Loading...
Planning Commission - 10/28/1991 AGENDA EDEN PRA-1-RIEE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 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; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS M. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. GOLF POINTE(91-24-Z-P)by Associated Investments, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 2.24 acres; Zoning District Change from • Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.24 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals; Preliminary Plat of 2.24 acres into 5 single family lots to be known as Golf Pointe. Location: South of Valley View Road and east of the abandoned Chicago & Northwestern Railway. B. TACO BELL (91-27-SPR) by Taco Bell Corporation. Request for Site Plan Review within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 0.56 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for construction of a restaurant to be known as Taco Bell. Location: Joiner Way, south of Goodyear Tire. V. OLD BUSINESS A. Trash Enclosure Discussion B. Public Hearing Notice Discussion W. ADJOURNMENT VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS VII. ADJOURNMENT EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COND41SSION APPROVED NIINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1991 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COM VHSSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, James Hawkins, Katherine Kardell, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad. STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: Hallett, Kardell, and Sandstad absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0-0. • H. MEMBERS REPORTS M. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. GOLF POINTE(91-24-Z-P)by Associated Investments,Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 2.24 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.24 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals; Preliminary Plat of 2.24 acres into 5 single family lots to be known as Golf Pointe. Location: South of Valley View Road and east of the abandoned Chicago & Northwestern Railway. Franzen reported that this item had been continued due to concern raised at the last meeting regarding storm drainage and sanitary sewer connections. He noted there had been a question as to whether the culvert had increased in size and he reported that the culvert had remained the same size and the amount of water going into the culvert had remained the same. Another issue of concern had been the amount of fill going into the flood plain area. Franzen reported that the amount of fill would be insignificant and would not cause a problem. Franzen noted there would actually 2 sanitary sewer lines serving this area. This particular project would go into a 10" line which would run along the railroad tracks and Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 2 would not affect the Fairway Woods development. Franzen stated that the City Attorney Pauly had stated that the liability issue would be the responsibility of the homeowner. Hawkins.noted that the homeowner being responsible was consistent with what the proponent had stated at the last meeting. Robert Larson, representing the golf course, stated a concern about potential water problems. He noted that the golf course had seen some stress in the last few days from the rain and questioned if this would increase with further development in the area and what he could look forward to in the future. Larson questioned the need for berming on the Valley View Road side of the project and added that he would like to see the berms on the golf course side. He did not believe the berm would have any benefit on the north side of the project. Larson noted that the golfer was liable; however, they were sometimes hard to pin down. He • added that the golf course was not liable. Larson was concerned about the amount of asphalt in the area and where the water would be coming from and where it would be going to. He noted that he did not have a problem with the project, but he didn't want further water problems. Tom Robertson, representing the proponent, stated that this project had been approved in 1988 for a more intense use. He noted the homes would be set much further back from the golf course than the original proposal and the overall affects of development would be less than the original. Robertson stated that the berming had been planned to stay with the natural lay of the land. Larson stated that he was pleased to see 5 homes in lieu of 15. He said that the golf course had done extensive reconstruction to handle the water more effectively and was concerned about this development and future developments affecting that reconstruction. Norman stated that she believed that Larson's issues were more with the City itself than with this particular development. Larson stated that he wanted to see the water stay on the course. He • added that the present system could handle up to 4" of rain without any problems. Planning Commission • October 28, 1991 Page 3 Franzen stated that he would have to contact the City Engineering Department for answers to what if anything was done during the road construction that would affect water run-off. Larson noted that the liability issue had been turned over to the golfer. Norman believed that homeowners on adjacent to a golf course were aware of potential problems. Larson added that since the golf course had gone private there had been fewer problems. Bauer believed that whenever the soil conditions were known to be bad better information on the integrity of the structure should be required. Ruebling asked if Bauer wanted to see soil tests. Ruebling believed that this information was required at building permit time. Robertson stated this area had been created by glacier pushes. He noted that the Building Inspection Department required special requirements. • Franzen