Loading...
Planning Commission - 05/28/1991 • AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 28, 1991 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Charles Ruebling, Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, Karen Norman, Doug Sandstad, James Hawkins and Katherine Kardell STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner;Don Uram, Planner; Clare Kearney, Acting Recording Secretary. Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA H. MEMBERS REPORTS M. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. CARPENTER NORTH PUD (91-11-PUD) by Donald G. Brauer. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Regional Commercial on 6.2 acres and from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential on 9.3 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.2 acres for future development of commercial and multiple residential land uses to be known as Carpenter North PUD. Location: North of the intersection of Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNER'S REPORT A. ZONING CODE SIGN REGULATIONS by the City of Eden Prairie. Request to change Zoning Code sign regulations. Changes proposed include: amended definition of area identification, new definitions for menu and readerboards, increasing the sign area allowed for on-site directional and address signs, setback requirements between free-standing signs, and reorganization of existing sign regulations. VII. ADTOURNMENT EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COND41SSION APPROVED NIINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1991 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Charles Ruebling, Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, Karen Norman, Doug Sandstad, James Hawkins and Katherine Kardell STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator; Clare Kearney, Acting Recording Secretary. ROLL CALL: Tim Bauer Absent I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION• Sandstad moved, seconded by Hallett to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0-0. H. MEMBERS REPORTS Hawkins stated that the tree cutting near the Anagram site, which he had questioned at the last Planning Commission meeting, appears to be in connection with clearing the trees away from the power lines. M. MINUTES MOTION Kardell moved, seconded by Sandstad to approve the Minutes of the May 13, 1991 Planning Commission meeting with the following amendment: Item VA, Election of Officers, amend last paragraph to read: "...and cast a unanimous ballot for Karen Norman for secretary. Motion carried 7-0-0" Motion carried 6-0-0. Planning Commission May 28, 1991 IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. CARPENTER NORTH PUD (91-11-PUD) by Donald G. Brauer. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Regional Commercial on 6.2 acres and from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential on 9.3 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.2 acres for future development of commercial and multiple residential land uses to be known as Carpenter North PUD. Location: North of the intersection of Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive. Walter Carpenter, the proponent, gave a background on the history of the proposal. His business, Minnesota Tree Incorporated, moved to this site following the condemnation of Highway 169. The property is part of the Major Center Area. Carpenter stated that the initial concept for the parcel was to have the entire parcel zoned commercial. After the bisection of the property by Prairie Center Drive, only the southerly portion has developed as commercial property. Carpenter indicated that a service station/convenience store was proposed for the northwest corner across the street from this proposal, but because of the poor soil conditions, it has been deleted and may be replaced with something else at a later date. Carpenter stated that he is requesting permission to do some grading in the area which is why a plan is being presented. He reported that he is unsure of what development plans are for the site because of the way the market is today. Don Brauer, representing the proponent, stated that he has been involved with Eden Prairie planning since 1964. He indicated the location of the Carpenter North PUD as shown on a 1989 aerial photograph. Brauer reviewed the 1968 Guide Plan and the fact that the "ring road" was planned to go further to the north of the Carpenter site. He indicated that the roadway location was changed in 1986, and the "ring road" split the Carpenter parcel into two pieces on either side of Valley View Road. Brauer stated that the current City Guide Plan shows the site to be split on a diagonal line and is guided for Medium Density Residential. 