Loading...
Planning Commission - 10/10/1994 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION October 10, 1994 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary ,lane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner Donald R. Uram, 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. Absent were Tim Bauer and Douglas Sandstad. All other members were present. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA • MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Wissner, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0-0. III. MINUTES MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Schlampp, to approve the Minutes of September 26, 1994 as amended: under Continuing Business, it shall read that the Planning Commissioners expressed disappointment or concern about the decision pursuant to the placement of the Pulte twinhomes between the two office facilities and the Hartford project- The Planning Commission was not sure what the rationale was of the quickness of the decision it seemed, and the lack of clarity of the rationale. All the Planning Commissioners were present except for Ken Clinton. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Clinton abstaining. IV PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PIONEER RIDGE 2ND ADDITION by R.H. Development. Request for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13 .5 and Preliminary Plat of 12 .13 acres into 25 lots, one outlot and road right-of-way. Location: County Road 4 and Pioneer Trail. Franzen stated there is a letter in the packet that says the developer requested the Planning Commission to continue for 30 days to the first meeting in November, the November 14, 1994 • meeting. MOTION 1: Clinton moved, seconded by Schlampp, to continue the S Public Hearing to November 14, 1994 as requested by the proponent. Motion carried 5-0-0. Franzen stated they will be sending out notices to the residents of the continuance. He said Staff spoke with some of the residents and they are happy that the project was going single family. B. LAKE EDENVIEW TOWNHOMES by Thompson Land Development. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential on 1. 64 acres and from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on .96 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 2 . 6 acres, Site Plan Review on 2 . 6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2 . 6 acres into 8 lots . Location: Franlo Road, south of Prairie Center Drive. Franzen stated that two weeks ago the Planning Commission directed the Staff and the developer to look at some plan revisions . These revisions would provide a better drainage solution along the common property line, and provide some more room for plantings to create a transition from the single family homes. The Commissioners also asked the City Engineering Department to provide some additional information about Franlo Road and the drainage in the area. That information is an attachment to the Staff Report. • Franzen introduced Lee Johnson, who is the owner and developer of the project. After his presentation, he will go over the Staff recommendations . Lee Johnson, owner and developer representing Lake Edenview Townhomes, reviewed his revisions of the project using visual aids . He stated that at the last meeting there were 3 major concerns that he was asked to address . One item was drainage, and fine tuning of the grading and landscaping. Regarding drainage, Johnson stated he calculated the hard surface coverage and it' s 35, 700 square feet which is 32 percent coverage. In the normal R-13 .5 zoning classifications, the hard surface coverage generally runs 33 1/3 percent, so this is about the same coverage that is in the single family subdivision. He said when Eden Lake was designed, this was considered as Commercial. When you design that to determine the capacity of Eden Lake, you use 80 to 90 percent coverage and the engineers could assume that. The actual coverage is about 1/3 of what it' s designed for, as far as impact on the lake. This parcel size is less than 1 percent of the entire drainage basin. The impact of half the coverage put on this site is going to have no impact on the hydraulics of Eden Lake. 2 The Engineering Department feels this is a small run-off, too • small to be economically maintained when Eden Lake was constructed for the storage and the NURP pond itself. It ' s like a NURP pond going into a NURP pond. After it is sodded, there will be very little silt added to this site. The drainage at the property line was another concern. The two property owners are roughly distributing the same amount. Neither property is overburdening the burdened swale on the side. There were no significant changes made to the drainage pattern as far as coverage or anything like that. Regarding fine tuning of the grading, he said they moved the road and it ' s 30 feet now from the property line. It is also closer to the guard rail. They extended the landing zone on top for the engineering requirements . Now it ' s 50 feet at 2 percent, rather than 30 feet at 3 percent. They have eliminated all the 2 to 1 slopes on this site. They' re all 3 to 1 so there are no variances to be requested by anyone. A berm has been added in a front yard so that the ground between will be about a 5 foot grade change. Cars in that area are 5 feet below the pavement, 5 feet below the surface, and in this area it' s a 3 foot grade change. Drainage that went under the road has been eliminated instead of having added a curb all the way down and put in a catch basin. All units have a potential of being 40 feet wide. They determined that 2 units would be restricted to only a 38 foot width because they would gain an additional 4 feet for the (road) . The site yard setback is 17 feet where before it was 10 feet. They want to keep the accommodations of keeping a 16 foot setback on the corner of one building. They were restricted to the A type unit rather than the B type unit. The net effect of what they are trying to do is move away from the property line but not move the road because after reviewing this, it ' s too far in the hillside and would not work. They have proposed 81 inches of tree replacement which is 5 three inch trees or 5 seven foot conifers, more than what is required by the Code. Regarding the landscaping plan, they have added a 4 foot high fence, the same as in Dellwood. It' s a tongue and groove wood fence. It serves as a 100 percent barrier then to any kind of headlights coming from this turning movement in and out of the driveways . The fence would continue until the cars are straight . 