Loading...
Planning Commission - 06/28/1993 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES • MONDAY, JUNE 289 1993 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMIVIISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Ken Clinton, Cynthia Clish, Katherine Kardell, Doug Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner. STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, Senior Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL All present. U. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: is Clinton moved, seconded by Wissner to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0-0. III. MINUTES MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Clish to approve the Minutes of the June 14, 1993 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 7-0-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO by Northco Corporation. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial Zoning District on 10.8 acres, Preliminary Plat of 10.8 acres into 2 lots, and Site Plan Review on 10.8 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Location: Northwest corner of the intersection of County Road 4 and Highway 5. Bruce Carlson, representing Northco Corporation, stated that the building size had been reduced to fit within ordinance requirements. Carlson noted that the proponent had worked with Staff on the signage for the building to come within ordinance requirements. The parking layout was improved. Carlson believed that all of the issues raised regarding the original plan had been addressed. Carlson was concerned about the blanket statement regarding use of the building in the Staff recommendation I.3. Carlson recommended that if the use of the facility were to I change to a fast food restaurant, drive-thru bank, or convenience gas station that a review by the City would be required but a similar retail use would not require further review. • Clinton asked where the retaining wall referenced on Page 3 of the Staff Report would be located. Carlson replied that the retaining wall did not apply to the Blockbuster building; it would be located at the back of the main shopping Center. Clinton asked about the reference to drainage problems in the parking lot. Carlson replied that the center had collected snow in the southeast corner of the parking area previously. Carlson added the City engineers had approved the storm drainage plan. Schlampp believed that the drainage issue was a separate issue and did not pertain to the Blockbuster building. Schlampp believed that a 100-year storm could create problems for the Blockbuster building. Carlson replied that they would not construct a building which would be in danger of water damage. Franzen reported that catch basins had been added to the lot and an overflow had been added to the ditch. Sandstad noted that the parking lot was 2 feet lower than the building. Franzen reported that the comments regarding the BAR had gone away when the Liquor Store was removed from the plan. Franzen noted that variances would not be required if the Blockbuster were not being separated from the main center building. Franzen reported that the parking layout would work and the building architecture would be compatible with the current center. Traffic was a concern; if Blockbuster did not work out and another use for the building was introduced Staff was concerned that based on the designated use traffic could increase. Franzen stated that Staff would be comfortable with the restrictions recommended this evening by the proponent. Schlampp stated that when the original center was reviewed, a parking variance had been approved. Schlampp asked if that original variance was based on the property going out to Highway 5. Schlampp believed that if the variance were approved the City would be approving a variance on top of an existing variance and further believed that this could set a precedence and create a problem at another center. Franzen replied that Staff had conducted 3 on-site parking studies and concluded that the current parking requirements for centers could be excessive. Franzen replied that Staff would continue to study the parking issue and come back with recommendation for a possible change in the City requirements. Schlampp asked if the parking variance was less than for another center. Kardell stated that both Rainbow and Prairie Village had been approved with variances, but to 5.5 spaces. Schlampp replied that approval of the plan as proposed would be a variance on top of a variance and believed that this would set a new standard for the City. Sandstad noted that the other two centers had not shown a parking problem. Franzen noted that both of the other centers noted in the Staff Report were maxed out for BAR. Franzen introduced a letter from David Barczak which stated concerns for pedestrian safety . crossing County Road 4, emergency vehicle access being obstructed, and construction of a new pylon sign which would viewed from his picture window. 