2 Planning Commission • May 28, 1991 Brauer reported that the site has a high hill of approximately 90'. At the northerly end of the site, it slopes down 30' to the abutting duplex home sites. The southerly end of the site abutting Valley View Road is 8' below the grade of the street. Brauer reviewed the drainage on the site. He indicated that the southwest corner will drain into the park pond. The remainder of the site will drain into the Ford Pond just west of Menard's. Drainage structures are already in place. A small part of the hill drains to the north but will drain to the south with development. Brauer reviewed what could be built on the site which included a service station and convenience store on the west side. Plans also include commercial development to the east and a two-story office building to the north. A driveway between the two commercial buildings will allow drainage to leave the site. Two multiple dwellings are also a possibility on the site for a total of 161 units. Brauer reported that the grading is proposed to take down the top of the hill so that it slopes up 25' and down 25'. The proposed building elevations would be the same as the height of the hill as it is now. Access to the site would be off of Valley View Road. Hawkins asked if the drawings showed existing contours for grading. Brauer replied that they did, and reviewed the drawings. The low area is proposed to be filled, and 21% of the site will be undisturbed. Plans are to shape the ridge so that it will look as if it is part of the hill. Brauer reviewed two cross-sections through the site as they relate to existing homes to the north. Hawkins questioned whether sight lines from Valley View Road were indicated on the cross-sections. Brauer responded that Valley View Road would be 2' below the site. Franzen reported that the site has always been guided for Medium Density Residential and Commercial. The developer came to City Hall to request permission to cut down the hill. He was informed that it couldn't be done until a plan was presented. Intensity on the property was also discussed at that time. The proponent is making the residential area smaller to allow for more commercial area. Franzen believed that the commercial area • 3 Planning Commission May 28, 1991 along Valley View Road makes sense because of the changes.in grade and distance from residential areas. Franzen stated that the multiple makes sense on the wooded sites, because more trees can be-saved. Franzen reported that the developer is not proposing to build this plan. He stated that fill will have to be brought on the site. Franzen indicated that 64% of the significant trees will be lost during phase one grading. He stated that the significant trees on the site are taken into consideration for tree replacement and reported that the trees at the northwest corner would not be removed with phase one grading but would be removed as part of phase two. Franzen believed that there should be a transition to the residential area to the north. He stated that the proposal has more intense uses than the Guide Plan depicts. He reviewed the staff recommendations for approval of the request. Dirt from the hill will be used to fill the low area, and dirt will be brought in to fill the commercial areas. Staff is not recommending that the entire site be graded at this time. Franzen indicated that the City ordinance requires that trees removed during construction be replaced which means that 744" of trees will have to be • replaced. The proponent must return to the Planning Commission and City Council when they request phase two grading. The proponent must fence the area to be graded before the permit is issued to insure that the correct areas are graded. Franzen also indicated that permits from the DNR, Corps of Engineers, and Purgatory Creek Watershed District are needed before grading can begin. Franzen indicated that phase two grading must retain a natural buffer along the north property line. Sandstad asked if there is a time limit on the agreement as far as tree replacement is concerned. Franzen replied that tree replacement is part of a legally binding agreement with the City which runs with the land Hallett questioned if money is set aside in escrow for tree replacement. Franzen replied that a decision hasn't been made as far as partial or total guarantee is concerned with phase one grading; however, before a building permit is issued, a guarantee must be given at 150% of the cost of improvements. Hallett asked what would happen if the property is sold and the new owner goes bankrupt as far as tree replacement. Franzen responded that the developer's agreement goes with the land, and the next owner is responsible for tree replacement. 4 Planning Commission May 28, 1991 Norman asked what the history has been on developers requesting only permission to grade rather than develop. Franzen replied that it is not a commonplace occurrence, but it has happened in the past. He indicated that the site the City Hall is on was graded on the basis of a concept plan in preparation for future development. Trees were cut down, but there is a condition in the developer's agreement that a prorated share of tree replacement will take place as each lot develops. He again noted that the City does not issue grading permits unless there is a plan to review. Hawkins asked how tree sizes are determined in the tree ordinance. Franzen replied that trees replaced have to be a minimum of 3" in diameter. Hallett asked how many units/units per acre were on this site. Franzen replied that the Guide Plan shows 16.5 acres or 165 units. He also indicated that since the proposed multiple family area is reduced to 9.3 acres, the density goes up to 17 units per acre. Franzen further stated that • the amount of commercial will increase along Valley View Road since the existing multiple acreage is proposed to be reduced.. Pamela Bacon, 7222 Divinity Lane and Linda Melquist,15433 Kerry Lane were unable to attend the meeting. They indicated in writing their opposition to the project. Kevin Blohm, 7465.Scot Terrace asked why the staff report wasn't mailed to residents of the area. He felt that the plans presented weren't very informative. They don't show where existing homes or trees are located. He stated that the hearing should be stopped, because residents have not been given enough time to review the proposal. Franzen explained the public notice process and stated that staff reports are available on request. Blohm was concerned with the presentation made by the proponent and the fact that no one in the audience understands it. He suggested that fill be brought in to the site rather than tearing down the hill. He asked if soil tests have been done to which Brauer replied that they have. Blohm indicated that his main concern is that the plans shown didn't indicate the locations of any of the surrounding houses. Ruebling asked Brauer 'to indicate on the map where surrounding houses are.located. 