Loading...
Planning Commission - 07/08/1991 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING CONaIISSION Monday, July 8, 1991 AS 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; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA H. MEMBERS REPORTS III. NU MUTES 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, 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. 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. ADJOURNMENT 1 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 89 1991 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION 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; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: Hallett and Ruebling absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0-0. II. MEMBERS REPORTS M. MINUTES MOTION• Norman moved, seconded by Kardell to approve the Minutes of the June 24, 1991 Planning Commission meeting with the following correction: Page 7, Paragraph 5, Sentence 1; investor should read investors. Motion carried 4-0-1. Bauer abstained. 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 4.5 acres for commercial and multiple residential land uses to be known as Carpenter North PUD. Location: North of the intersection • 1 • of Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing. Franzen reported that the proponent was ready to present updates to the original plan which came about as the result of neighborhood concerns and Staff recommendations. Walter Carpenter, proponent, stated that he had owned the property for some time and was now before the Planning Commission to request a grading permit to prepare the property for marketing. Carpenter stated that the property had been guided commercial until 1982 when the northern portion was modified to multiple-family to provide a better transition. He added that in 1990 the division line between the commercial and multiple-family changed. Carpenter noted that he had agreed to donate property for a roadway system and also had accepted a $50.00 per front foot assessment. The property had been assessed over $600,000 for the roadway, and he had been the largest donor of property for the roadway in this area. Carpenter stated that the grading plan had been revised to minimize damage to the hill. The multiple units would be concentrated in the center of the property to allow the largest number of i4nits in the smallest area. The request for density had been reduced from 17 to 10 units per acre. Carpenter noted that several of the residents were upset with the proposal. He added that he had circulated 292 notices which extended well beyond the City's • requirement of 500 feet from the proposed site. A neighborhood meeting was held on June 18, 1991 where strong objection from the residents to the construction of apartment buildings, the hill being lowered, and the construction of a gas station. The residents also wanted to see more trees saved. A second meeting was held with the residents on June 24, 1991 to present an alternate proposal. The alternate plan reduced the density of the project, reduced the amount of grading on the hill to allow for 2 buildings in lieu of 1 as per original plan, designated the northeast corner of the property for multiple dwelling in lieu of commercial and the northwest corner for a condominium type building. Don Brauer, proponent, presented the plans for the development. The northeast corner, approximately 4.5 acres would be designated as medium density, the northwest area would be restricted to a maximum of 24 units, and the center of the property would contain two apartment buildings. The apartments would have 117 units in lieu of the 161 originally requested. Brauer noted that the request at this time was for Phase I grading only. He stated that the grading area had been significantly reduced and the tree loss would not exceed 60%. Brauer said that the Phase H grading area would be a fill area; not an excavation area. He added that the commercial area had also been reduced. Brauer presented aerial photographs of the area. 2 a Planning Commission Minutes • July 8, 1991 Franzen reported that the proponent had reduced the density along the upper portion of the property to 10 units per acre, which was consistent with the Guide Plan. The commercial area would be along the lower portion of the property. Franzen noted.that the proponent was presenting a general plan to show were the homes and commercial areas would be located. Franzen stated that the City wanted some assurance that the number of units and the density of the project would be maintained as presented. Franzen did not believe that the development in the center of the property would be visible and, therefore, it made sense to propose the most units in this area. Franzen stated that if the PUD was maintained the City and the neighbors would have some assurances that the future plans would be very similar to what was being proposed. He added that this was the first level of approval for transition. Franzen noted that when a proponent would come forward with a definite proposal they would have to provide for saving the trees, and provide berming and landscaping to provide a buffer for the residents. Franzen said that Staff was requesting a further restriction of the grading area for Phase I. This would require no grading in the.area with the oak trees which would reduce the tree loss from approximately 60% to approximately • 35%. Staff also requested that the PUD be maintained so that the City would know where units would be located on the property. Franzen stated that actual tree replacement would take place when actual development would commence and at this time recommended that the area be seeded. Franzen added that this was a concept approval for 117 units only. A transition needs to take place between the multiple and commercial areas. The commercial buildings need to have a residential character to assist in the transition. The roof lines would need to be varied and heavy landscaping and berming would be required. Franzen said that there would be no access to Stewart Drive and further recommended that the access to the 17 unit section run along the eastern property line. Sandstad asked if the grading to the north needed to extend all the way to the property line. Brauer replied that it would be necessary to talk with adjacent property owners to see if a flat area could be developed between the two properties. Sandstad asked if retaining walls would be necessary. Brauer replied that retaining walls would be necessary to save the trees. Sandstad questioned if the grade was approximately 30 feet lower than the road to the north. Brauer replied that the grade was approximately the same as Stewart Drive and at the southern end it was somewhat lower. Kevin Blohm, 7465 Scot Terrace, asked if there would be any alternative to the • 3 Planning Commission Minutes • July 8, 1991 road placement for access to the apartment buildings. Blohm was concerned with the possibility of headlights shining into his home with the proposed road alignment. Sandstad replied that there would be approximately 100 feet of trees between the Blohm home and the roadway. Brauer replied that Blohm's concern was real, but believed that if the trees could be left and a berm constructed the problem would be eliminated. Blohm questioned why grading needed to be done before any plans were ready for approval. Blohm did not feel that approval tonight was accomplishing anything. Brauer replied that the purpose was to try to get the property ready for developers to look at. Blohm asked if the grading could be approved but the grading not actually be done until a developer came forward with a definite plan. Brauer believed that it would be to both the developers and the neighbors benefit to have the property graded in advance and have a concept plan in place. Kardell asked if the pad at the top of the hill would be screened by trees on three sides. Brauer replied yes. • Blohm stated that he did not consider the timber walls to be safe. Norman asked if the proposed grading would affect the walls currently on existing property. Brauer replied that the adjacent neighbors would have to agree to any grading being done on their property and any removal of any retaining walls. Ellen Maloney, 13364 Zenith Lane, asked if this property were developed commercial, what guarantee did the neighborhood have that noise pollution would not occur. Franzen replied that the property would only be approved for commercial use and not a specific use. He added that when an actual development plan was presented it would be reviewed by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Maloney then asked how many times the neighbors would have to question the same issues and how many meetings would they need to attend. Maloney noted that a petition with approximately 80 signatures was presented to the City against commercial development. Franzen noted that the City Code outlined specific criteria regarding rezoning and issues related to noise pollution and land usage in relation to adjacent properties and minimize the impact on existing homes. Franzen added that transition areas were also required. He stated that the plans would be looked at very carefully when a specific plan were proposed. Franzen noted that it could be possible that 5 separate hearings could take place related to this property. Maloney noted that • 4 Planning Commission Minutes • July 8, 1991 the first proposal presented was for a gas station in the commercial area, which Staff was ready to allow to be passed, and stressed her concern related to noise pollution and traffic if that plan had been passed. Hawkins questioned Maloney's statement related to Staff approval of a plan for a gas "station. Franzen responded that the initial use for apartments and a gas station was a reasonable use of the property in his opinion, but this was formed prior to Commission and neighborhood input. The neighbors presented several good arguments for a better transition and to save more trees. After listening to comments from both the neighbors and the Planning Commission, Staff had looked at the plan from a new prospective and had tried to balance all the expectations of the proponent, Planning Commission and neighborhood which resulted in a compromise plan. Maloney asked if the commercial area extended further north than originally proposed. Franzen replied that Carpenter was correct that in 1968 the entire property was planned for commercial use, in 1977 the plan changed to move . Valley View Road. He added that in 1992 the commercial area extended up into the hill area. Maloney•stated that she advocated saving more trees and increasing the berming toward the commercial property to the west. Franzen noted that the proponent could make a plan to show site line views from the site. Maloney stated that the Manor Homes Association Board was concerned about the commercial property and its close proximity to the Manor Homes. Franzen then offered to meet Maloney on-site to review site lines. Leslie Otten, 7310 Butterscotch Road, presented a list of approximately 120 names of residents who did not want to see the commercial line moved. Otten stated that a month ago the residents were not happy with the proposed plan and the only changes made were to reduce the density somewhat and to move the commercial line. He added that many of the oak trees would still be removed. Otten did not believe that there was a plan being presented to vote on and did not see any need at this time to grade the hill down. Otten wanted to see more specific details before approval of any grading. Sandstad read into the record the petition statement presented by Otten regarding maintaining the commercial zoning lines as they exist. Sandstad noted the date of the Petition as June 16, 1991, which was prior to the last meeting with the developer. • 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1991 Franzen believed that the neighbors had raised a valid point related to grading of the hill at this time. He added that he had looked very carefully at the hill and if it were actually possible to develop a building on the hill. Franzen believed that it could be possible to construct 80 units with a similar elevation as previously proposed with a different building design. Franzen noted that the building could be constructed in the reduced grading area proposed by Staff for Phase I. Brauer stated that there were several alternatives for development. Brauer added that the proponent did not want to grade this property unless it was feasible to develop the property. Brauer believed that there would be nothing definite to offer a potential developer without grading. Leslie Otten stated that residents were confused by a notice received that the meeting tonight was canceled and rescheduled for July 16, 1991, so several residents with objections were not present. • Sandstad asked who had sent the letter. Franzen replied that this letter was regarding the City Council review. Otten believed that this was confusing for residents. Franzen added that residents had been told at the last Planning Commission meeting that this item would be discussed at this meeting and that addition notices would not be mailed. Brauer stated that the proponent believed that the major issues had been addressed and did not believe that it would be possible to please everyone. Cindy Winkel, 13392 Zenith Lane, asked if there were other areas in Eden Prairie where commercial area abuts park, land. Winkel was concerned about animal migration. Hawkins replied that as a Commissioner the wildlife was a consideration and the unique character of the land was important. Brauer replied that he had been part of the design of several of the nature area within the Major Twin City Area. He added that wetlands surround all the major center areas. Brauer stated that it was decided to preserve large nature area and to remove the smaller area because they could not be well managed. Brauer believed parks to be good separators between commercial and residential areas. Brauer noted that the Woodlake Nature Area in Edina was a great wildlife area due to good management. Brauer stated that he had received a letter from the DNR stating that this area was not marked as an area to be preserved. • 6 Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1991 Sandstad believed that the City went to great lengths to preserve as many areas as possible. Brauer stated that the original plan had approximately 21% of the property untouched and the revised plan had approximately 40% untouched. MOTION l: Norman moved, seconded by Kardell to close the public hearing. Norman believed that a lot of work had gone into this plan on the part of everyone including Staff, proponent, and residents. Norman believed that some grading was necessary because of the 2 year period needed to allow for settling of the soil. Norman stated that she could approve the plan with the Staff alternative for a reduced grading area and with the absolute minimum grading and number of units to be developed. Kardell believed that a substantial improvement had been made in the plan. She added that it was important that the PUD be maintained and better screening provided. Hawkins believed that it was important that the residents continued to voice their concerns and opinions throughout the entire process. Hawkins added that he would vote in favor of the Staff alternative due to a better transition, less grading and a less intensive site plan. Sandstad believed that grading was necessary in order to market the property and would vote in favor of the Staff motion. Motion carried 4-0-1. Bauer abstained. MOTION 2: Hawkins moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Donald G. Brauer for Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Medium Density Residential to Commercial on 4.5 acres to be known as Carpenter North PUD, based on plans dated June 28, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 5, 1991. Motion carried 4-0-1. Bauer abstained. • Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1991 MOTION 3: Hawkins moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Donald G. Brauer for PUD concept approval on 27 acres for 117 housing units and 104,000 square feet of commercial to be known as Carpenter North PUD, based on plans dated June 28, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 5, 1991. Motion carried 4-0-1. Bauer abstained. 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. A continued public hearing. Franzen reported that the plans were not ready for approval at the last meeting. The revised plan no longer contained the strip mall and only involved the Wal- Mart Store. The City was looking at acquiring property on Highway 169 so that Wal-Mart could face Highway 169. A contingency plan would allow Wal-Mart to be constructed no matter what direction it would face. Franzen noted that Staff had met with the proponent only last week to discuss the Wal-Mart only proposal and the plan had been revised since that time. He added that the Planning Commission was not being asked to approve this plan at this time; this was simply an update and a time for preliminary questions. Franzen reported that Staff had discussed running Commonwealth Drive through the property and this revised plan represented the developers response. The developer was proposing a private road. Franzen stated that if a private road instead of a public road was to be developed the roadway would be require special paving, lighting standards and planting islands to clearly identify this as a private road and not just a driveway in a parking lot. Franzen believed that it was important to make the downtown area pedestrian friendly. Franzen noted that the plan had been changed to provide the accesses talked about previously. Franzen stated that he did not know at this time if the proponent and Wal-Mart would agree to the details discussed at the July 3, 1991 meeting between the proponent and Staff. Sandstad asked if the location and detail of the garden center had been discussed. Franzen replied no. • 8 . Planning Commission Minutes • July 8, 1991 Franzen asked the proponent if they were in agreement to go along with the Downtown theme. Doran replied that he could not speak for Wal-Mart at this time and added that specific guidelines had not been set yet for the Downtown Area. Doran believed that it would be possible to return to the Planning a Commission in 2 weeks with detailed plans. Doran added that he believed that extension of Columbine as a private road was a benefit to Wal-Mart. Sandstad asked the difference between a private and public road. Franzen replied that a public road would have a 44-foot road surface with setback requirements. Sandstad asked the proposed width for a private road. Doran replied the private road would be approximately 30 feet wide. Sandstad asked if the proponent had given up on site acquisition to the east. Doran replied that Wal-Mart would stop the development process for 6 months after the plan was approved to allow the City to study land acquisition. Sandstad stated that he would like to see Wal-Mart constructed closer to Highway 169. Doran replied that the NSP Tower was very restrictive as to alternative locations for the building. Franzen noted that in two weeks the proponent and Staff would need to agree in principle as to location of roads, where the building would be located, and that all City Code requirements would be met. Sandstad stated that he would like to see a plan which showed a connection to the new Post Office from Columbine Road and how it would affect this plan. Franzen replied that this would be made available at the next meeting. Doran noted that Wal-Mart was in favor of building Columbine as a private road. Hawkins asked if Wal-Mart was hoping to create a Wal-Mart campus atmosphere. Doran replied that it had not been taken to that level. Bauer believed that it was important to see more detail related to the garden center location at the next meeting. Doran replied that the City Ordinance was very specific related to requirements for a garden center. • 9 Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 1991 Kardell asked if the City had an urban design consultant. Franzen replied that someone should be hired by the following week. Kardell asked if this individual would have time to have any input into this particular plan by the next meeting. Franzen replied that the consultant would focus on the big picture for the area and ' make recommendations on the site, landscape and architectural plans. MOTION Bauer moved, seconded by Hawkins to continue the public hearing to July 22, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS VII. ADJOURNMENT • MOTION• Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 PM. Motion carried 5-0-0. 10