2 Tom Lauby, owner of a video store, stated that he was tenant in the Prairie Village Mall for 8 years and there is a water problem in the parking lot. Lauby stated that a pedestrian was hit on a bike at this intersection last week and was concerned about even more traffic being introduced. • Lauby questioned why more space for commercial business was being introduced in this area when the City was trying to promote a downtown area development. Lauby also stated concern about the signage used by Blockbuster. Lauby did not believe that emergency vehicles could utilize the back of the building when semi's were unloading especially if a retaining wall was constructed in this area. Don Lentsch, property manager for the center across the Highway, stated that their center had a proposal denied because of lack of parking and were also denied a variance in 1991. Lentsch questioned how a variance could be granted for Prairie Village Mall. Wissner asked why the space in Lentsch's center had not leased as well as expected. Lentsch replied that he had just leased the west end of the facility to a restaurant. Lentsch was concerned about the general language in the Staff Report; he believed that any change in use for the building would require an additional review. Clish asked Lentsch what type of variance he had requested and had been denied. Lentsch replied that it had only been for 4 to 6 spaces but he did not have the exact figures with him at this time. Wissner was concerned that as more space was leased in this area the traffic would increase. Bauer believed that the language in the Staff Report regarding building use should remain general. He added that any change in use which would result in a change in traffic should • require a review by the City. Bauer believed that the Prairie Village Mall was already a problem to get in and out of. Clish stated that she had not experienced a problem getting in and out. Bauer said that things change in an area when highways go through and what works for this area now, may not work in 10 years. Wissner stated that she did not have a problem with Blockbuster. Kardell asked where Barczak lived. Franzen replied that he lived behind the center on Sheldon. Kardell believed that he was concerned about the sign on County Road 4. Carlson replied that this sign would be the smaller of the two signs and it would only be 36 feet. Kardell asked if emergency vehicles would be able to get through if trucks were unloading behind the center. Franzen replied that he had visited the site with the Fire Marshall and there would be adequate space for emergency vehicles. Carlson stated that at the last meeting the Commission's concern was the size of the building. Carlson believed that the proponent had addressed the concerns and that the Commission would now act favorably on the proposal. The use restriction is addressed under the current ordinance and when a space is released it did not require a review by the City. Carlson added that Prairie iCourt Mall would not be required to return to the City when a space was vacated and released 3 either. Carlson stated that too general a statement on the use could create financial problems with the lender. . Tom Lauby concerned about parking and did not want to see a parking deck as noted on Page 3 of the Staff Report. Clinton stated that he had sat at the intersection on a Saturday morning for more than 1 light change. Clinton asked what the City could do to have the intersection upgraded. Franzen replied that the City would need to ask MnDot for improvements. Wissner asked where the land would come from for additional lanes. Franzen replied the land would come from the current right-of-ways. Lentsch asked if a traffic study had been required. Franzen replied that.because the BAR was within City Code a study was not required. Kardell asked if this building was smaller than Walgreens. Franzen replied yes. Kardell asked if the traffic generated would be similar to Walgreens. Franzen replied that the traffic for Blockbuster would be greater on a Friday night while Walgreen traffic was more evenly spread out. Carlson replied that the traffic going to Blockbuster would typically already be making another stop at the mall. Carlson added that the peak hours for Blockbuster would not be during rush hour. Kardell stated that she lived close to this area and was familiar with the center. Kardell did not believe there would be a parking problem and could support the project. Kardell believed that traffic at this intersection would be terrible no matter what was done. Clish did not believe that parking would be a problem and because of the majority of residents would be already conducting other business at the center that a lot of extra trips would not be added. Schlampp stated that he was against the project because of the double variance requirement. He believed that a precedent would be set if approved and other centers could make similar requests. Schlampp believed that this decision should come from a higher authority than the Planning Commission. Wissner stated that she was not comfortable with the plan and concurred with Commissioner Schlampp on variance request. Clinton stated that he tried to separate traffic problem from the project. He was concerned about the parking and believed that maybe it was time to change the City Code requirements. Sandstad did not feel that there would be a huge problem with parking because this was a small building added to the site. Franzen noted that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments was the body which actually approved variances. 