Loading...
Planning Commission - 08/14/1995 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 1995 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 Elinda Bahley, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chair Katherine Kardell. Ismail Ismail was absent; all other members were present. H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Foote to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote to approve the Minutes of July 24, 1995 as amended: page 6, last paragraph, change Edina to Plymouth. Motion carried 6-0-0. IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. KINDERCARE by Kindercare. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 2.75 acres. Location: Hwy 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. Franzen indicated that the Planning Commission directed the developer, after approving the concept plan, to go back and prepare the final plans for the property. The 4 changes are reflected in the Staff Report. Staff recommended approval according to the recommendations on page 2 and 3 of the Staff Report, which are standard items required for all projects. MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Clinton, to close the public • hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Clinton, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Kindercare for Zoning District Amendment based on plans dated August 11, 1995, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 11, 1995. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 3: Wissner moved, seconded by Clinton, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Kindercare for Site Plan Review on 2.75 acres based on plans dated August 11, 1995, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 11, 1995. Motion carried 6-0-0. B. LAUKKA-JARVIS DEVELOPMENT by Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to amend the MUSA line, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.2 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.2 acres, Preliminary Plat of 43.2 acres into 48 lots. Location: South of Riverview Road and east of Riverview Drive. Franzen noted that at the last meeting the Planning Commission asked for the developer to prepare a traffic study, and complete the detailed changes listed in the Staff Report regarding landscaping, architectural diversity, sidewalks, tree replacement and roads. These have been completed. • Peter Jarvis from Laukka-Jarvis Development reviewed the revised changes for the site. The changes include that the 52 lots are now 48 lots, 25 foot setbacks are met everywhere and the free standing lot on the northeast corner has been eliminated. One additional change not reflected in the Staff Report is to have a sidewalk on only one side of the street, and an 8 foot bituminous trail. This was a requirement of the Parks Commission. Franzen indicated that the Parks Commission recommended that the majority of the trees to be replaced should be hardwoods, specifically oak, maple and ash, which are in the revised plans. The results of the traffic study are reflected in the Staff Report. Staff recommended Alternative 1 listed in the Staff Report. Sandstad asked if the stop sign at County Road 4 and Riverview will be a 4 way stop. Gray replied that it's a possibility and could be more than 2. The recommendation is eastbound westbound stop. Foote asked if there are any plans to extend Mooer Lane. Gray replied that at the current time there isn't a plan to construct a residential street on a right-of- way. It would depend on what benefits there might be from doing that and would likely be built when homes are built adjacent to it. • 2 Rick Crosby,, residing at 10366 Concord Drive, noted that he is not comfortable with the density transfer. He feels a more fair and reasonable plan would be to put R1-13.5 on the bluff next to R1-22 and R1-44. Nick Gatto, residing at 10253 Concord Drive, expressed concern about the traffic pattern. He lives right on the corner of Concord and Homeward Hills. His driveway is on a steep slope and he's concerned about the increase in traffic by the blind corner. He's also concerned about the safety of his 3 small children as a result of the increase in traffic. He doesn't understand how the Engineering Department came up with half the traffic to go down Riverview and half to go up Concord. He was also concerned about people not staying within the 30 mile per hour speed limit. Gray noted that once the straightening out expansion of Riverview Road takes place, it's going to make a big difference in the traffic. Kardell suggested neighborhood newsletters or neighborhood watch programs to help with the speeding problem. Sharon Clements, residing at 10299 Concord Drive, noted that she lives at the other corner, and when she runs with her husband there have been many times when she has had to step back to avoid being hit by cars at that corner. • She feels that 18 more cars in that area will increase the traffic very much. She is not in favor of removing trees to open up the blind spot at that corner. Laura Blumel, residing at 10540 W. Riverview Drive, expressed concern about the density and the fact that it's 6 to 7 units per acre. She is concerned about there being only 10 feet between houses. This is an area where it's supposed to be sensitive to the bluff yet there will be runoff in the area where it will be susceptible to erosion. She questioned about anywhere else in the City this type of