5 Planning Commission May 28, 1991 Brauer reviewed the locations of housing on the north end of the site. Blohm was also concerned about the percentage of trees being removed. Franzen explained that the developer is responsible for replacing any significant trees of 12 inches or greater in size which are removed or die because of grading. Franzen also discussed the public hearing process for Roger Brooks, 7370 Butterscotch Drive stated that when he moved in four years ago, he asked what the Guide Plan for that area was. He was told it was Medium Density, which to him mean duplexes or single family homes. He opposes the apartment building in the proposed location, because it is a family neighborhood to the north, and the plan he had reviewed indicated 400 units. Franzen stated that the number of units has been reduced to 161. Hawkins asked what would happen if a 161-unit building is constructed. Franzen replied that it would need to be seven stories high. Brooks stated that 161 units would generate approximately 300-400 additional people in the neighborhood. He was considered about additional people in the area and believed that owner-occupied housing . would fit in better with the neighborhood. He was also concerned that land values in the neighborhood would go down if apartment buildings are built. He asked what the neighborhood could do to change the Guide Plan to single family homes. Franzen responded that neighborhood groups have come to the Planning Commission and City Council questioning the Guide Hawkins asked the developer if there was some sort of demarcation line where the location of the Medium Density and commercial are better defined. Brauer indicated that the proposal is to define the line to follow the hill rather than cut through it. He also stated that if single family homes are built, the hill will be entirely removed, and there will be.no access to the north. For the benefit of those present, Franzen reviewed the City's Guide Plan map and indicated where the existing division between multiple and commercial was on the site. Stephen Hanson, 7289 Butterscotch Road was concerned about what would happen to the scotch pine trees located next to Willow Park. He was not against the commercial development. He asked if there was a builder in mind for the apartment buildings. 6 Planning Commission May 28, 1991 Paul Swidewski, 7393 Butterscotch Road indicated that he was assured by the City four years ago that the area was guided Medium Density Residential. He was concerned about the fact that there doesn't have to be a zoning change to begin grading and trees will be lost. He had a problem with the Medium Density designation because of all the vacancies in the area apartment buildings already. He was concerned with an apartment building being built and the fact that Willow Park could not accommodate them. He was also worried about his property values going down. He believed that the residents need more time for this proposal. Hawkins asked what the property was zoned. Franzen replied that it was zoned Rural. He indicated that the City does not zoned property until a development is proposed. Hallett asked what percentage is guided commercial and residential on the 27 acres. Franzen responded that it is 2/3 Medium Density and 1/3 commercial. Swidewski stated that his house would be a stone's throw away from the apartment building. . Valerie Flint, 7390 Butterscotch Road didn't like the apartment buildings being so close to her home and was concerned that Butterscotch Road doesn't go all the way through to Valley View Road. Leslie Otten, 7310 Butterscotch Road indicated that his major concern is the grading which could begin before a decision is made about what will be built there. He didn't want the stand of oaks on the top of the hill taken down. He was worried about the runoff from the top of the hill and asked where the water would go once the hill is removed. He was concerned about the 86% rental rate of apartments in the area. He didn't think that a gas station should be built on a slough because of water table contamination by gas tanks. He reported that an attorney will be in attendance at the next meeting to represent the neighbors. Otten believed that an apartment building would depreciate his home 30-40%. Anton Waldner, 7340 Butterscotch Road asked who residents should contact to voice their opposition to this being guided High Density Residential. Ruebling responded that this item will be taken to the City Council in the future, and residents are encouraged to attend and voice their concerns. 