not necessary to require construction of an additional lane. Staff received one letter regarding the issue of some potential trash conflicts with the residential property. Staff contacted the owner and asked that he contact this individual and see if there is some act to resolve this. Staff recommends approval of the site plan and preliminary plat. Sandstad expressed concern about the height of the canopy as compared to the height of the building, and the lighting conditions to the residential area east of this area. 2 Planning Commission Monday, July 22, 1996 Kipp replied approximately to the bottom of the canopy is about 14 feet six inches, and there is about a three foot canopy so they are dealing with about a 17 foot height. The building height is approximately 15 feet. Staff recommended that the lighting included be fully recessed flat lens lighting. Wissner was concerned about the location of 32 parking spaces. Kipp replied on the front of the facility they have identified nine spaces and currently on both the north and south side there is an additional six on each side for a total of 21 spaces. There are six spaces at the fuel pump for 27 spaces which requires an additional five spaces. The curved area on the northwest corner of the site will be striped with proof of parking to accommodate the additional five spaces. Based on the use of the site, it isn't warranted that all 32 spaces be striped and Staff told the owner to stripe the 21 spaces adjacent to the building. Wissner expressed concern about the safety issues around the telephone pole noting that a person driving a car could not see a person riding a bicycle. Kipp commented that he suspects the lilac hedge has something to do with it. He will contact the Engineering Department concerning the improvements to that area such as trimming the lilac hedge. Jody and Dewayne Meyer, 16281 Westgate Lane, commented they live on the cul-de- sac right behind Lil'Red. They expressed concern about the trash blowing on to their property. There was also concern about the lighting coming from that site and asked if Lil'Red intends to extend their hours. The Meyers also expressed concern about the fire issue regarding the additional pump. They lived there during the Anderson Floral fire and it was all they could do to keep it contained because they were worried about the gas pumps. The Meyers would like to make sure this is approved by the Fire Marshal. Wissner commented that there is now going to be a trash enclosure that will help with the garbage. Richmond stated they will keep the same hours of 5:00 a.m to 11:00 p.m. He noted that he was not aware of any trash problem until recently. Someone has been hired who will be responsible just for the trash and he will be putting additional trash cans all around the site. Kipp commented that all projects must meet Fire Marshal approval before it goes to the City Council. MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Sandstad, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. • 3 Planning Commission Monday, July 22, 1996 MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Sandstad, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of John Richmond for Site Plan Review on 1.49 acres, Preliminary Plat of 1.49 acres based on plans dated July 19, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 19, 1996, and also to include that Mr.Richmond be in contact with Mr. Garens before the City Council meeting to discuss the issue of trash and reenforce that it is being worked upon. Motion carried 6-0. C. BENT CREEK COVE by Taurus Properties Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 2.5 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.5 acres, Planned Development District Review on 2.5 acres,Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 2.5 acres and Preliminary Plat of 2.5 acres into 10 lots. Location: Valley View Road and Howard Lane. Franzen gave a brief history about this project. He noted that this 2.46 acre site was designated as a multiple family apartment site for 46 units as part of the 1970 Edenvale Planned Unit Development. In 1988 the City amended the Comprehensive plan from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and approved a plan for 75 townhomes for Associated Investors, Inc. In 1991 the City changed the Comprehensive plan back to Low Density Residential and approved a plan for five single family lots for Associated Investors, Inc. Duane Dietrich, Taurus Properties, reviewed the development proposal with the Planning Commission. He commented that as a builder and developer, he feels the area has developed in a positive manner. The proposal for this site is for 10 townhomes. They took out berms and put in a concrete privacy wall. It gave them room to put a street on the inside which is definitely a plus. It will give better access with additional parking. The privacy wall will be covered with some type of vine that will grow, and there will be decorative trees on either side of the wall. The association will maintain the grounds. The developer referred to photographs which depicted the type of homes to be built. He referred the Commission to the heavy use of brick and the angle of the homes. There is security from fire because there is a space rather than a common wall. The homes are single story rambler walk-outs. The roof is wood with a 10 to 12 pitched roof. He reviewed a plan depicting the landscaping plan and the site plan. The golf association is going to relocate the tee box and put the 18th hole into a new tee box. The homes will be approximately 80 feet away from it. The developer is comfortable with Staff s recommendation of 15 feet between the houses and 10 feet • 4 Planning Commission Monday, July 22, 1996 between the porches, but he believes it's going to end up to be 20 feet between the houses. Sandstad expressed concern about specific wall materials to be used and the architectural details. He was also concerned about the walls being too close to the public trail. He suggested moving the corners of the walls back about 45 degrees. Dietrich replied he would do that if that's what the Commission wants. They have not settled on the wall materials yet. There is a possibility of using architectural block like Centex has because that material is available on both sides of the block and this is an integral part of this building. Wissner suggested having photographs for the City Council to view because it would be helpful. Clinton commented he has seen these walls and they have to be careful that it does not become an eye sore. Kardell expressed concern about the upkeep of the wall and who will be responsible for painting it. Dietrich replied that its a water base cement which will only fade. Franzen reviewed the Staff Report with the Planning Commission explaining the alternate recommendation. Foote asked if there are any codes regarding setbacks from a golf course or fairway. Franzen replied there are no codes and noted these homes are actually located about the same distance back from the golf course as the homes across the street. If someone likes golf they would like living on a golf course and will not mind if balls end up on their property. Patty