Loading...
Planning Commission - 09/25/1995 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 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 Vice Chair Kenneth Clinton. Kardell was absent; all other members were present. H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Foote to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0-0. • III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote to approve the Minutes of September 11, 1995. Motion carried 6-0-0. IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PIONEER RIDGE 2ND ADDITION (1995) by Rottlund Homes. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 12.18 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 19.03 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 12.18 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 12.18 acres, Preliminary Plat of 12.18 acres into 43 single family lots. Location: County Road 4 and Pioneer Trail. Franzen referred to a letter from Rottlund Homes asking that their project be withdrawn. Staff sent letters out to the residents within 500 feet of the property advising them that this project would not be discussed at this meeting. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote to close the public 1 hearing and return the development plans to the proponent without prejudice. Motion carried 6-0-0. Sandstad commented that he thinks there is a market for housing of this variety and hopes to see more of it in the future. B. 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 Development Concept Review and Planned Unit Development District Review on 4.47 acres. Location: Dell Road and Highway 5. Franzen reviewed the history of the last three meetings involving this project, including the views of the Commissioners and the residents. Franzen commented that he tried to come up with a plan that would meet the expectations of the groups involved, but said it was not possible because there is such a diversity of expectations. The neighborhood varies from no development, to office and a daycare. The developer says he has an approved PUD and wants to develop accordingly. Planning Commission wants more office and less commercial. This project started in July with a review of the underlying assumptions that the Commission and the City Council made in 1990 when this site was approved for Neighborhood Commercial and PUD. The Commission and the Council looked at the general feasibility of the use in that location, and how big the development should be. The Commission and the Council decided about 30,000 square feet of Neighborhood Commercial, which included a daycare center and a gas station/convenience store, was an acceptable use. Project details such as lighting, traffic, and City code requirements were not reviewed because a rezoning was not requested at the time. At the first meeting, in July this year, it seemed like Neighborhood Commercial made sense. Neighborhood residents said that the traffic was too high,lights are too bright,not a big enough buffer zone, with concerns about the drainage, and safety. The Commission said that Neighborhood Commercial might work, but needed more information to make a decision. They asked the developer to prepare a traffic study. The developer came back in 30 days with a traffic study. The Commission looked at it and felt that the traffic was too high. They wanted a different land use mix and to improve the buffer zone, and they sent the project back to the developer. The Commission did not give any indication at the time if Neighborhood Commercial could still be a good use of the property. • 2 • Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Another 30 days went by and the developer came back with a revised plan. They took out the gas station/convenience store because the direction from the Commission was the traffic was too high, but the plan still had a problem buffer zone along Cascade Drive. The Commission seemed more comfortable with a Neighborhood Commercial and voted 3 to 2 to continue the item for 2 weeks with the assumption that Neighborhood Commercial could be an acceptable use if the buffer zone was improved. The revised plans indicate that the building is 28 feet in height. The treatment pond along Cascade Drive is removed to save trees. The driveway is moved back to the original position. A turn-around is added for the first townhome unit in from the corner. A buffer zone of trees has been added on the north and south size of Cascade Drive. Regarding the accuracy of the tree inventory and the tree loss calculations, there are actually fewer trees than originally thought. However, the tree loss percentage has increased from 36% to 38%. To reduce tree loss the building should be moved 10 feet to the west. There are five large oak trees in the back Staff wants to preserve. Dick Putnam, Tandem Development, reviewed the revised plans with the Planning Commission. He showed photographs depicting the screening. He noted that the mechanical equipment is completely screened. Eric Johnson reviewed the revised site plan with the Planning Commission. Franzen reviewed the three alternatives outlined in the Staff Report. Staff recommends alternative #1 which is approving the development plans as revised. Foote was concerned about how many square feet a family restaurant is. Franzen replied that a family size restaurant is between 5000 to 6000 square feet. Buca and Dolittles are around 6000 square feet. The proposed restaurant is 5000 square feet. Rick Koehler, residing at 7846 Donegal Cove, commented that the neighbors are very concerned about the size of the restaurant. He feels the parking is inadequate for a restaurant of 5000 square feet. A restaurant of • 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 this size is not Neighborhood Commercial. It is Regional Commercial, drawing trafficfrom Highway 5. There is going to be a high volume of traffic coming from outside the neighborhood. There are concerns about drinking and driving with small children around. A petition went around with over 100 signatures indicating that they want an office building like the Burnet Realty building instead of a restaurant. This type of use will eliminate traffic late at night. He was concerned about the deciduous trees loosing their leaves and not providing enough screening. Mary McKinsey, residing at 18320 Cascade Drive, commented that she would like to see an office building like the Burnet Realty building. She commented that there is another strip mall exactly 7/10 of a mile from the corner of Cascade Drive and Dell Road. She doesn't feel they need two strip malls within a mile of each other. She was very concerned about the access on Cascade Drive. She looked at all the strip malls in Eden Prairie and not one has an access on a residential street. She feels the concept has changed and the Planning Commission should not feel obligated to approve something that was approved five years ago. Things have changed drastically and many of the residents would not have bought their homes five years ago if they knew of these plans. Wade Dillon, residing at 7932 Cimarron Lane, noted that his property is in visual contact of where the daycare center is going to be. He asked if they ever considered putting an office on this site. Putnam replied that they didn't consider it because it wasn't part of the original PUD. He commented that he lives across the lake from Burnet Realty and it gets a tremendous amount of use on the weekends with lights on late at night. Dillon expressed concern about the high volume of traffic at night. He does not feel a 5000 square foot restaurant would be a neighborhood use. He urged the Commission to consider an office building at this site. He was also concerned about the safety issues until this development was completed. Ken Pedrocelli, residing at 17857 Cascade Drive, expressed anger that there was no disclosure given on this issue. This is a residential area and they are trying to make it a commercial area. It's not going to fit. He was concerned about the value of his home decreasing. • 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Richard Smith,residing at 18322 Cascade Drive,was concerned that the only access to the mall is from a residential street. Jim Keppel, residing at 18288 View Lane, was concerned about the restaurant use because he will no longer be able to sit out on his deck because of the noise. He noted that he would never have purchased this home if he know of these issues. He was concerned about the additional noise as a result of the restaurant. Barbara Boyle, residing at 18322 Cascade Drive, noted that when Mr. Putnam described where the trees will be planted, the barrier will be an advantage to them at their front door. However, they will not be visible from the photograph Mr. Putnam showed because it's away from the driveway. She was concerned about the small blue spruce tree being moved. Shari Morris, residing at 18232 Cascade Drive, noted that she moved from White Bear Lake to Eden Prairie because of the location. It took her two years to move and the reason was the location and what she wanted. • It was the wetland and the peace and quiet. She was very angry because a disclosure was never given about the future site. She was concerned about the value of her home decreasing. There is not one strip mall in Minneapolis and St. Paul with an entrance off a residential street. Kathy King, residing at , was concerned about the views people will have from their homes once this site is developed. She was also concerned about the safety of the children in the playground at the daycare center. She expressed concern about the curve on Cascade causing traffic problems as a result of people parked there. She suggested eliminating parking on that street. Johnson commented that they are proposing a berm area behind the daycare center to help with the screening. On top of that will be 10 and 12 foot conifer trees along the property line. This will create 16 feet of screening. Regarding the playground, Kindercare is proposing a six foot tall vinyl fence along the property line. Jodv Heyman, residing at 7859 Dover Cove, commented that she was behind Barbara Boyle and her husband the other night. When the Boyle's turned into their driveway,they almost rear-ended them. She said she was • 5 • Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 concerned that there was only 10 feet for them to make the turn. She was also concerned about there being only one entrance into the strip mall from a residential street. She feels this is not reasonable. Bob Smith, residing at 1769 Ascot Court, commented that quality of life is what brought him to Eden Prairie. He expressed concern about the restaurant having a bar when there are 11 children in his cul-de-sac. He was concerned about the safety of the children. Mike Derickson, residing at 7954 Cimarron Lane, commented that he is still concerned about the traffic issue and the use of this land. He was concerned about the precedent that Kindercare is setting because it's a narrow road to enter. He was also concerned about the aroma coming out of the restaurant. He would like to see a berm maximized to dampen the noise. He asked if there were any filters of some kind to prevent the aroma. Franzen noted that there are certain health code requirements they have to meet. He doesn't know if there's a requirement regarding aroma. Schlampp indicated that a realty office is open until late hours and will also cause a disturbance. He doesn't believe that a group of people can dictate to the developer as to what can go in there, nor can they dictate to them what type of restaurant. He feels it's a good plan for development and he supports it the way it stands. Sandstad commented that he was part of the Commission in 1990 and felt that it was a reasonable use at the time. He understood that this phase could have been done in the reverse, but they chose to build the homes first. The only concern that he shares with the neighbors is parking on Cascade Drive, and that has to be eliminated from this roadway. He feels the project works as a commercial site. It's not a mistake. It's on a state highway with a four lane road that is heavily traveled. Ismail commented that he is not comfortable with the project itself. He is comfortable with the Kindercare but does not support a restaurant use. Foote noted that he doesn't have a problem with the Kindercare on this site. Most of the residents would like to see nothing on this site. That's impossible unless they want to buy the property. He doesn't have a 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 problem with commercial, but he has a big problem with a restaurant. A restaurant of this size can not fit into a residential area. If it was significantly smaller and if he had total control of what type of restaurant it would be, he could support it. He can not support the project as it is with a restaurant. He can support an office building in place of the restaurant. Wissner expressed concern about the safety issues at the intersection, the access to the residential, the curve in the road, and the traffic coming in and out of the Kindercare center. She does feel a lot of people will be using the daycare center and she sees it as a positive area. She can not support a 5000 square foot restaurant. This is not Neighborhood Commercial. She supports a professional office building. Clinton commented that one concern he has is that there has been a proposal from the residents that an office building be put in. He feels that a real estate office would not eliminate the problem of traffic. He feels that a 5000 square foot restaurant does not fit the definition of a residential or neighborhood restaurant. He supports the Kindercare, but is not in . favor of the plan as it stands. MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote to recommend Alternative#3, deny the project, for the following reasons: the proposal is inconsistent with the approved PUD, traffic impact on the adjoining road system are high, the site does not preserve the natural features of the property, the project does not meet CIty requirements for lot size and setbacks, the project does not provide an adequate transition and buffering to the surrounding residential neighborhood. Ismail suggested discussing the possibility of denying only half the project. He asked if denying the whole project means that the daycare is also denied. Franzen replied that the development proposal was presented at the Planning Commission as a package deal. Both of these sites are linked together in terms of the common architecture, landscaping, buffering, sidewalks and trails. If you decide to split the project and just approve the daycare, what you're leaving in place is the approved PUD Concept for convenience gas, retail and restaurant use. If you want to make a motion • Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 on the project to approve the daycare center you should be more specific about what land use you want to see for the remainder of the property. Foote asked if that would eliminate the liquor permits. Franzen replied that he would have to check if any of the neighborhood type restaurants have a liquor license. Wissner commented that she does not want to approve the whole thing as it stands. She feels the office is appropriate use of the property. She would like to see something else explored on this property regarding an office, but likes the Kindercare. This could also mean Commercial with a smaller restaurant. She would like to see a little bit more information on a professional building and the traffic that it generates. Wissner then suggests an alternate motion. MOTION 3: Wissner moved to recommend approval of the Kindercare part of the property, and denial of the retail and retaurant PUD Amendment and rezoning. Ismail suggested they approve the daycare center, and the rest of the property be continued for future study. Sandstad commented that the developer has revised these plans for several meetings already, and they have a right to a response on the basis of their submittal. He is not certain that this group agrees on what should be done. Franzen stated that there are three possible motions. Alternative #1, the Commission can deny the whole project. Alternative#2, the Commission can approve the project with the stipulation that the restaurant be reduced to the original PUD size of 2600 square feet, and the remaining 2400 square feet becomes general retail, and the Kindercare. The Commission discussion suggests the restaurant should be changed to a professional office building. The possibility of a third alternative would be for approval of the project which includes the Kindercare, the general retail, but the direction, to the City Council is the restaurant building should be office. The Commission should recommend an office zoning for that portion of the property. Wissner then suggested an alternate motion. MOTION 4: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend to deny the project as submitted. 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Schlampp was concerned that this project would come back to the Commission for review of an office building. Franzen replied that the motion could say that the architecture, site plan, and parking would not change, only the use of the building changes. The developer doesn't have to redraw anything. The Commission seems satisfied with the architecture and the site plan. The Commission only needs to indicate that the use of the building should be office. Wissner withdrew her motion. Wissner expressed concern about office as a three story building not fitting into the surrounding area architecturally. Wissner asked if it was feasible to take 5000 square feet and make it an office complex. Putnam replied no. Franzen commented that if you zone a small portion of this property for office, you might have parking on another parcel, but you require a cross parking agreement. If you want to zone the whole property for office, you have a different set of requirements than you do for retail. With the amount of parking shown at 134 spaces, about 26,000 square feet of office is possible. • Clinton stated that they have 4.47 acres being divided into two lots. The restaurant and retail is Lot A, and the other one is Lot B. Lot A would be redefined for the concept of an office building as part of the recommendation for the motion, and Lot B would be the approval of the Kindercare as the second part of the recommendation. MOTION 5: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote to recommend that Lot A be a professional office building, and Lot B would be approval of the Kindercare. Sandstad commented that this will eliminate any retail. Jim Ostenson, commented that they are operating under a PUD approved five years ago saying they want commercial