4 Schlampp believed that a double variance was a rare issue and did believe that this item should be passed to the City Council for a decision. • Clish said that she did not see a problem with parking. Bauer believed that traffic was the issue; not parking. Bauer further believed that Blockbuster would help the malls success, but it would make traffic worse. MOTION 1: Kardell moved, seconded by Clish to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 2: Kardell moved, seconded by Clish to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Northco Corporation for Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial Zoning District on 10.8 acres based on plans dated June 25, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 25, 1993. Motion denied 3-4-0. Schlampp, Wissner, Bauer, Clinton voted no. MOTION 3: Kardell moved, seconded by Clish to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Northco Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 10.8 acres based on plans dated June 25, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 25, 1993. Motion denied 3-4-0. . Schlampp, Wissner, Bauer, Clinton voted no. MOTION 4: Kardell moved, seconded by Clish to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Northco Corporation for Site Plan Review on 10.8 acres based on plans dated June 25, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 25, 1993. Motion denied 3-4-0. Schlampp, Wissner, Bauer, Clinton voted no. B. WEBBER ADVERTISING by Eden Trace Corporation. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the I-2 Park Zoning District on 4.56 acres, Site Plan Review in the I-2 Park Zoning District on 4.56 acres, Preliminary Plat on 4.56 acres into 2 lots and Street frontage variance to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Location: Martin Drive. Franzen reported that this property was zoned in 1972 but nothing was built on the property. Mark Undestad, proponent, stated that he wanted to put the property back into 2 separate lots for the construction of 2 office-warehouse facilities. One building would be occupied by Webber Advertising and the second building would be used by a silk screen company. Schlampp asked how the old building plan was set. Undestad replied that the lot could not be split to allow for 200 feet of street frontage for each building. Schlampp asked if other buildings • on this street had 100 feet street frontage. Franzen replied yes. Undestad replied that both 5 buildings would be architecturally the same and a larger green space would be provided than other sites in the area. Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the project. MOTION 1• Clish moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 2: Clish moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Trace Corporation for Zoning District Amendment in the I-2 Park Zoning District on 4.56 acres based on plans dated June 25, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 25, 1993. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 3: Clish moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Trace Corporation for Site Plan Review in the I-2 Park Zoning District on 4.56 acres based on plans dated June 25, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 25, 1993. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION 4: • Clish moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Trace Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 4.56 acres based on plans dated June 25, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 25, 1993. Motion carried 7- 0-0. MOTION 5: Clish moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Trace Corporation for Street frontage variance to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments based on plans dated June 25, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 25, 1993. Motion carried 7-0-0. C. NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY COMNIITTEE-Presentation of the results of the Natural Resources Study. Sandstad and Wissner stated that they would abstain from comment and voting in lieu of the fact that they were active members of the Natural Resource Committee. Chairman Ruebling reported that the committee members represented a variety of points of view. The members were all very dedicated to the cause. Ruebling noted that the Committee arrived at a unanimous decision on the properties to be preserved. Ruebling said that the committee was asked to rank the sites for preservation. The committee started in January 1993. The sites were narrowed from 60 to 7 and then site reviews were conducted of the final 7 choices. Ruebling noted that it was the Eden Prairie Land Trust which had motivated the City Council to look at 6 what the City could do to preserve these beautiful sites in Eden Prairie. Barton Aschman Associates was hired once the field had been narrowed to the 7 sites to conduct ecological studies of the sites. • Dan Luetneger, Barton Aschman Associates, reported that the firms task was to help rank the sites and evaluate the ecological merit of each site. Specific criteria was used to evaluate the properties. Luetneger noted that no other community had taken a study this far and he commended Eden Prairie for it's foresight. Beth Nixon, Barton Aschman Associates, reported that 2 properties were of very high quality. The Charlson property was prairie and contained an oak savannah. The Riley Creek woods contained approximately 40 acres of forest. None of the top 4 sites contained any wetland areas. Clinton asked what was meant by limited use in the report. Nixon replied a passive use; trails designed with the natural site features in mind. Clish believed that the report was very complete. Clish asked if the recommendation was to purchase the first 2 sites and then the next 2 sites if possible. Nixon replied that the committee offered the recommendation; Barton Aschman was to rank the site based on ecological basis only. Ruebling