Loading...
Planning Commission - 06/10/1991 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMNIISSION Monday, June 10, 1991 7:30 p.m. CONMUSSION 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; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA H. MEMBERS REPORTS III. NUNUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. JAMESTOWN VILLAS (91-15-Z-P-PUD-SPR) by the Rottlund Company, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 60.8 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 8.5 acres with waivers, Zoning District Amendment within the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 8.5 acres, Site Plan Review on 8.5 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 8.5 acres into 12 lots for construction of 96 townhouse units to be known as Jamestown Villas. Location: South of Highway 5, north of George Moran Drive. B. SINGLETREE PLAZA (91-16-Z-SPR) by The Robert Larsen Partners. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Community Commercial on approximately 19 acres with variances. to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Site Plan Review on approximately 19 acres for construction of 177,131 square feet of commercial uses to be known as Singletree Plaza. Location: South of Singletree Lane, east of Prairie Center Drive, west of Eden Road. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS VII. ADTOURNMENT EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 109 1991 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMIVIISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, James Hawkins, Katherine Kardell, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad. STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: James Hawkins absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0-0. • H. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to table the Minutes to the end of the Agenda. Motion carried 5-0-0. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. JAMESTOWN VILLAS (91-15-Z-P-PUD-SPR) by the Rottlund Company, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 60.8 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 8.5 acres with waivers, Zoning District Amendment within the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 8.5 acres, Site Plan Review on 8.5 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 8.5 acres into 12 lots for construction of 96 townhouse units to be known as Jamestown Villas. Location: South of Highway 5, north of George Moran Drive. Franzen reported that Staff had just received revised plans on Friday, June 7 and had not been able to adequately review the plans to prepare a Staff Report for this meeting. Therefore, he recommended a continuance to the • June 24, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Hallett moved, seconded by Bauer to continue the item to the June 24, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0. B. SINGLETREE PLAZA (91-16-Z-SPR) by The Robert Larsen Partners. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Community Commercial on approximately 19 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Site Plan Review on approximately 19 acres for construction of 177,131 square feet of commercial uses to be known as Singletree Plaza. Location: South of Singletree Lane, east of Prairie Center Drive, west of Eden Road. Kelly Doran, representing the proponent, presented a slide presentation to emphasize the topography of the site and its relation to surrounding facilities. Doran presented the plans for a 185,000 square foot shopping center to consist of an anchor tenant of approximately 119,000 square feet, approximately 50,000 square feet of miscellaneous retail space, a second anchor tenant with approximately 23,000 square feet, and a free-standing building of approximately 6,000 square feet. Doran noted constraints on the property to be several significant grade changes, the location of the NSP tower, and the need to purchase two single family homes. Doran stated that the grade change from the site to Prairie Center Drive was approximately 50 feet, and another grade change of 70-80 feet was present from Regional Center Road to Singletree Lane. Doran stated that the proponent had been working with Staff for approximately 12 months on this site, had looked at every aspect of this site and had tried several different approaches to its development. He added that significant discussions had taken place regarding the extension of Commonwealth Drive through the site. The proponent believed that the extension of Commonwealth Drive would dramatically change the site plan and stated a preference for Commonwealth Drive to be designated as a private road in lieu of a public road. The proponent would agree to maintain the road as a private road. Doran noted that retaining walls and significant grading would be required on this site to allow for the extension of Commonwealth*Drive. Norman arrived at 7:50 PM. Doran believed that the revised plan conformed with all the City zoning • requirements. He added2 that the parking and zoning requirements had C Planning Commission . June 10, 1991 been met; the setback requirements had been met or exceeded, and 9.2% landscaping was proposed for the parking area. Doran stated that Staff had convinced the proponent to pursue a C-Reg- Service zoning; however, the proponent had preferred a Community Service zoning. Doran noted that a C-Reg-Service designation would not be pedestrian orientated and; therefore, the proponent had not provided for sidewalk connections. Doran