3 and no longer can shine any headlights toward the single family 0 homes . They have also proposed to screen the driveways with 9 nine foot spruce trees, 4 of which are on the berm that are already planted. They put an overscoring of trees along Franlo Road to continue some of that feeling along Franlo Road. There are 4 plantings down in the area to wake up the building mass . They have added maples under this building slope to break up the slope. The general landscaping of trees along the basements will be additional foundation plantings that will go in as part of the house plantings . Kardell asked what the 4 plantings will be that were pointed out, which would be adjacent to the new smaller twinhome building, designed to help break up the mass of that building. Johnson replied they are spruces, 3 inch Summit Ash. He stated that the Staff Report is recommending more trees along there. He said they are already planting 15 inches or 5 trees extra already. He does not know exactly where they should be planted nor does he understand it. He can understand 3 more, but doesn 't know where the 6 would go. All the trees here exceed the requirements now. Perhaps they should go down to 1 1/2 inch and he would trade off for the 3, 4 or 5 inch trees . He has 81 inches already which exceeds the required 65 inches, so to add another 24 inches would be doubling the requirements . He does • not agree with buffering single family homes from single family homes . He feels it is excessive, totally out of line. Foote asked what his objection is to the trees, if it ' s just the cost issue. Johnson replied it is the cost. He said it isn't a very big site and 6 more trees is almost another $2, 000 . 00, and that' s primarily the reason. Wissner was concerned where the additional 6 trees will be planted, whether it will be in a grouping or scattered about. Johnson said he assumes it is where the 4 will be and Franzen agreed. Franzen stated that Mr. Johnson explained quite well what the changes were in the plan from the last time. The only comment he would have is on the additional landscaping. He stated that the requirements which are transition requirements by ordinance are based .upon the degree of differences in the densities . He said Walgreens on County Road 4 was a commercial building that was 50 feet away from the (Clint) home, and there wasn't any way possible to provide a berm. Therefore, the solution was 12 foot high conifers, 35 or 40 trees that were planted for a transition 4 in that area. • There is another area in town where the distance was 300 feet apart and nothing was required. Another area, like in Hartford, where they ended up having a berm and a lot of plantings occurred because they have a greater difference in density. The Staff ' s recommendation here is like a judgement call of what they feel is a reasonable amount trying to balance this between the extremes which might be a Walgreens on one end, versus having a single family next to a single family on the other end. The amount of cost for the landscaping on this project is about 100 inches, roughly about a $10, 000 . 00 budget. So, that ' s a little more than half percent of the cost of the project. Staff finds this to be a common concern from the developers where they have an ordinance that spells out an actual mathematical way of calculating trees . Staff ' s recommendation would be to add the additional planting material. If the Planning Commission wants to take a look at the same site lines and view points on this project and reach a different conclusion, Staff would be happy to go along with that as well. Kardell expressed concern about the density of the single family homes down in (Joy) . Franzen replied the density is 2 units per acre, and this is a little more than 3 units per acre. RAY HOVELAND, 11924 JOY CIRCLE, stated that he appreciates the changes which he feels are improvements . He expressed concern about what type of fence would be put up. Kardell stated it will be a tongue and groove fence similar to the one in the Dellwood project which is a very attractive fence. Hoveland stated that one of the reasons that this area might need a little more screening is because it' s a driveway. The area that is not going to be covered by the fence would be visible. He said he likes the changes . Some of the explanations about the drainage he can understand, but it doesn't answer all the questions they have in the neighborhood about the water problems . He does appreciate the Planning Commission looking into that matter. MRS.ENGLUND, 11912 JOY CIRCLE, stated that at the last meeting it was requested that someone from Watershed would come out and look at the property. She was concerned as to whether or not anyone did come out and look at it since then. 5 Franzen replied no one came out from the Watershed District, just • himself and the City Engineer. Englund stated that the developer is calling this single family to single family. She does not consider what is being built to be