noted that the City did have information about the soils for Valley View Road, which was adjacent to this site. Robertson stated that the original creek bed was further south of this development. Robertson noted that the cost between block and poured foundations was insignificant and was not a factor in determining which would be used. Bauer stated that he did not believe that special test should be done on every site, only those where soils were known to be in question. Larson stated that the area at the west end of the property was questionable; however, the site where the construction would take place had always been dry. Hawkins asked what type of care would be taken during development to assure the restriction of silt deposits in the creek area. Franzen replied that the Watershed District had very strict requirements which had to be adhered to by the developer. Planning Commission • October 28, 1991 Page 4 MOTION 1: Hawkins move, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 2: Hawkins moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City-Council approval of the request of Associated Investments, Inc., for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 2.24 acres for development of five single family lots to be known as Golf Pointe, based on plans dated September 13, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated October 4, and 25, 1991. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 3: • Hawkins moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Associated Investments, Inc., for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.24 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, to be developed as five single family lots and known as Golf Pointe, based on plans dated September 13, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated October 4, and 25, 1991. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 4: Hawkins moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Associated Investments, Inc., for Preliminary Plat of 2.24 acres into five single family lots to be known as Golf Pointe, based on plans dated September 13, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated October 4, and 25, 1991. Motion carried 4-0-0. B. TACO BELL (91-27-SPR) By Taco Bell Corporation. Request for Site Plan Review within the C-Reg-Ser District on 0.56 acre, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for construction of a restaurant. Location: West of Joiner Way, East of Highway #169, north of Prairie Center Drive. (A public hearing) Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 5 Franzen reported that the developer had requested a continuance to the November 25, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION 1• Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to continue this item to the November 25, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS A. Trash Enclosure Discussion Franzen reported that this issue had come about as the result of a continuing problem with Ciatti's trash area. Ciatti's had constructed the trash area as per City Code requirements; however, • the trash was more than the containers could handle. The City Council had directed Staff to investigate what type of trash containers and areas would work. Staff contacted some of the trash haulers and discovered that part of the problem was that the containers were inaccessible. Franzen stated that the ordinance suggested ways to develop the locations and sizes to work better. for everyone. Staff had contacted trash haulers, tenants, and project owners. The exact language of the ordinance would need to be developed by City Attorney Pauly. Hawkins recommended that the wording be changed to reflect both trash and recycling enclosures and that mandatory recycling space be provided. Franzen stated that many of the tenants had said that they would recycle if required. Franzen noted that some variances might be necessary for the older projects for setback or parking for the expansion of the trash enclosure areas. Norman believed that Staff had done a commendable job on this project. She added that it was evident that Staff had done a lot of research. Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 6 Bauer believed that it was a good idea to put this in an ordinance form. Hawkins concurred with the concept of the ordinance, but questioned who would actually write it. Franzen replied that Staff would write a draft form which would be reviewed by the City Attorney. Ruebling believed that recycling issues would increase'the need for an ordinance. MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Norman to recommend concept approval of the Trash Enclosure memo. Motion carried 4-0-0. B. Public Hearing Notice Discussion • Franzen reported that Staff had tried to develop a notice which was easy to read and to explain exactly what takes place at the meetings. Bauer stated that he was amazed that this had not been done before and added that the maps needed to be improved. He said that sometimes it was difficult for him to determine exactly where the development was located. Franzen replied that Staff had looked at putting a small map on the front and a larger one on the back of the notice. Bauer recommended that the sites themselves should be marked. Norman believed that it was important for residents to understand the different responsibilities of the various commission and the development process itself. Franzen replied that Staff could develop a one page attachment to explain these items to be included with each notice. Bauer concurred with that recommendation. Ruebling recommended that short definitions be included for important terms so that the residents had a better understanding. Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 7 VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Norman moved, seconded by Bauer to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 PM. Motion carried 4-0-0.