stated that based on the Staff Report, he believed that four issues needed to be addressed. The first item was the Base Area Ratio variance request. Doran noted that City Code required a .2 BAR and the proponent was requesting a .212 BAR, which would be reviewed by the Board of Appeals on Thursday, June 13th. The primary reason for the request would be to accommodate the 23,000 square footage requirement of the second major tenant. Doran stated that if the variance request were denied, it would simply result in the loss of approximately 100 feet from the 23,000 square foot facility. He added that it would not add or subtract from any parking. The main reason for the request was to attract a particular tenant which wanted to locate in Eden Prairie. Doran stated that the property owners have owned and paid taxes on this property for over 30 years. During that time, they have dedicated approximately 120,000 square feet of roads immediately to the City. He noted that if that 120,000 square feet could be added back into the site, the project would meet the BAR requirements by the City. The proponent, along with Mr. Teman, would also be paying approximately 90% of the assessments for the improvement of Singletree Lane which the proponent believed to be more of a regional road. Doran believed that the proponents had done more than their fair share. Doran believed that it was ironic that according to the City zoning, if the additional 10,000 square feet were put in a basement or developed as a second story, a BAR variance would not be required. Doran stated that the second issue related to storm water treatment had only been brought to the proponent's attention on May 28th. Doran stated that while the proponent concurred with the recommendations related to the NURP ponds, they had not had time to adjust the plans to accommodate the 1-to-2 acre pond area. Doran believed this issue to be a regional problem and not a plan specific issue. Doran encouraged Staff • to address this as a regional issue. Doran did not believe that it would be logical to have several 9ttle ponds scattered throughout these last few remaining parcels in the Major Center Area. Doran did not believe it to be practical to require water quality standards in this small area of the Major Center Area when the streets and other areas were already dumping Planning Commission . June 10, 1991 that if a pond were to be developed on this particular site, it would.need to be located at Prairie Center, Drive and Singletree Lane. Doran questioned the liability issue with a pond in close proximity to a sidewalk and had been advised that the pond would need to be fenced in. Doran stated that the proponent did not wish to build a pond area with a fence around it. Doran added that this issue would also apply to other Major Center Area sites. Doran stated that the proponent was not opposed to the connection of Commonwealth Drive; however, this solution would significantly alter the topography of the site. Doran stated that until last week, the extension of Columbine Road had not been brought up by Staff. Doran believed that the construction of the streets should not be the responsibility of the proponent but should be constructed at City expense. Doran did not believe the road to be of direct benefit to this site. Doran noted that the property was completely surrounded by roadways and • did not believe it to be possible to have every building located without fronting a roadway. Doran added that the building would back up to the least traveled roadway, and a screen wall would be constructed high enough to adequately screen the building from traffic. Doran showed slides of Target, Lunds, and Tower Square, all of which had loading areas facing main roadways and which he believed to be adequately screened. Doran added that the proposal was not for actual loading dock areas, but rather man-sized doors. Doran believed that the proponent had tried to mitigate the above major issues addressed in the Staff Report. Doran stated that the proponent would like to continue to work with Staff after receiving direction on these issues from the Planning Commission and return in two weeks. Doran believed this proposal to be a viable use for the property with viable tenants. Doran presented brick color samples. He stated that the anchor tenant would have a multiple colored brick not unlike that of Frank's Nursery. Doran said that he did not understand the Staff Report comment related to the compatibility with surrounding facilities. Doran stated that the . proponent had tried to use the same architecture and coloring as the new Tower Square and the Eden Prairie Shopping Center. Doran noted that signage would be consistent with the City Code requirements, and all tenants would be required to meet these standards. Doran noted that the anchor tenant would like signage on three sides of the building but would Planning Commission • June 10, 1991 Franzen reported that a main object of Staff was to look at how projects fit in with the overall community. The main issue on this project was how the road system would fit in with the overall City Plan. Columbine Road provides relief for Highway 169 and reduces traffic at already congested intersections and helps distribute traffic better. Franzen stated that greater emphasis was being placed on water quality and new regulations require the construction of NURP ponds and limit the dumping of anything into the wetland area. Franzen noted that a final conclusion had not been reached as to whether the pond would