zoning is permitted. Franzen noted that the cluster homes that Centex built are on 5000 to 8000 square foot lots. There is also an older part of Eden Prairie off of Summer Hill Drive that have a 10 foot setback in between the buildings. Blumel was concerned that there is not a good transition. She noted that it's a poor move to put a much higher density of houses at the beginning of the traffic pattern because all this traffic then moves through the loop. She also expressed concern about the donated property. She resents the fact that they're making a change in her neighborhood to get some access to a natural resource. She would like that area protected. • 3 Franzen noted that there City is no density transfer from the flood plain. If a full transer occurred, there would be 108 units in the upper flat portion of the property. There is partial density transfer off the bluff only. Colin . residing at 12173 Riverview Road, agrees with Laura Blumel. He is opposed to the increased density and it doesn't make sense in terms of the traffic. He commented that Concord is not a straight road, that it curves in and out and there are always parked cars there. Most of the cars travel down the middle of the road and it's more of a danger for the children. Robert Gertinger, residing at 10326 Concord Drive, was concerned about the traffic issue. He was also concerned about the amount of houses, and the houses being so close together. He noted that people are not going to use Riverview Road no matter how many lanes are put on. Jarvis indicated that it was not their intent to develop the low area below the bluff. Their idea was to consolidate development on top of the bluff and preserve the bluff and flood plain. The neighbors are talking about high density, but they are forgetting the fact that 44 units could be developed on this property including under the 13.5 combination of 13.5 and 22.5. Foote feels this is an extremely responsible way to develop adjacent to the bluff area. He noted that traffic is a problem everywhere, and that the people who live in the area are the ones who are speeding. He likes the idea of staying off the bluff, putting houses on top of the bluff, and saving the trees. He supports the project. Schlampp agreed. It's a good development, and the improvement on Riverview Road will alleviate a lot of problems. He supports the project. Sandstad stated that the project is very much improved from the first time around. It works on every basis that they compared it to, and he supports the project. Clinton noted that there isn't anything they can do to stop the speeders when the speeders are the people from the neighborhood. He supports the project. Kardell indicated that she supports the project. MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Laukka-Jarvis Development for • 4 Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to amend the MUSA line, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.2 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.2 acres, Preliminary Plat of 43.2 acres into 48 lots. Motion carried 6-0-0. C. DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5 COMMERCIAL CENTER by Tandem development and Kindercare. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial, Site Plan Review on 4.47 acres, Preliminary Plat of 4.47 acres into 2 lots, Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Planned Unit Development District Review on 4.47 acres. Location: Dell Road and Highway 5. Franzen noted that the Planning Commission looked at this project 3 weeks ago. The Commission continued the item so that a traffic study could be prepared and to resolve those issues regarding architecture, landscaping, and lighting details. The developer has a written narrative of what they will commit to regarding proof of parking, trash and mechanical screening and detailed plans have been changed. A traffic study has been completed. Dick Putnam of Tandem Development, reviewed the revisions of his project with the Planning Commission. The project is composed of 2 parts, one is the Kindercare development on the west end, and the second portion of the project is a commercial neighborhood area comprised of 3 buildings. One is a proposed Holiday store with a small gas operation located in the southwest corner of the site with it's back to Cascade Drive. The middle of the building is intended for a video store and a multiple type commercial tenant such as a sporting goods store and dry cleaners. The third building is a proposed family type restaurant, and at this point they have no tenant. Putnam noted that the buildings have pitched roofs with brick and stucco, glass exterior, and an asphalt shingle roof. All of the mechanical equipment is behind the roof so it's not seen from any angle. The trash enclosures are all interior to the building. They have provided a loop driveway system so you can enter at either location. This also saves the trees on the median down the center of the roadway, and this is why they have 2 sites. They have revised the landscaping plan to reflect the addition of trees for screening. They have also adhered to the 25 foot lighting standard. Dennis Hanson of RLK Associates, reviewed the traffic study. He noted that the purpose of the study was to determine the trip generation that the project would produce, and determine the impact on the roadway system of the traffic projects, and investigate improvements that might be necessary