7 Planning Commission May 28, 1991 Ruebling asked if the insignificant trees would need to be replaced. Franzen responded that they would not, but the City is requesting that many of the trees remain. Ruebling stated that the Planning Commission has often suggested that insignificant trees not be removed. Roger Enfield, 7350 Butterscotch Road was concerned about replacing large oak trees with 3-inch replacement trees, having an apartment building next to his house, disturbing the natural environment and overcrowding the neighborhood park. Reverend James McCracken, 12655 Roberts Drive stated that he is the pastor of the New Victory Church. He was surprised about the lack of information that he received on this proposal. He urged the Planning Commission to stick with the original Medium Density Residential and Commercial designations. Ellen Maloney, 13364 Zenith Circle was concerned about the proposed gas station and the proximity to her home and believed that the entire area should be guided Medium Density Residential. Steve Funk, 7485 Scot Terrace did not want this neighborhood to become transient again with this proposal: Hawkins asked him what has changed the neighborhood. Funk replied that residents have moved there who want to grow with the City. Allen Moore, 7400 Butterscotch Road discussed what attracted him to this area. A second apartment building would be within sight of his home. Moore indicated that the park was developed to support a single family area. He questioned whether the apartments would be adults only. He was concerned with grading for a speculative development. He believed that the property on the south side of Valley View should be developed as commercial first. Ruebling summarized the concerns of those present, which included: Guide Plan change request to higher density and more commercial, speculative grading, not enough detail on plans presented, not enough time for residents to understand the proposal, negative impact of tree loss, loss 8 Planning Commission • May 28, 1991 of property values, not enough buffering between neighborhoods and noise. Neil Ackerman, 7345 Butterscotch Road stated that this is the only .commercial development on the north side of Valley View Road. A person in the audience asked for clarification of what 10 units per acre meant. Ruebling indicated that it meant ten units per acre of land on the average. Franzen stated that it is a maximum cap. Brauer stated that it will take 3-9 months to get all the permits needed for grading. A grading permit cannot be obtained until the demarkation line is defined. Carpenter stated that it was obvious that the residents haven't had enough time to discuss this proposal and suggested that a neighborhood meeting be held. He indicated that he is willing to continue. MOTION Motion by Sandstad to continue the public hearing in order to provide time for the developer to provide more detailed plans. Motion died for lack of a second. Norman believed that the developer should come back with a more detailed plan. Hallett believed the developer should hear the Commission's thoughts on the proposal. Sandstad's major concern was about tree loss. Hallett asked how many acres are guided Medium Density. Franzen replied that 16.5 acres are Medium Density. Hallett believed that a developer should have the right to develop their property, but a plan that makes sense to the residents is necessary. Hallett was nervous about the speculative nature of the request, not knowing what's going in and trees not being replaced for a long period of time. Hallett stated that he would not support a High Density request. Hallett believed that the residents need more time to review this proposal. 9 Planning Commission • May 29, 1991 Kardell stated that she would be opposed to the High Density request based on the plans she saw. She was concerned about tree loss. Kardell also commended the property owner for suggesting that a neighborhood meeting be held. Hawkins was concerned that the gas station would be built and no further development would take place, slow rental in the City and tree removal of significant and insignificant trees based on a speculative plan. He indicated that he was leaning towards voting against the request. Ruebling believed that the Guide Plan should be changed when there is a compelling reason to do so. He was concerned about the amount of grading that is being done without a real plan of what will be going there. He believed that given the character of the site, the City needs some protection against this happening. He suggested that the public hearing be continued. Hawkins asked if the proponent could be given a certain time period to come back with the same plan should this plan be denied. Franzen replied that if this plan is denied by the Planning Commission and City Council, the proponent cannot come back with the same plan for a one year period. If the developer wishes to proceed to the Council and the request is denied, the project will be closed. Franzen stated that if the Planning Commission denies the request, the City Council could still approve it. Hallett stated that he is leaning towards a continuance, because he has seen some significant changes when a proposal is continued. Hawkins believed that even with a delay, there is such an abrupt change from the Guide Plan and zoning, and denial might be the best route. Norman believed that if the proponent submits a significantly different plan, they should get the benefit of a continuance. Hawkins asked if renotification would be necessary if there is a continuance. Franzen replied that republication would not be necessary if the plan remains the same. Franzen indicated that after a neighborhood meeting, the proponent could submit a different plan. If approved by the • 10 Planning Commission May 28, 1991 Planning Commission, it could be republished correctly since notices of Council meetings are mailed to residents also. Hawkins