be constructed on this site or off-site. Franzen stated that Staff did not disagree with the proponent on this issue. Franzen reported that a major site specific issue was the loading area on a street frontage. He noted that a variance would be required. Franzen stated that the Staff Report was based on plans submitted by the • proponent 30 days ago. Revised plans had been submitted which addressed some of the issues; however, Staff had not been given enough time to review the new plans and rewrite the Staff Report. Franzen believed that several of the issues appeared to be resolved with the revised plan. Franzen stated that Staff had been looking at plans for this property for approximately 12 months and had reviewed several uses for the property. Franzen noted that this specific plan had only been available for review within the last 45 days. Franzen reviewed specific points in the Staff Report on Pages 5, 6, and 7. Franzen believed that there were four major issues to be addressed: BAR Variance request, City Code compliance, road extensions, and NURP ponds. Franzen recommended that the plans be returned to the proponent for further work. Franzen also noted that it was important to provide fire access with emphasis on access to the back of the buildings. To accomplish this, Franzen recommended that the plan be revised to move the buildings further to the north. Ruebling asked Staff to comment further on the BAR Variance request. Franzen replied that the proposal as presented would exceed the City Code requirements by 10,000 square feet. As a result, the corresponding parking • 5 Planning Commission June 10, 1991 area would increase, and the hard surface area would be calculated at approximately 35,000 square feet above City Code, meaning less green space. Doran asked why this project required a variance related to the loading areas when a variance had not been required at Tower Square. Enger replied that a variance should have been required, and Tower Square could actually be in violation of the City Code. Eriger added that this issue would need to be addressed by the City Attorney. Doran noted that there may be issues which may not be resolvable. He stated that the proponent did not wish to drag this on forever and, therefore, requested that a time limit be set. Doran stated that the proponent was not in control of the location of the streets. He showed slides of the proposed location for Columbine Road and noted a 25-foot grade separation. Doran believed that the City needed to advise the proponent of what would be needed related to street and slope . requirements. Doran found it ironic that a parking deck was being recommended as an alternative when the landscaping requirements were being exceeded in the present proposal. Doran believed there was a major gap between the proponent and Staff. Enger stated that this plan came before Staff as a formal application approximately 30 days ago. He added that Staff had looked at general plans for the Major Center Area and had developed conceptual ideas for the downtown area. Enger noted that Staff had looked at 3-4 site plans for this site over the past year, all of which had different tenant mixes. This proposal has large planning related issues. Enger stated that the proponent and Staff had had one meeting on this specific plan. The proponent did ._ not meet with staff on the current plan prior to submission. Enger believed that if this were to be developed successfully with the current tenants, it would take more time to resolve major issues. Enger did not believe that any one was dragging their feet related to this proposal. He noted that the traffic study would be completed in approximately 2 weeks. Enger believed that the road system needed to be developed and then develop the site plan to match the. road system. Enger stated that the parking deck was a suggestion because of discussions which occurred at the City Council level. Enger stated that this proposal was addressing a 6 Planning Commission • June 10, 1991 different type of intensity and could possibly develop in two phases. Enger believed that due to the size of the project, it would take longer to resolve some of the issues. Enger noted that this was only the first of several large parcels left in Eden Prairie and believed that extreme care was needed to:assure a successful project. Doran stated that the proponent had met with all the surrounding property owners and all expressed favor for this project. Dick Ferrick, 7365 Howard Lane, stated that this project was important for Eden Prairie. He believed that Walmart would be a tremendous draw. Ferrick believed that the draw potential would be similar to that which the City has seen from Rainbow Foods. Ferrick believed that there would be the possibility of a parking deck on the Teman site. Ferrick saw this proposal as a chance for development in a slow economy. Ferrick noted that the property owners are in extreme duress. Ferrick believed this to be a quality project. He added some issues remained unresolved, but the project had come a long way. Doran questioned what a parking ramp would do to the site and if the City was willing to put money into a ramp. Doran stated that no concrete proposal for the roadways or a parking ramp had been presented by Staff. Doran estimated the cost of a parking ramp to be approximately 5 million dollars. Doran believed that the resolution of some of the issues would be more than the current market could absorb. Doran stated that this property needed to be developed. Bauer