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