single family and that ' s why she agrees with putting up as much of a barrier as what the City is requesting. She said they are going from single family to twinhomes and feels there is a big difference there. Johnson stated that there will be a meeting with Watershed on November 2nd. He said he has met with the representative a number of times and he has been out to the site. He said the representative is intimately familiar with this site. Wissner stated that she likes all the changes that have been made but she is concerned about the trees and how many the City is requesting. She is having a hard time visualizing 6 more trees, believing that it ' s a lot of trees . She is very satisfied with the attention given to the drainage issue, and the moving of the driveway. She said the whole plan is so much better now with all the changes made. Foote stated that it ' s a much better plan now with all the revisions made. He said he was up there walking around and thinks the drainage is going to work fairly well . Regarding the trees, it seems to him that more is better. If they can put more • in there, he doesn't see it as a big economic concern when you consider the size of the project. $2, 000.00 isn't going to make or break it. Schlampp referred to the Staff Report where it states that the revised landscape plan currently has 79 inches of trees credited according to City Code. This means that 21 additional caliper inches should be added to the plan. He asked if that ' s by City Code. Franzen replied that it is by City Code. He stated there are 3 levels of landscaping required according to the building square footage on the property, tree replacement and then transition. There is no mathematical way of calculating how many trees to put in to create a transition based upon looking at the site lines . It ' s a Staff judgement. Schlampp asked if the suggestion of additional conifers is then coming from the expertise of the Planner, not from the City Code. Franzen replied that it ' s an interpretation of City Code as to the amount of landscaping necessary for the transition. He said that if he felt the tree replacement and the caliper inch requirement by itself was a good visual barrier, that would be his recommendation. 6 Schlampp asked if they need more trees in order to block that • view. Franzen replied that is the reason for the additional trees . Clinton stated that he will be abstaining from voting since he was not present at the last meeting. He' s coming in on the middle of the issues and does not feel it ' s right for him to comment on it. Kardell stated that the plan is quite improved and everybody will benefit from the driveway and the fact that it' s a very attractive fence. She said it ' s a very appropriate change and use from commercial use to residential use. Not withstanding the fact that it looks like there' s a lot of trees, she suspects it' s relative to the actual size of the building. It' s not quite as dense as it appears and it ' s two different land uses . There is a 6 .5 multi-family use adjacent to a single family use. It ' s an interpretation of transition. It should be screened and to the extent additional landscaping is required on units . These units are going to start at about #140, 000. 00, therefore, a few extra trees are not out of line. She supports the project exactly as the Staff Report is written. Regarding drainage, she said that having been out to that site, she doesn't feel there are a lot of problems that the neighbors are experiencing are attributable as to this particular site. She suggested to the residents to try to work with the Watershed • and the City Engineer to find out what the problem is. Schlampp stated that he looked at the site regarding the drainage, and it is a problem. He feels there is always going to be a problem. This isn't going to correct the problem and it ' s not going to aggravate the problem. He said that from his experience, it ' s like living on a swamp. He questions running temporary sedimentation ponds, but if the Engineering Department says it' s correct, he won't argue with them because their the experts. Kardell stated there is going to be a Watershed District meeting on November 2nd and urged the residents to make sure the representatives of Watershed are aware of their concerns, and that they have to be persistent with them. MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Clinton abstaining. MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Thompson Land Development for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential on 1. 64 acres and from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on . 96 acres based on Plans dated October 7, 1994, and subject to the recommendations Is 7 of the Staff Report dated October 7, 1994. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Clinton abstaining. MOTION 3: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Thompson Land Development for Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 2 . 6 acres based on plans dated October 7, 1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 7, 1994 . Motion carried 4-0-1 with Clinton abstaining. MOTION 4: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Thompson Land Development for Site Plan Review on 2 . 6 acres based on plans dated October 7, 1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 7, 1994. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Clinton abstaining. MOTION 5: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Thompson Land Development for Preliminary Plat on 2 . 6 acres based on plans dated October 7, 1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 7, 1994. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Clinton abstaining. C. OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAYS AMENDMENT • Franzen stated that the Outdoor Sales and Display Ordinance is directed by the City Council. The ordinance came about as a result of the Board of Appeals decision to grant Menards a variance to allow a 1200 square foot plastic greenhouse in the front parking lot. Some businesses complained to Council members that the Board' s decision to grant additional Outdoor Sales and Display beyond what Menards has was unfair competition. The City reversed the decision of the Board of Appeals and denied Menards a variance request. At the same time, the City Council expressed concern about the proliferation of plastic green houses and outdoor displays in parking lots throughout the community. At that time, Council felt that these uses should not be allowed in the parking lot and instructed City Staff to inform businesses such as Cub Foods, Target, Eden Prairie Mall and Wal-Mart that these would no longer be permitted. These businesses appeared at a subsequent City Council meeting to express concern that they had already ordered plant materials for the year and requested the City Council give some consideration to this point. The Council decided to allow the continuation of the plastic greenhouses for 1994, but directed City staff to prepare an ordinance which would regulate their use. Several alternatives were presented and the City Council chose one of the options which made a distinction between permanent and temporary uses . This ordinance would allow uses such as Wal- Mart' s landscape area to continue and temporary uses such as • 8 Christmas tree lots . The percentages in the ordinance for 6 • percent permanent and 2 percent temporary are reflective of existing store conditions . The ordinance also limits the amount of outdoor sales and display in the parking lot as a percentage of the total parking lot area. The percentages would prohibit the use of the plastic greenhouses . These plastic greenhouses, as well as other outdoor sales and display area, can be used on the property provided they are not within the setback areas . Staff believes that the draft ordinance is reasonable and fair and based upon market/store conditions . The Staff suggests approval as submitted. Kardell stated that the City Council overturned the Board of Appeals decision regarding Menards because they were concerned about proliferations of these type of uses. She asked who else were they afraid was going to do this . Franzen replied that the Staff has a more liberal interpretation of the ordinance than what the City Council is looking at. He said they have allowed it in Target and Wal-Mart last summer, and Cub, so the Council wanted the whole request revised as far as what should really be done with Outdoor Sales and Displays . Kardell stated that by having the outdoor sales in view it reminds her that Spring is here because of all the beautiful plants and flowers displayed. • Foote expressed concern of the effects of these changes to the stand on County Road 4 and other similar stands. Franzen replied that it doesn't effect that at all. He said this is strictly for areas that are currently zoned commercial. Franzen replied that it' s not in the commercial district. He said if you have room on the property it' s okay. Wal-mart, for example, has an area on the north side of the building that ' s beyond the setback where they can put the vinyl hut, that would be fine. Council ' s concern is where are you putting it on the property; out in the parking lot taking up parking spaces or where it' s visible to the public road. Foote expressed concern of the Prairie Village Mall' s Fourth of July tent which is put up every year. Franzen replied that if their tent is within the allowable 2 percent they can do it. Franzen stated that it' s a question of whether or not you find it objectionable if you're looking at large outdoor display areas out in a parking lot. It ' s a question of where it is on the property, not a question of having it. If there' s room on the property you can do it if it ' s done in certain locations . Kardell expressed concern of the effect it would be on the • 9 Farmer' s Market. Franzen replied that will be dealt with a • separate revision to the City Code in the district. It ' s something that the City Staff and Attorney' s Office is working on now. Kardell asked if the little markets that are up on the various corners in the rural districts would have to come to this centralized Farmer' s Market arrangement to sell. Franzen replied that they would. He said what' s going to happen is by the time the City finishes with the revisions, there' s not going to be any rural land left. He said if you still want an opportunity for this to occur then you could go to the Farmer' s Market situation like they have in St. Paul or Minneapolis . Schlampp asked where did Cub Foods have theirs. Foote replied that they put it on the side. Franzen stated that the Council decided that since the people from Menards had already ordered their merchandise they were going to let it happen. Before they got into the ordering season again, they wanted to let them know. Kardell expressed concern of whether there was any evidence that having these structures up caused any parking problems at the facilities in question. Franzen replied that the peak parking time for the commercial areas would be Christmas for the large shopping centers. He said they don't have the potted plants and shrubs out at that time. Therefore, it has not created a parking problem. Franzen stated this is a question of aesthetics . It ' s a question of how much they leave the options in the Staff Report. The sales and display areas to be rejected, they can allow for larger areas which will allow this storage area to continue in the same manner that they have done so far. Wissner asked if there have been a lot of complaints. Franzen replied that they have not received complaints from the businesses or residents that this is a particular problem. Foote asked if they can make the percentage more. Franzen replied that they can. Foote asked who came up with the 2 percent. Franzen replied that it was a Staff ' s idea. He said that the 2 percent represents the statistical amount of the temporary areas that they have so far. Clinton referred to the ordinance that if you look at number 1 they' re talking about temporary outdoor display area and it must be screened from the public road. Immediately that creates a problem for them. The size really limits a lot of merchandising • 10 put in there. Then when you drop down to 4 it says outdoor display areas not to be located within the required front, rear, side, or setback from the lot. He asked where are they going to put it. Franzen replied that some sites will have room for it and some sites will not. Schlampp expressed concern of whether or not filling stations will have to get a permit every time they want to do it because they are known for having outdoor displays with oil and tires . Jerry Anderson, Operations Manager at Cub Foods, stated they had the greenhouse for the last couple of years . Last Spring they worked with Staff and put it on the north side. Cub thought it was a lousy location and it worked out very well for them. He said their customers, maybe about 25, 000 a week, they start looking for this product in the Spring. Cub buys their products from the same place as Bachman' s and Frank' s buy theirs . The difference is how they price it. The people that shop with Cub know they're going to put out the product, but it ' s cheaper, and Cub is not there to make a ton of money on it. All Cub wants to know is are they going to be able to have it this year. They would like to be able to make their plans before their plants start arriving on the truck. Foote asked how big an area for Cub would 2 percent be. Anderson • replied they all buy from Bailey' s Nursery in St. Paul and they support the greenhouse which are 20 by 60. Last year they put additional fencing which was approximately another 20 by 60 and that ' s where they keep all the shrubs . He said that could be reduced and it would still work for them. They kept it up for 30 days which was a sufficient amount of time. Foote asked what percentage that is. Anderson replied he did not know. Franzen stated that the building is 70, 000 square feet so 2 percent would be 1400 square feet. Foote said he would like to make the percentage enough so they can put something up which would be big. He said that 2 percent to him seems very small. Schlampp asked what was wrong with what they have now. He said it seems to be handled well, and Staff seems to be working with it. Franzen stated that if the Planning Commission likes it the way it is, then one option would be to keep the ordinance the way it is and Staff would interpret it the way it is . . 11 Kardell said if there ' s a problem, everybody would be happy to address it, but there are no problems or complaints at this point. She is suggesting the recommendation to the City Council that the Planning Commission is not seeing this as a problem. There does not seem to be any demonstrated parking issues, and no aesthetic problems that have been expressed publicly by the residents . She recommends the ordinance to be left the way it is. MOTION 1: Kardell moved, seconded by Schlampp, to recommend to the City Council that no changes in the Outdoor Sales and Display Ordinance be made. Motion carried 5-0-0. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS None. VI . CONTINUING BUSINESS None. VII. NEW BUSINESS Kardell and Clinton gave an update on the program called Stride, which is to help people get out of public assistance. They said they are trying to seek places for these people to live using Section 8 vouchers . They said the biggest problem is that there• are no vacancies . David Lindahl has found some developers that will build cluster homes . They are also trying to create a mentor program. VIII . PLANNERS' REPORTS A. MUSA Report Franzen stated that the requested action is to authorize staff to proceed with filing an amendment with the Metropolitan Council to review the planning for expanding the MUSA line. He said this is the first step for getting an official amendment. Foote asked if the City expects a lot of opposition from the public. Franzen replied no. He said the Metropolitan Council have been difficult, not the public. Schlampp recommended they have Watershed approval before hand and suggested they get in touch with Watershed to come in and speak. Franzen replied that he would do that for the next meeting. MOTION 1: Clinton moved, seconded by Foote, to submit an 12 application. Motion carried 5-0-0. OIX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Clinton, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 00 P.M. • 13 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION onday, October 10, 1994 � 00 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PIONEER RIDGE 2ND ADDITION by R. H. Development. Request for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 12.13 acres into 25 lots, one outlot and road right-of-way. Location: County Road 4 and Pioneer Trail. • B. LAKE EDENVIEW TOWNHOMES by Thompson Land Development. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential on 1.64 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 2.6 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2.6 acres into 8 lots. Location: Franlo Road, south of Prairie Center Drive. C. OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAYS AMENDMENT V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VH. NEW BUSINESS VHI. PLANNERS' REPORTS A. Musa Report IX. ADJOURNMENT •