Lapinski, 7357 Moonlight Lane, expressed concern about the additional traffic on the trail and on Valley View Road as a result of this project. Franzen commented that initially there was a comment from the Engineering Department about increasing the size of the opening of the driveway because of the size of the wall. Code allows them up to a 30 foot driveway which would give better site distance for people along the trail. Another suggestion would be the placement of ornamental trees that are not scheduled to have a spread of more than 15 feet. They have to also consider the curvature of the road. Lou Olson, 1425 Fairay Drive, commented that the density it too tight noting that 15 feet between the homes is not enough. • 5 Planning Commission Monday, July 22, 1996 Foote commented that he likes this product and it's a very nice looking building. He very much liked the interior road. However, he would like to see a little more space between the units. He was not comfortable with all the waivers and was concerned about setting a precedent. Kardell commented that this is a very difficult site. It's limited because of the creek and its shape. She was not concerned about the waivers. She was comfortable with the 10 to 15 feet distance between units. It's behind a wall and no one will see it. Habicht concurred with Kardell. He likes the interior road and feels this is about as good as you can do with this site. Sandstad noted he was comfortable with the project but will include some language in the motion concerning the wall at the bituminous trail. Wissner stated she likes the idea of wood siding instead of another product. She was comfortable with the proposal. Clinton commented that the concept of small lots with close living is kind of indicative to other parts of the country. The concept of having closely positioned homes does not bother him. At first he was concerned about the waivers but after looking at how the project fits together on the land,the waivers are reasonable. MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Kardell, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2: Sandstad moved, seconded by Kardell, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Taurus Properties Inc. for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 2.46 acres, PUD Concept Review on 2.46 acres, PUD District Review on 2.46 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 2.46 acres, Preliminary Plat on 2.46 acres,based on plans dated July 19, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 19, 1996,with the deletion of sentence one in I-1,to be replaced with...Prior to City Council review,the proponent shall submit a revised detailed drawing of the privacy wall with an improved visibility at the driveways with the developer's choice of design options. Motion carried 6-0. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS None. • 6 Planning Commission Monday, July 22, 1996 VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None. VII. NEW BUSINESS Clinton noted that he spoke to Chris last week before the City Council meeting about having some change through ordinance to change the way neighbors are notified about projects. He suggested either expanding to either 1000 feet or requiring on site signs. Franzen reviewed the process of how they arrived at the notification method they presently use. He noted that at one time notification was given to neighbors up to 1,350 feet away from the project. It was costing the City between $35,000 and $50,000 per year. The City Council decided to change the distance to 500 feet. What's different now than 10 years ago is that the developer is being billed for the cost of the notices. The only cost to the City is Staff stuffing the envelopes. He noted that whatever the number of feet determined is for notification, there is always going to be someone an additional foot away that will say they should have been notified.He suggested having generic signs for the developer to use advertising future plans. Kardell suggested requiring a developer to indicate that the site has been an approved so people can not say they didn't know. Franzen replied it's a good idea. Sandstad supported the signs and not a change in the distance. Habicht was concerned about expanding the area for notices because it's going to have to be optional unless the City adopts formal amendment changes. He was also concerned about setting a precedent. Wissner suggested treating the notice situation on an individual basis. Foote was not in favor of increasing the 500 feet for the fact of where do you stop. He was in favor of signage. Franzen noted he will come back with options for the commission. VHL PLANNERS' REPORTS 7 Planning Commission Monday, July 22, 1996 A. Tree Committee Results Franzen reviewed the changes that were recommended by the committee. There were members from the Planning Commission, Park and Recreation Commission,developers, and City Staff who were on the committee. It took a lot of work between the public and the private sector to reach a consensus. Discussion continued regarding the tree mass policy. At past meetings comments were made from the audience that the City spends a lot of time looking at significant trees that are 12 inches in diameter and forgetting about all the smaller trees that might make up actual tree mass of the property that's important to preserve. The committee realized that in some cases saving masses of trees was just as important to the surrounding neighbors as were the few large significant trees in the center of a project. The committee recommended that the City Staff continue to work closely with all prospective developers when this issue of tree mass is evident. The goal is to encourage the protection of tree mass where it provides buffing needed between zoning changes or density differences. Sandstad was concerned about the distinction between what is policy and what is ordinance. He suggested discussing the individual trees that are significant from an historical standpoint. He was concerned about a 40 foot tree being cut down and doesn't want to see trees cut down unless there is a very good reason. Franzen commented that they are not at the point where they have prepared an ordinance for a public hearing. The recommendation of the committee are proposed changes to the ordinance until they receive the recommendation from the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission as to what direction to go. Sandstad suggested that on page 3, an additional bullet should be... save/designate/preserve individual significant trees or small number of trees that may have a community historical basis due to their age or uniqueness. Habicht commented that there has to be some standard less than significant but more than underbrush when determining tree mass. Foote noted that you can't save an area of brush and call it tree mass. It has to be somewhat significant. • 8 Planning Commission Monday, July 22, 1996 The Commission suggested another meeting regarding the tree ordinance to be scheduled on the 12th. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Wissner moved, Sandstad seconded, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. • 9