reported that the 3 lowest ranked sites were being looked at by the Fish & Wildlife Service for preservation. These properties were in floodplain areas. Ruebling believed that the top 4 sites were spectacular pieces of property. Ruebling further believed that the time frame window to purchase these properties was limited. Ruebling did not feel that the City could • afford to wait until 1996 when capital funds were considered for land purchases. The committee is recommending that the City Council consider a referendum to purchase the Charlson &Riley Creek properties.. The committee further recommended that the City use all current ordinances to preserve as much of the properties as possible. Clish asked for more information on the proposed land acquisition in 1996. Bob Lambert, Manager of Parks & Recreation, replied that the Park & Open Systems plan was to try to purchase land along the River Bluffs for approximately $2.8 million. The committee asked the City assessor to analysis what the low end price range would be to purchase these sites and with the $2.8 million only 2 sites could be purchased. Schlampp asked if Flying Cloud Airport expanded what problems could be created for these sites. Nixon replied that this had not been discussed by Barton Aschman and could only speculate on how the habitat would be affected. Lambert replied that jets fly over this area now and most of the jets would fly well beyond the proposed sites. Nixon replied that there would be no damage to the plant life. Ruebling noted that this had been discussed by the committee. . Kardell asked if the money from a referendum would be only to purchase the property or would it include funds to make the properties useable. Lambert replied acquisition only; however, the cost to construct trails would be minimal. Lambert added that the commitment was for long- term management. He noted that the sites had managed themselves for a long time. Lambert noted that there was a very limited amount of time to acquire these properties. 7 Clinton asked where the$2.8 million was to come from. Lambert replied that a referendum was proposed originally for 1996. Lambert did not believe that the City could wait until 1996 to acquire these sites. Kardell stated that she was pleased to see that the top 2 sites were very different in character. Clish thanked the committee and representatives from Barton Aschman for coming to present their findings. Schlampp believed that the committee had made excellent choices. Clinton commended the committee on their report. Bauer supported the findings in the report and recommended that if any members had the opportunity to visit Cook County in Illinois to see the preserved acres of forest in the middle of a metropolitan area it would be worth their time. MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council support of the Natural Resource Committee findings as noted on Page 3 & 4 of the report. Motion carried 5-0-2. Sandstad and Wissner abstained. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS •VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VU. NEW BUSINESS VM.PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen reported that meeting times were not covered under any State Statues or City Code regulations. The meeting could start a 7:00 PM if the Commission so wished. Bauer wanted to try the new time and note in the minutes that it was on an experimental basis only. Schlampp stated that there could be more problems by changing back and forth. Franzen noted that this was not the first time that the meeting time had been brought up. Franzen added that the Commission also needed to talk about management of the meeting itself. Clinton recommended trying the new time for 2 months. Schlampp recommended that if a change was made to change the time until the end of the year when it would be reviewed again. • 8 MOTION• Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton to change the meeting time to 7:00 PM for the balance of the 1993 is calendar year. Motion carried 7-0-0. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Clinton to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM. Motion carried 7-0-0. 9 AGENDA EDEN PRAHUE PLANNING CONDMSION Monday, June 28, 1993 7:30 p.m. COMIVUSSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Cynthia Clish, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Community Development; Michael D.Franzen, Senior Planner; Donald Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-- ROLL CALL H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued from June 14, 1993) A. BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO by Northco Corporation. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial Zoning District on 10.8 acres, Preliminary Plat of 10.8 acres and Site Plan Review on 10.8 acres into two lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Location: Northwest corner of the intersection of County Road 4 and Highway 5. B. WEBBER ADVERTISING by Eden Trace Corporation. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the I-2 Park Zoning District on 4.56 acres, Site Plan Review on 4.56 acres, Preliminary Plat on 4.56 acres into 2 lots, and Street frontage variance to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Location: North of Martin Drive, west of Mitchell Road. C. NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY COMIVIITTEE-Presentation of the results of the Natural Resources Study. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS IX. ADTO �[EVT