stated that he thought such republication would be appropriate. Sandstad believed the proponent has reasonable opportunities to rework the Plan and take care of many of the problems. The general consensus was that this item be continued to the June 10 meeting. Hawkins indicated that he and Norman would not be able to attend the meeting. Hawkins was concerned that there would not be a quorum and to hold a neighborhood meeting and make plan changes would take more than two weeks to complete. He still believed that the request should be denied based on tree loss, a speculative grading plan and impacts on the neighborhood. Hallett stated that he would rather continue the item to the June 24 meeting in order to have a full quorum. Carpenter was concerned with the delay of an entire month and would prefer a continuance of two weeks or a denial. MOTION Motion by , seconded by to continue the request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Regional Commercial on 6.2 acres and from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential on 9.3 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.2 acres for future development of commercial and multiple residential land uses to be known as Carpenter North PUD to the June 24 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. Ruebling suggested that notices of the continuance with minutes of this meeting be mailed to those who spoke. The meeting recessed at 10:15 p.m. and reconvened at 10:22 p.m. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNER'S REPORT A. ZONING CODE SIGN REGULATIONS by the City of Eden Prairie. Request to change Zoning Code sign regulations. Changes proposed include: amended 11 , 9 Planning Commission May 28, 1991 definition of area identification, new definitions for menu and readerboards, increasing the sign area allowed for on-site directional and address signs, setback requirements between free-standing signs, and reorganization of existing sign regulations. Johnson discussed the proposed sign changes. She stated that revisions were made by the entire Planning staff and will simplify certain areas. She indicated that every district has been restructured and better organized for readability. Johnson reported that new State statutes have been added which indicate that campaign sign's size and shape can no longer be regulated at the local level. The commercial district has been restructured to indicate that one frontage can no longer,have more than one free-standing sign. A maximum size for the American Flag has been included where there was no restriction before. The maximum size of a residential identification sign has also been increased. Sanstad questioned whether grand openings are handled by permit or on the honor system. Johnson responded that permits are not necessary; business owners usually will call and state what they will be doing. Sandstad asked whether air- inflated devices were allowed on buildings. Johnson replied that building owners have had damage to their buildings from such devices. Hawkins suggested that the reading be changed to state not attached or placed on the building. Sandstad • further suggested that they be tethered or anchored to the ground. Ruebling asked if there was a maximum height for these devices. Johnson replied that it depends on the maximum height allowed in the zoning district they are in. Hawkins asked where the campaign sign information was crossed out in the handout. Johnson indicated on page six. Norman asked why it was changed. Johnson responded that it was lobbied for by several Districts in the state and passed as law. Hawkins asked if campaign signs could refer to a political issue tied to a referendum. He was concerned about a perpetual sign for a certain issue. Sandstad believed that it would fall under free speech. Hawkins questioned whether the City could further define a political issue to be tied to a referendum. Norman indicated that the current definition states signs are placed prior to an election. 12 Planning Commission May 28, 1991 Ruebling suggested that all references to gender be replaced with "a", such as on page 7, item 3 which refers to "his" designee. He also stated that some wording has been left off on that page. Hallett asked if off-site residential signs are permitted. Johnson replied that they are not. Hallett asked about signs on apartment buildings advertising apartments for rent. Johnson replied that they are permitted but permits are not required. Ruebling indicated that "area identification signs" are not in the definition section of the sign ordinance. He also asked if one wall sign per accessory use meant that each building tenant could have a wall sign. Johnson responded that it is allowed now but is at the discretion of the building owner. MOTION Motion by Sandstad, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council that the proposed amendments to the sign ordinance be approved as amended. Motion carried 6-0-0. Ruebling discussed instances where Commissioners have felt that they should abstain from voting but did comment during the.discussion of the item. He believed that no comments should be made. Hallett believed that a Commissioner abstaining should be able to make comments. Hawkins stated that you have to look at the underlying reasons why you are abstaining. Norman suggested that staff find out when and if a Commissioner should abstain. VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Motion by Sandstad, seconded by Norman to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Motion carried 6-0-0. 13