there. Nothing has really changed since 1990 except the new houses are there. The property has been developed exactly the way it was approved in 1990. They are simply coming in now with Phase 4 of a four phase project. They did not request any changes from what was approved before. He understands there to have to be reasons for denial, and these aren't really good reasons. They would like the Commission to take action so they can go to the City • 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Council. Franzen stated that the Commission can recommend whatever land use they feel is appropriate for this property. They are not necessarily bound by any past actions the Planning Commission or the City Council on the land use or the PUD of the property. They have an obligation to the City Council, the developers, and the residents to make an advisory recommendation on what they think the correct land use for the property is. Schlampp commented that some of the members would like to see the proposal as it is. Others would like to deny it. If the ayes outweigh the nays, and the proposal is denied. After this particular vote, then the Commission can attach specific recommendations to the City Council. MOTION 6: Schlampp moved, seconded by Sandstad to approve the development as submitted. Motion failed 2-4-0 with opposition by Clinton, Foote, Ismail and Wissner. i V. MEMBERS' REPORTS Commissioner Sandstad asked for an official response from the City regarding what steps will be taken by the City to provide a safe pedestrian route across Highway 169 at Anderson Lakes Parkway. VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. PURGATORY CREEK RECREATION AREA REVISED ENTRY PLAN Bob Lambert, Parks and Recreation Director, reviewed the concept plans with the Commission using sketches. They are trying to create a place in Eden Prairie's downtown that would attract people to come to the trail system. The major purpose of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area is three fold. One is to preserve the marsh and to improve the marsh for wildlife. The second is to improve the water quality that comes from 10 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Purgatory Creek, and the drainage system in the major center area and end up in Staring Lake. Third is to provide some recreation opportunity for the residents of the community. The Planning Commission's recommendations would be forwarded to the City Council. The City Council would make a decision on which of the concepts they like. Once the Council has decided on the final configuration, Brauer and Associates will provide a more detailed plan of that final configuration. That plan will be forwarded to the Watershed District to be included in the permit process for the project that will be initiated in the Fall of 1996. Sandstad commented that he supports the dueling restaurant concept. He likes the idea of public art being displayed especially if they are done by locals. He also likes the combination of the pavilion and the warming house. Lambert noted that the Parks Commission recommended the restaurants, and they also talked about the art and having outdoor sculptures. They also liked the idea of the little drop-off and some small parking of 15 to 20 cars, and a small pavilion to have a wedding reception or skating. Foote asked about the timetable of this construction. Lambert replied they are looking at going through this winter with permits and start construction a year from this December. Foote noted that with a number of projects commencing at about the same time, including the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area, the Transit Hub, and realignment of Technology Drive,he is concerned that all this activity may create a traffic problem, and that this should be evaluated. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote to recommend endorsement of Concept C with the pond size, restaurants, pedestrian or local art features along the trails, and a pavilion. Motion carried 6-0-0. . B. DIVERSITY TRAINING FOR MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Judy Schuck, representative from the Human Rights Commission, gave a brief presentation to the Commission. She noted that the Human Rights 11 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Commission has decided to offer diversity training to all the Commission members of the various Commissions at Eden Prairie as part of their work plan. The staff members have already been trained. They are offering two sessions on two consecutive Wednesday nights, October 25th and November 8th, from 6:30 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. The head of the Human Rights Resources Department at the University of Minnesota will be speaking the first night on topics such as change in demographics, social perception, and the use and abuse of power. The second evening will be more of an interactive session where they will all be involved in their own personal awareness and ideas such as privilege, and what they can all do as a diversity changing agency. Starting next Spring when the new Commissioners are brought on board, this will be part of their orientation. There is a registration form in the packets asking for people to sign up on a volunteer basis. All Commission members are urged to attend. VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS • None. A. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Foote to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M. 12 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 25, 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 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PIONEER RIDGE 2ND ADDITION (1995) by Rottlund Homes. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 12.18 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 19.03 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 12.18 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 12.18 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 12.18 acres into 43 single family lots. Location: County Road 4 and Pioneer Trail. B. 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 VH. NEW BUSINESS A. PURGATORY CREEK RECREATION AREA REVISED ENTRY PLAN B. DIVERSITY TRAINING FOR MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT