Loading...
Planning Commission - 08/26/1991 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING CONEMSSION Monday, August 26, 1991 7:30 p.m. CONDUSSION 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 II. MEMBERS REPORTS M. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. STARING HIGHLANDS 2ND ADDITION(91-21-P) by Tom Lofquist. Request for Preliminary Plat of one acre into two single family lots within the R1-22 Zoning District. - Location: north of Ridge Road, west of Staring Lane East. B. PRAIRIE COURT AMENDMENT (91-22-Z-SPR) by L. A. Donnay. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District on 3.7 acres; Site Plan Review on 3.7 acres for the addition of a gas pump and canopy facility to the Prairie Court Shopping Center. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS VII. ADJOURNMENT EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 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; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: Bauer and Kardell absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Hallett to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0-0. H. MEMBERS REPORTS o. MINUTES MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Hawkins to approve the Minutes of the August 12, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0-1. Ruebling abstained. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Hawkins to approve the Minutes of the Special Planning Commission meeting of August 19, 1991. Motion carried 5-0-0. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. PRAIRIE COURT AMENDMENT by L. A. Donnay. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District on 3.7 acres; Site Plan Review on 3.7 acres for the addition of a gas pump and canopy facility to the Prairie Court Shopping Center. (A public hearing) Kevin Roetering, leasing and property manager for the proponent, stated that a neighborhood,meeting had been held approximately a year ago regarding the possible introduction of gas pumps to this location. Roetering noted that concerns voiced by the • neighbors had related to traffic, lighting, visualization of the canopy, and maintenance Planning Commission eugust 26, 1991 Page Two of the green space. Roetering presented plans which had been revised after hearing the concerns of the neighbors. The gas pumps had been moved to the far west end of the shopping center, the parking area had been realigned, and new planting areas had been added. Roetering said that the canopy would be constructed of the same material as the exterior of the building. Roetering showed photos which illustrated that the canopy would only be visible by one home to the west of the shopping center. The lighting would be one-foot candles within 24 feet of the site. Roetering reported that a revised traffic study had been conducted and the results concluded that the increase in traffic would be minimal from the introduction of a convenience store with gas pumps. He added that and increase of traffic for Sheldon Avenue would also be minimal. Roetering believed that the proponent had addressed the major issues of concern by the neighbors. Roetering noted that Donnay had a reputation for long-term business relationships and had excellent relationships with neighbors in other existing facilities. Sandstad asked if a gas tanker would be able to maneuver the turn onto the site. Roetering replied that this had been checked by Pump &Meter. Sandstad requested that Staff double check with the City Engineering Department to make sure that a tanker could make the turn safely. • Ruebling asked what percentage of the present facility was leased. Roetering replied that approximately 35%-was currently leased. He added that the 35% did not include the convenience store. Norman asked if there was a turn lane onto County Road 4. Roetering replied that there was not a separate turn lane. Franzen noted that a turn could be made onto Wagner Way. Norman questioned if this project would not delay traffic even more on County Road 4. Franzen replied that it would depend on the amount of green time allowed on the signal light. He added that there was a double left turn lane onto Highway 5. Franzen reported that when Staff had been approached approximately a year ago the original proposal for the location of the gas pumps and canopy resulted in the loss of several parking spaces. The proponent had since revised the plan to include a new parking lot design and the location of the gas pumps revised to interface with the internal circulation of the facility. The traffic study had been updated. There was a question as to how much traffic would use Sheldon Avenue to the north. The results of the new traffic study indicated that approximately 100 additional trips to and from the center during peak hours would occur with the development of this project. Franzen noted that the plan met City Code requirements related to parking, setbacks, etc. Staff was concerned about the visibility of the gas pumps to the north. Franzen stated that the canopy would sit at a lower elevation than the homes and the home on the corner to the . west would have visibility of the pumps and canopy. He added that there would be no Planning Commission Wugust 26, 1991 Page Three physical way to screen the pumps and canopy form County Road 4. Franzen said that lighting was always a concern; however, with the use of the canopy flat lenses would be required which reduced the light extensively. Franzen believed that the introduction of gas pumps and a canopy would impact the existing neighborhood. Franzen reported that the traffic study talked about minimizing traffic on Sheldon Avenue. He