to these traffic impacts on the road systems surrounding the site. • 5 that the trattic study says that the tratnc is higher hian she appioveu YUD anu that there is some traffic turning conflicts between the commercial and residential uses and Cascade Drive. Based on that information, there is a need to revise the concept plan to reduce traffic. Barbara Boyle, residing at 18322 Cascade Drive, noted that she and Rick Kohler are the 2 designated spokespeople for the neighborhood coalition. She lives in the very first unit on Dell Road, the west unit in the first twinhome directly across south from the location of the proposed Holiday 24 hour gas station and convenience store. The focus of their opposition is on the issue of increased traffic and noise, decreased public safety and potential effects on the environment. They have been lead to believe that the developer intended to meet with each of the first 4 units just off of Dell Road because of the impact they will feel when this commercial center is built. After meeting with Mr. Putnam, she noticed inconsistencies. She was told that they will not notice that a commercial center is there. According to Mr. Putnam, he did not meet each of the 4 individuals in the first 4 units like he said he would. She feels that as perspective buyers, they should have been aware of the full extent of this proposed commercial center through sales materials in area homes. She was also concerned about the difficulty she would have backing out of her driveway once this commercial site is built. She noted that she was taken off guard when Mr. Putnam demonstrated how she would have to back out of her driveway on to the City sidewalk as the solution. Rick Kohler, residing at 7846 Donnelly Cove noted that he represents the people that were present in the room. He talked about what the City's duties are with respect to zoning like this. He said that Minnesota law is to represent interests of public health, safety and welfare of citizens. The people present tonight are part of the public and they do not want this project there, and there have been over 200 households who signed a petition stating this. This represents 80% of the neighbors that are directly effected by this. He expressed concern about the potential gas leakage on the east side of Mitchell Lake. The area is residential and the commercial development doesn't fit in the overall scheme of this area. There are currently 16 gas stations operating in Eden Prairie, and there are 7 gas stations within a mile and a half of this corner. The City Council also approved a gas convenience store about a mile to the south where there's been discussion about when Dell Road is going through. This will make 8 gas stations within a mile and a half of this corner. There is a convenience store down the road where Super • 6 America is, a Blockbuster and a dry cleaners. None of the things proposed to go in this commercial center are needed. He expressed concern about a gas spill on the wetland near this project, about the tree loss, about the noise issue, about the lighting from the service station itself, and about the headlights from cars in the wintertime. He noted that the present proposal is inconsistent with the original approved PUD. The developer and Holiday have been made aware that the neighborhood doesn't want this project. This tells him that this project is not for the neighborhood, but for the traffic on Highway 5. Wade Dillon, residing at 7932 Cimarron Lane, expressed concern about the traffic study conducted, and asked what the criteria is for A, B, C to be determined. Hansen commented that A is very good service, very little delay in traffic passing through the intersection. It then goes down on a scale. B is the next level which represents a little bit of delay in traffic that might go through the intersection. C is where you might encounter up to 30 seconds in delay to get into the intersection. Thirty seconds is normally considered tolerable. Mike Derickson, 7954 Cimarron Lane,, directed his comments to the traffic issues. He's a marketing manager who has experience with the operation of convenience stores. He commented that of all the 16 retail outlet stores in Eden Prairie, they are all connected to a brand name. He does not feel Cascade fits in with this. He looked at how far the ingress and egress is from the nearest residents, and the closest was Tom Thumb on Dell Road to be about 70 feet. He expressed great concern about the curve in the road being a big issue. He also was concerned about the health hazards of the gases from cars idling there. There will be an average of 375 customers coming a day and purchasing gas, but that doesn't include the customers using the convenience store or the fast food. Mark Nelson, a representative from Holiday Stores, noted that the numbers they have used is an estimate based on all the customers for the day, including the gas and the convenience store together. The transaction number is the total number. They do not expect to have fast food in the store. A resident asked what the gross sales per gas are versus what the gross sales of the convenience store are. Nelson replied that is privileged information. i 7 Nick Olson, residing at 18258 Cascade Drive, expressed concern about property values decreasing. He asked what time do they expect gas deliveries to be at that location. Nelson replied they are usually during off peak hours, usually mid to