stated that it would difficult for him to give direction when changes were being proposed on the fly. Bauer found it difficult to get a proper perspective on what was actually being proposed. Bauer believed that screening of the loading and trash areas was very important. He concurred that this was a very important project and added that sometimes very important projects need to move slowly. Bauer believed that it was important to see the traffic study before any recommendations were made. He questioned how the traffic would be handled if this project were to be the significant draw for Eden Prairie as being presented. Bauer stated that he would like to hear from an expert related to the issue of the NURP • 7 Planning Commission . June 10, 1991 ponds and the storm water treatment. He added that he would like alternatives presented. Hallett stated that he trusted Staff s opinion on what will be best for the overall City plan. He added that Eden Prairie had high standards, and it takes time to work through the details. Hallett believed that it was important to make sure the project would fit in with surrounding facilities and adequate screening were provided. Hallett believed that it would be closer to 30 days before the project would be ready for review again. Bauer asked if there were another deadline which was driving this project that had not been discussed. .Doran replied that the proponent would like to be under construction so that the parking lots could be constructed this fall to allow tenants to open next spring. Doran added that the taxes.alone on this property were approximately $150,000 per year, and the owners needed to develop the property. Sandstad was concerned that too many issues were not even close to being resolved. Doran stated that this proposal was submitted on May 10th and noted that the traffic study was not ordered until May 28th. Doran added that the proponent had not received comments from Staff until June 6th and the proponent resubmitted the revised plans on June 7th. Doran believed that Staff was dragging its feet in hopes that another proposal would come up. Doran found it hard to believe that this site had been under consideration for over a year and a traffic study was just now being ordered. Enger replied that Staff had not been dragging its feet. He added that staff has reviewed several concepts with the proponent over the last year; however; the current plan which was submitted just thirty days ago was the first proposed with a 120,000 s.f. anchor tenant. Enger added that there were significant issues which needed to be resolved. Norman questioned if the tenant mix proposed would not affect the need for different street proposals. Doran did not believe that whether the tenant was Walmart or someone else should make a difference related to the need for streets in this area.. Doran did not believe that the streets 8 Planning Commission June 10, 1991 would service this site. He believed that the streets were designed to distribute traffic around the area. Norman asked if the project had always been this large. Bruce Bermel replied that the size of the center had been the same since day one. Doran stated that the proponent would work with Staff until it was determined that resolutions to the issues could not be obtained. Sandstad believed that the traffic, ponding, and loading area screening were all significant issues. He added that the plan was not ready for approval. Enger stated that it was not true that Staff was hoping to delay the project for any reason. Enger stated that the project was being handled on a time schedule the same as any other project of this size. Enger believed that Staff was on track with a review of a project of this size. Enger noted that this project had already been discussed at a City Council level. He • added that the BAR ratio was discussed with the City Council. Enger believed that this project had already gotten a lot of City involvement. Kardell stated that because this project was of such significance, she did not believe it in good judgement to make an expeditious decision. Kardell concurred that it was difficult to comment on a plan which had only been submitted to Staff on the Friday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Norman believed that if the proponent was looking for direction, it appeared that the Planning Commission was in concurrence with the Staff recommendations. Norman believed that the traffic study needed to be completed prior to further recommendations. Bauer believed that the screening of the loading dock on the street frontage was a significant issue. Doran replied that approximately 75% of the site was surrounded by major roads and a variance would be required. Enger stated that the proponent did not want to be involved in a PUD process. He added that the merits of a request for a variance would be 9 Planning Commission • June 10, 1991 decided by the Board of Appeals, and the proponent would need to demonstrate a hardship. Ruebling believed that since the BAR ratio variance between the ordinance and the proposal was such a few square feet, alternatives to resolve the issue should be available. Ruebling questioned why the removal of the 10,000 square feet had to be on the building of the second anchor tenant. Ruebling believed that aesthetics, green space, and landscaping were particularly important on this piece of property. Ruebling noted that Staff and the Planning Commission had worked with developers in the past where the proponent and Staff seemed to be far apart in their view; and after several discussions and compromises, the final results were a much better plan. Ruebling believed that it was important to take the necessary time to be sure that this project was right for Eden Prairie. Doran stated that it was vital that the proponent know the status of the roads as soon as possible. MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Sandstad to continue this item to the July 8, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS A. MINUTES OF THE MAY 28. 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Bauer stated that he had been upset when he read the comments in the Minutes of the May 28, 1991 meeting related to abstaining from motions. Bauer added that he took the comments personally because at the previous meeting he had abstained from two of the votes. Bauer was upset that this was brought up for discussion when he had not been present. Ruebling replied that it had not been intended to point out any individual commissioner. Ruebling added that he was new at being the Chairperson and had merely questioned Staff on if a person were going to abstain if they should be allowed to participate in the discussion of the project and possibly influence the vote. Bauer believed that if a commissioner had • 10 Planning Commission June 10, 1991 missed a major portion of a discussion, it would not be appropriate to vote on the issue. Bauer did not believe that it was inappropriate to comment. Hallett stated that several other commissioners had abstained in the past for various reasons. Hallett questioned when it was appropriate to abstain and when it wasn't. Bauer believed that if an individual believed that he had even_ a possible . conflict of interest, he should abstain. Norman questioned if being late was a valid reason to abstain from a vote. Bauer believed that it would depend on how late you were, where you came in on the discussion, and if residents had spoken already. Ruebling asked Staff if they had found anything specific out related to this • issue. Enger replied that it was an individual decision as to whether there was a conflict of interest. Bauer question if an explanation should be given as to why you were abstaining. Bauer believed that it depended on individual circumstances such as who was in the audience. Enger concurred that it was an individual decision. Norman asked if there was a time legally when you should abstain. Enger replied that if you as an individual owned property or was directly related to the business of the property, you should abstain. Enger added that at one time commissioners would not vote on projects that were even very close to their property. Norman questioned if a commissioner should be allowed to comment if he planned to abstain. Ruebling questioned if a commissioner did not feel comfortable in making a final decision if he should be allowed to participate in the discussion to help formulate a final decision. Ruebling added that if the City had a 11 Planning Commission June 10, 1991 policy.on this item, the Planning Commission should be made aware of such a policy. Bauer did not believe that the participation in the discussion and the conflict of interest were related issues. Enger stated that the only City policy was that if a commissioner believed that there was a conflict of interest, he should abstain. Enger added that the commission should decide on how it would operate related to discussions. Hallett believed that both participation in discussions and conflict of interest were individual calls. Ruebling believed that if an individual was going to abstain, he should not participate in the discussion. • Bauer believed that participation in the discussion was a judgement call and could not be set as a policy. Hallett stated that if he had missed a major portion of the discussion, he would not participate in a vote. Enger believed that several items should be taken into consideration when making a decision on whether to vote or not; such as, have you missed public comment, or have you missed discussion among other commission members. He added that if you had only missed 10 minutes of a 1 hour discussion, he did not believe that it would be a problem to vote on the item. Sandstad stated that he was comfortable with individual commissioners exercising good judgement. Sandstad believed that the commissioner should make it clear at the beginning of any comment if he intended to abstain. Ruebling concluded that the commission was in concurrence that it would be appropriate to make comments when abstaining as long as it was clearly stated at the beginning of the comment their intention to abstain. 12 Planning Commission . June 10, 1991 Bauer believed that it was important to include this in new commissioners packets and discuss the.procedure with new members. MOTION: Hallett moved, seconded by Kardell to approve the Minutes of the May 28, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as published with the following corrections: Page 3, paragraph 5: Change "site" to "sight"; change "form" to "from". Page 6, paragraph 2: change "demarkation" to "demarcation". Page 10, paragraph 6: add the following sentence to the end of the paragraph: "Hawkins stated that he though such republication would be appropriate.It • Motion carried 5-0-1. Bauer abstained. VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS VH. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Hallett moved, seconded by Kardell to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 PM. Motion carried 6-0-0. 13