added that Staff did not have a good handle on the existing traffic from the center. Franzen presented two options for action; if the Commission believed that the impacts could be mitigated by the Staff Recommendations A through E, the Commission could recommend approval; however, if the Commission believed that the impacts could not be mitigated it would be appropriate for the Commission to recommend denial of the project in its present form. Hawkins asked if the facility would be open 24 hours a day. Franzen replied yes. Norman asked if Little Red still operated gas pumps. Franzen replied that Little Red had two pumps in operation. Walt Lusian, 16275 Sheldon Avenue, requested the project be denied. Lusian said that he had been present when the original plan for the project had been reviewed by the City Council and the proponent had stated that the facility was to be a professional building with mainly office facilities. He added that originally retail was only to be presented as a last resort. Lusian noted that what had been constructed was a strip mall. He believed that the proposed project would cater mainly to the residents north of Highway 5 and also that it would be the same residents which were now served by Little Red. Lusian disputed that traffic study finding and believed that there would be a significant traffic increase on Sheldon Avenue. Lusian noted that the proponent had not been responsive to the neighborhoods requests and did not return phone calls related to existing problems with garbage in the yards and landscaping which had not been replaced as required by the original proposal. Lusian was also concerned with the environmental impact of gas pumps in this area adjacent to the pond. Ruebling asked if an environmental impact statement would be required. Franzen replied that an environmental impact statement was not required because of the size of the project. Todd Slawson, 16176 Sheldon Avenue, requested denial of the project. Slawson was concerned about traffic. He noted that he had seen people use Sheldon Avenue to access County Road 4. Slawson added that the intersection had seen many accidents because it was difficult to see oncoming traffic at Sheldon Avenue and Wagner Way. He believed that it would be difficult to make a turn onto Wagner Way. Slawson concurred with Lusian regarding the trash containment. He added that a lot of debris blows throughout Tanning Commission ,.,Planning 26, 1991 Page Four the neighborhood from the shopping center. Slawson stated that this was originally proposed as a profession office development. Slawson questioned the need for this type of facility at this location. He believed that the Super America station and �Ittle Red served the neighborhood adequately. Janet Hipp, 16248 Sheldon Avenue, presented the Commission with a petition with over 100 signatures against the project. Hipp noted that Wagner Way and Sheldon Avenue was the main stop for the school bus for the elementary children and was concerned for the safety of the children. She was also concerned about the children going down into the cul-de-sac area from Sheldon Avenue because the would have to go past this facility. Hipp was concerned about loitering around the facility late at night if it were open 24 hours a day. Hipp concurred with the previous statements and concerns expressed by the neighbors which had already spoken. Jay Bohlen, 16200 Sheldon Avenue, requested denial of the project. He stated that he • lived at the corner of Sheldon and Wagner Way and he had to pick up trash every night from the existing facility. Bohlen was concerned about a concrete slab and if a spill did occur the asphalt would deteriorate quickly. Bohlen noted that the maintenance on the • current facility had been slow. Bohlen had also believed that the facility would be constructed as a professional office building. He was concerned about potential car fires and how the safety of the neighborhood could be insured. Doug Chesney, 16272 Sheldon Avenue, stated that he also was at the meeting when the original proposal was reviewed in 1986. Chesney stated opposition to a gas station in this neighborhood. He added that the Super America station was the largest gas station in Eden Prairie and questioned the need for another station in the area. Chesney believed there would be an increase in air, noise, and light pollution. Chesney also believed that traffic would be increased significantly. Chesney further believed that Eden Prairie would get an unused gas station in an unoccupied facility in an unhappy neighborhood. Randy Dertinger, 16370 Westgate Terrace, stated that he would not like to see any pumps or canopy developed on this site. He believed that making left or right hand turns in this area would be difficult. Dertinger was concerned about trucks delivering gas to this area. He added that spills did happen during deliveries and was concerned about the smell of gas fumes. Dertinger believed that traffic noise would increase in the neighborhood. Dertinger noted that it was already difficult for pedestrian traffic to cross County Road 4. Dertinger hoped that the Commission would take the neighborhood's concerns to heart. • Lee Clark, 16065 Sheldon Avenue, spoke to the Commission via a sign language interpreter. He said that he had enjoyed living on Sheldon Avenue and was concurred WTanning Commission ugust 26, 1991 Page Five with the concerns expressed by the other neighbors which had spoken. Clark stated that .he was opposed to gas pumps in this area no matter what. Hawkins asked Clark what he had noticed about the changes in the residential area traffic on Sheldon since the development of the shopping center. Clark replied that many more people were making u-turns. Hawkins then asked if there were many children in the Sheldon Avenue area. Clark replied that there were several children in the neighborhood. Michael Smith, 16056 Sheldon Avenue, believed that the neighbors concerns were valid. Smith was also concerned about the property values in the neighborhood and hoped that the Commission took into consideration these values in lieu of trying to help out a developer which can not lease the existing facility. �. Linette Koralewski, 16158 Sheldon Avenue, stated that she lived in the 2nd house in toward the east and the patio doors faced the east. She believed that the only way to stop the visual impact for her home would be to build a two-story wall. Koralewski said that there were three licensed day care centers in this area and was concerned about the safety • of all the children in the neighborhood. Hawkins asked Koralewski what part of the facility she would be able to see from her home. Koralewski replied that she would be able to see the entire parking lot. Steve Herrmann, 16395 Sheldon Avenue, stated that his home would be directly behind the gas pumps. He noted that it was already impossible to get to the neighborhood park and believed that the same will happen on Sheldon Avenue with the increase in traffic. Herrmann was concerned about the safety of the children in the day care centers. Herrmann stated that he had complained about the styrofoam on the back of the building to both the proponent and the City with no results. He added that he also has to pick up garbage continuously from the existing shopping center. Hawkins asked if the day care centers were licensed and how many children were involved. Hipp replied that each of the centers was licensed for 10 children each. Rhonda Lewis, 16128 Sheldon Avenue, stated that she lived on the cul-de-sac and traffic had even picked up in the cul-de-sac since the construction of the existing shopping center. Lewis was concerned about truck traffic in the area. Hawkins asked what Lewis believed was the cause of the increase in traffic. Lewis replied that the light was very long at the intersection and the shopping center itself. WTanning Commission ugust 26, 1991 Page Six Nancy Rossberg, 16227 Sheldon Avenue, stated that the apartment building across from the shopping center was for the elderly and she was concerned about the increase in noise and its impact on the elderly residents. Rossberg said that she had built a fence to help reduce the trash which blew into her yard. She noted that it was already noisy in the neighborhood and traffic had increased. Paul Scheper, 16299 Sheldon Avenue, stated opposition to the project. He was concerned about traffic backing up from Wagner Way onto County Road 4. Scheper was also concerned about the tanker traffic and the ability to make the turn. Ruebling reviewed the concerns voiced by the neighbors as the following: noise, lighting, two issues related to traffic; volume and stacking problems, trucks being able to negotiate the turns into the facility, possible spillage of gasoline, potential car fires (need information from the Fire Marshall), trash containment from the existing facility, slow response from the proponent related to complaints from neighbors, landscaping not replaced as per original proposal, difficulty of pedestrian traffic crossing County Road 4, traffic light at Wagner Way and County Road 4 not timed well, decrease in property values, concern for the safety of the children in the neighborhood and the three day care centers, and the question of a need for another gas station in this area. Sandstad asked Franzen where a screen wall would be located and how tall it would be. Franzen replied that the wall would extend from the property line to the north and would need to be approximately 15-18 feet high to be effective. Sandstad questioned if this would block most of the view. Franzen replied that Staff believed that the wall would mitigate most of the view; however, definite site line studies would be necessary. Norman stated that it was already difficult to get to the high school and community center because of the light on Wagner Way and County Road 4. Ruebling added that the traffic lights were closer together than in any other area in Eden Prairie. Ruebling noted that there were construction problems which enhanced the problem currently. Slawson questioned if the screen wall would obstruct the sight line going onto County Road 4. Lusian stated that the senior citizens are already having a difficult time crossing County Road 4. Lusian hoped the Commission would take into consideration the 160 signatures on the petition in opposition of gas pumps in the area. Koralewski stated that she lived in a split level home and would still be able to see over • the screen wall. lanning Commission ugust 26, 1991 Page Seven Ruebling advised the Commission of the three possible options; approval, denial, or continuance. Hallett stated that he had been on the Planning Commission during the original proposal in 1986 when the proponent had proposed an office-professional building with limited retail space. He questioned if the plan would have been approved if the potential of gas pumps had been mentioned at that time. Hallett noted that at one time a walkway over County Road 4 had been considered for the senior citizens. Hallett stated that he would have difficulty approving any project would increase traffic in this area. Hallett believed there were enough gas stations in the area. Sandstad concurred with Commissioner Hallett's statements and added that there were too many negative impacts to justify approval of the proposal. Sandstad was concerned about the potential for an increase in traffic on Sheldon Avenue. Ruebling asked if the City had any actual traffic counts to verify the amount of traffic currently. Franzen replied no actual counts; only projections. • Sandstad questioned if there was anything the City could do to improve traffic in this area. Hawkins asked Franzen if the traffic consultant was hired by the City or the proponent. Franzen replied the consultant was hired by the City. Hawkins believed that the traffic on Sheldon Avenue would increase more than projected and did not believe that the proponent had presented adequate proof to overcome the neighborhoods objections. Hawkins recommended denial of the project. Norman stated that she would strongly vote to deny any gas station in this area. Norman said this area was Eden Prairie's old downtown area and believed that it should be preserved and maintained. She added that this area was very visible. Ruebling stated that he had also been on the Commission during the original proposal review in 1986. He said that he did not want this facility to become another Outlet Center. Ruebling believed that there were several issues which specific answers were not available at this time and wanted to see further information before making a hard and fast decision. Ruebling believed that the neighbors had presented valid concerns. MOTION 1: Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. W,,,Planning Commission ugust 26, 1991 Page Eight MOTION 2: Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of L. A. Donnay for Zoning District Amendment within the Neighborhood Commercial District and Site Plan Review, all on 3.7 acres, for an addition to the Prairie Courts Shopping Center of a gas pump and canopy facility, with plans dated August 21, 1991, based on the following findings: 1. Increase in traffic on Wagner Way and Sheldon Avenue. 2. - Air and noise pollution. 3. Inability to screen gas pumps from residential areas to the north. 4. Traffic safety on Wagner Way and Sheldon Avenue. 5. Difficulty of access and maneuvering for tanker trucks from County Road 4 to • Wagner Way. 6. Visibility of lights from canopy could not be screened. 7. Traffic congestion at Highway 5 and County Road 4 intersection. Motion carried 5-0-0. Ruebling informed the residents that this item would still proceed to the City Council and there could be a chance that the City 'Council would approve the project. Ruebling requested that if the plan were,approved by the City Council that it be brought back to the Planning Commission. Roetering stated that many of the neighbors concerns were valid; but, the existing traffic problems in the area were not a direct result of the shopping center and did not believe that this proposal should be penalized. Roetering said the proponent would be happy to provide the Planning Commission with actual traffic counts. He added that the Planning Commission was taking the word of the residents over that of a profession traffic consultant. Roetering noted that this would not be a gas station, but rather a convenience store with gas pumps. Roetering said that he had talked with many of the senior citizens which were looking forward to a convenience store in this location because of the traffic. Roetering believed that many of the questions could be verified by more data. a WkTanning Commission ugust 26, 1991 Page Nine Hallett was concerned about a convenience store being successful in this location. Norman believed that other uses would bring more business to the area. B. STARING HIGHLANDS 2ND ADDITION by Tom Lofquist. Request for Preliminary Plat of one acre into two single family lots within the R1-22 Zoning District. Location: North of Ridge Road, west of Staring Lane East. (A public hearing) Tom Lofquist, proponent, presented plans to divide the one acre parcel into two parcels to construct single-family homes. Lofquist stated that he and his partner were excavators and builders. Sandstad asked if two homes would be constructed or if one home was existing., Lofquist stated that this would be the construction of two new homes. Norman asked where the driveways would be located. Lofquist replied the driveways would exit onto Staring Lane. Norman asked if the driveways could exit onto Gopher . Lane. Lofquist replied that this would not be feasible. Lofquist believed that this project would be a definite improvement to the area. Sandstad asked why the home was set so far west on the lot. Lofquist replied that he had been the builder of the home to the left and in consideration of the existing neighbors spectacular view had located the home to the west. Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the project based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report. He noted that the plan would need to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. MOTION 1: Norman moved, seconded by Hawkins to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 2: Norman moved, seconded by Hawkins to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tom Lofquist for Preliminary Plat of 1.01 acre into two single family lots based on plans dated August 23, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 23, 1991. Motion carried 5-0-0. �lanning Commission ugust 26, 1991 Page Ten V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS Norman suggested that the Planning Commission be given better maps to see exactly where the projects were located. VU. AD TOURNMENT MOTION: Hallett moved, seconded by Norman to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM. Motion carried 5-0-0.