late afternoon. Sandstad expressed concern about how the gas tankers will be able to enter the site and make deliveries because it seems very tight. Nelson replied that they have designed it in a way that it will be in and out of the westerly driveway. Jodi Heyman, residing; at 7859 Dover Cove, was concerned about the dangers of the curve on Cascade Drive. She commented that right now people are allowed to park on Cascade Drive that have townhomes. Richard Smith, residing at 18322 Cascade Drive, was concerned about the tree loss if the street is widened. Ed Requet, residing at 18292 Cascade Drive, noted that his house sits right across the street from the west entrance to the proposed site. He expressed concern about how often the trash will get picked up and where the trash receptacles will be. He was concerned about the wildlife in the area and what will control those animals from getting into the rubbish and the debris left outside the facility. • Putnam indicated that that's the reason why all the trash is kept inside the building. Wissner asked how often the trash is picked up. Nelson replied that it would probably be 2 or 3 times a week. Wissner commented that it's not acceptable as a street to be handling this kind of traffic. She was concerned about the turnaround for the person on the end because there is no way this person can back out into a street. She commented that the widening of the road would take out more trees and the buffer at that site. She was concerned about a convenience store at that location, and would like the developer to pursue different uses with less traffic. Clinton stated that he can not support the project because it was inconsistent with the PUD. He was concerned about the traffic impact. He noted that it does not meet the City code parking requirements. He recommended that the developer find something that would be beneficial to the neighborhood and the developer. Sandstad commented that the transition is not that good to the south especially if a turning lane is added. He likes the Kindercare use and the restaurant use. i 8 Foote agreed with Sandstad. He likes the Kindercare use, but is not comfortable with the restaurant or convenience gas use because that tends to be open 24 hours with high traffic generation. He encouraged the developer to come up with something unique on this property, but was concerned that in doing so, they are going to create more tree loss. Schlampp agreed with Foote. He thinks commercial development is appropriate, but not an all night convenience store and gas station. He was concerned about the amount of traffic that would be coming in and out. He feels a commercial development in that area done in a residential way is something to be considered. Kardell noted that she is comfortable with the commercial use at that site, but was concerned about the traffic impact and visual impact on adjoining homes. She supports recommendation #2 in the Staff Report asking the developer to go back and find another use for this property. Putnam commented that he believes that whatever use they come up with for this site, the neighborhood will be against it. He feels that they want it to remain undeveloped. John Millov, residing at 17727 , commented that the property is not • zoned commercial so it doesn't cost $250,000 an acre. He suggested that the homeowners investigate buying the 4.5 acres. The Commissioners agreed that was a very good suggestion. MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton to continue the public hearing to September 11, 1995. Motion carried 6-0-0. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS Clinton noted that he spoke to Mike about providing information to the residents of the full process of the Planning Commission, and the need for the Ellen Prairie guide plan maps in the Council Chambers. VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None. VU. NEW BUSEVESS None. • 9 VM. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen noted that there are 3 items on the agenda for the August 28, 1995 meeting. One is Abra Auto Body, Pioneer Ridge 2nd Addition, and Amoco Car Wash. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Sandstad to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 P.M. 10 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 14, 1995- 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 Don Uram, Economic Development Manager I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. KINDERCARE by Kindercare. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 2.75 acres. Location: Hwy 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. B. LAUKKA-JARVIS DEVELOPMENT by Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to amend the MUSA line, Planned Unit • Development Concept Review on 42.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.2 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 15.2 acres, Preliminary Plat of 43.2 acres into 52 lots. Location: South of Riverview Road and east of Riverview Drive. C. DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5 COMMERCIAL CENTER by Tandem Development and Kindercare. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial, Site Plan Review on 4.47 acres, Preliminary Plat of 4.47 acres into 2 lots, Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Planned Unit Development District Review on 4.47 acres. Location: Dell Road and Highway 5. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT