Loading...
Planning Commission - 11/25/1991 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION }Monday, November 25, 1991 '407 30 p.m. COMNIISSION 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. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. 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. B. BRAXTON POND (91-29-Z-P) by Westar Properties, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 3.6 acres; and Preliminary Platting of 3.6 acres into six single family lots and road right-of-way to be known as Braxton Pond. Location: south and west of the terminus of existing Braxton Drive. C. LORENCE 3RD ADDITION (91-30-Z-P) by Peter Knaeble. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 0.07 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 0.87 acres into two single family lots and one outlot to be known as Lorence 3rd Addition. Location: southeast corner of Valley View Road and Hames Way. D. DEVAAN PROPERTY (91-32-Z) by Herbert DeVaan. Request for Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 0.58 acres for construction of a single family home. Location: Lot 7, Block 2, Lake Trail Estates. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS VII. ADJOURNMENT EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, NOW-AMER 259 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: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: Bauer absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Hawkins to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0-0. H. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES MOTION: Norman moved, seconded by Hawkins to approve the Minutes of the October 28, 1991 Planning Commission meeting with the following correction: The time of the meeting should be changed to begin at 8:00 PM. Motion carried 3-0-3. Hallett, Kardell and Sandstad abstained. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Kardell to approve the Minutes of the November 4, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 4-0-2. Hallett and Hawkins abstained. Planning Commission November 26, 1991 Page 2 IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. 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. (A continued public hearing) Franzen reported that the proponent had requested a continuance to the December 9, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Ruebling noted that this had been the third request for a continuance. Hawkins asked why there had been so many requests for continuance. Franzen replied that Staff had been working with Taco Bell for several months on the project. He added that the site plan was tight because of the size and shape of the site. Franzen noted that the proponent would • either have a plan available at the next meeting or would withdraw their request. Hawkins was concerned that possibly residents had attended that last 3 meetings regarding this issue and had been inconvenienced by the requests for continuance. Franzen replied that the property was with a commercial area and Staff had not received any inquiries on this project. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Hawkins to continue to the December 9, 1991, Planning Commission with the understanding that this will be the last opportunity for a continuance of this item, if plans are not available for review the item will be returned to the proponent without prejudice. Motion carried 6-0-0. B. BRAXTON POND (91-29-Z-P) by Westar Properties, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 3.6 acres; and Preliminary Platting of 3.6 acres into six single family lots and road right- of-way to be known as Braxton Pond. Location: South and west of the terminus of existing Braxton Drive. (A public hearing) Planning Commission November 26, 1991 Page 3 Ron Bastyr, representing the proponent, stated that the proposal was for 6 single family lots. The proponent concurred with the Staff recommendations. Franzen reported that the proposed site had been guided low density for several years. Braxton Drive would become the access to the elementary school. The proposal was in compliance with the R1-13.5 zoning requirements. Franzen noted that the timing of the project had to be done in conjunction with the Braxton Drive construction and Westar Lane would be a temporary cul-de-sac. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the Staff recommendations. Sandstad asked if Braxton Drive existed currently north of the proposed site. Franzen replied that Braxton Drive would run from County Road 1 to Scenic Heights Road and added that Braxton drive did not exist north of the site at this time. iRuebling asked if Westar Lane aligned with School Drive. Franzen replied no. Bastyr added that Westar Lane was approximately 500 feet to the north of School Drive. Ruebling noted that 1 of the homes would have access directly onto Braxton Drive and asked if there would be other in the future. Franzen replied that Braxton Drive would be a local collector which can accommodate a limited number of driveways. MOTION 1: Norman moved, seconded by Hallett to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Norman moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Westar-Properties, Inc., for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 3.6 acres, to be known as Braxton Pond, based on plans dated November 15, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 22, 1991. Motion carried 6-0-0. Planning Commission • November 26, 1991 Page 4 MOTION 3: Norman moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Westar Properties, Inc., for Preliminary Plat of 3.6 acres into six (6) single family lots and road right-of-way to be known as Braxton Pond, based on plans dated November 15, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 22, 1991. Motion carried 6-0-0. C. LORENCE 3RD ADDITION(91-30-Z-P)by Peter Knaeble. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 0.07 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 0.87 acres into two single family lots and one outlot to be known as Lorence 3rd Addition. Location: Southeast corner of Valley View Road and Hames Way. (A public hearing) Peter Knaeble, the proponent, presented to subdivide a 1 acre lot into 2 lots. He added that a home presently existed on the western portion of the iproperty and the plan was to subdivide the property to create a buildable lot to the east. Norman asked how close the existing home was to Round Park. Knaeble replied the park was approximately 75 to 80 feet from the back of the existing home. He added that the existing driveway actually went through park property. Hawkins asked if the existing home was considered an historical building. Knaeble replied that the home was constructed in the early 1900's and would be maintained in its current state. Ruebling asked-if there would be enough room to provide a turn-around on the property. Knaeble replied yes. Ron Harvey, 7335 Hames Way, stated that he lived adjacent to the proposed site and stressed the need to be sensitive to the trees on the site. He added that after seeing the plans he believed that Knaeble had addressed the issue adequately. Knaeble replied that only one 11" cedar tree would be removed from the site. Norman asked if it would be possible to have the existing driveway iremoved and use a combined driveway for the two lots. Knaeble replied Planning Commission November 26, 1991 Page 5 that the City's engineering department had recommended that the existing driveway be left in place. Norman believed that to go west from the driveway would be almost impossible and questioned the use of a joint driveway. Franzen added that the critical issue was where the driveway was in relation to Hames Way intersection. Knaeble replied that the drive would be approximately 145 feet from the intersection. Franzen added that the provision for a turn-around was a good recommendation. Sandstad asked if a turn-around would be provided on the second lot. Knaeble replied that he wouldn't know that until an exact builder had be determined. MOTION 1• Hallett moved, seconded by Kardell to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Hallett moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Peter Knaeble for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 0.07 acre, to be known as Lorene 3rd Addition, based on plans dated November 22, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 22, 1991 with the addition of Recommendation#3 for the provision of a turn-around on Lot 2. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 3: Hallett moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Peter Knaeble for Preliminary Plat of 0.87 acre into two (2) single family lots and one outlot to be known as Lorence 3rd Addition, based on plans dated November 22, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 22, 1991 with the addition of Recommendation #3 for the provision of a turn-around on Lot 2. Motion carried 6-0-0. D. DEVAAN PROPERTY (91-32-Z) by Herbert DeVaan. Request for Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 0.58 acre for Planning Commission November 26, 1991 Page 6 construction of a single family home. Location: Lot 7, Block 2, Lake Trail Estates. (A public hearing) Herbert DeVaan, the proponent, stated that he had a signed purchase agreement for the property if the property could be rezoned for single- family use. He noted that there was another single-family lot adjacent to this lot. Sandstad asked if there were duplexes to the east of the proposed site. DeVaan replied that there were 2 duplexes in the cul-de-sac and the balance of the homes were single-family. DeVaan stated that he had originally planned to construct a double home on the lot; however, the present builder planned to construct a single- family home. Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the proposal based on the Staff recommendations. He added that the lots needed to be combined and the existing utilities needed to be abandoned. DeVaan stated that he had already gone through the process to combine the lots. Sandstad asked if there was a berm to the east of the site. DeVaan replied that the berm was constructed by the original developer. Richard Kettler, 7790 Carnelian Lane, stated that according to the City another berm could not be placed on the property because of the close proximity to the highway. Kettler believed that the noise level was too high for construction of anything on this lot. Sandstad asked Kettler where he lived. Kettler replied that he lived in the duplex to the east, approximately 50 feet from the existing highway. Hawkins asked Kettler if it was highway noise that he was concerned about. Kettler replied yes. DeVaan stated that he had talked with another resident in the neighborhood who had indicated that the noise level was not a major issue. Planning Commission • November 26, 1991 Page 7 Hawkins asked Kettler if the noise level had increased recently. Kettler replied that the noise had increased in the past few weeks since the highway had been opened up. Franzen noted that the possible closure of Heritage Lane would be discussed at the December 3, 1991 City Council meeting. Norman questioned why anyone would want to construct a home on this parcel. DeVaan replied that the property was being sold for approximately half of any other parcel in Eden Prairie. Sandstad stated that there were many things during the construction of a new home which could reduce the noise problem. Hawkins asked if either Kettler or DeVaan had been contacted by the State regarding condemnation for Highway 5. DeVaan replied no, the only thing that was offered was $100 for egress damage. Ruebling stated that road noise traveled a long way. Hallett believed that DeVaan had the right to develop his property. Kardell believed that the buyer had to be aware of the problem. Sandstad believed that the price of the property reflected that a problem existed. Mrs. Kettler, 7790 Carnelian Lane, stated that they were not opposed to development of the property. She added that they had tried to sell their home 3 times unsuccessfully. MOTION 1• Kardell moved, seconded by Hawkins to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Kardell moved, seconded by Hawkins to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Herbert DeVaan for Zoning District Change • Planning Commission November 26, 1991 Page 8 from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 0.58 acre, to be known as DeVaan Addition, for construction of a single family house, based on plans dated October 25, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 22, 1991. Motion carried 6-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS Hallett believed that the Viking Center was extremely large, highly visible and looked like a tin shed. Franzen stated that the building had been moved further back from Washington Avenue to save trees and the developer had been held responsible for full tree replacement on the property. Franzen believed that the building was more visible than originally expected. Hallett believed it would help if the front of the building were dressed up a little. Hallett questioned the use of 2 different color bricks on the post-office. Hallett added that the screening was done poorly. Franzen noted that the Post Office had informed the City that they would go through the process as a formality but the Federal Supremacy Act overruled any City requirements. Hallett believed that the project had not been done in the usual Eden Prairie quality. Norman questioned if the Planning Commission had actually seen the brick samples used on the Cub Food building. She had not remembered the salt and pepper color. Norman was also concerned about the close proximity to the road. Franzen replied that the close proximity to the road had been discussed during the meeting. It was due to the enclosed loading area. Norman asked if more of the major roads could be marked on the maps to help identify the proposed site locations. Franzen reported that the City had been asked to consider the possibility of student members on the various commissions and what role they might play in the process. Planning Commission November 26, 1991 Page 9 Norman asked if the students would be able to vote. Franzen replied that would not be allowed to vote, but would participate openly in the plan discussions. Ruebling stated that the School Boards had 1 to 2 students attend their meeting. Hallett believed it would be a great experience. Norman believed that it would be a large commitment for a young adult and recommended that the terms be short or have several students rotate. Ruebling concurred that it would be a good opportunity. Kardell asked if this would be part of a specific class requirement. Franzen replied that it could be a special credit project. Hawkins asked if the students would participate during the summer months. Franzen replied that he was not sure at this time. Hallett believed that the students should participate during the summer and accept full responsibility and run for a full term to see all the ups and downs of the job. Hawkins recommended two members for six month terms. Franzen stated that a new Wetland Conservation Act was under consideration. This would affect the review of plans adjacent to wetland areas. He added there would be additional requirements on projects adjacent to the wetlands. Franzen noted that the City had already considered the possibility of a Wetland Ordinance. The main problem was the different agencies arriving at a concurrence on the exact definition of a wetland. One of the requirements'would be that if fill was done in a wetland area an equal amount of wetland area would need to constructed within that Watershed District. Franzen noted that the wetland property could go down in value. Franzen reported that the Planning Commission would be briefed after the first of the year on how to review plan in accordance with the new State Regulations. He added that basically in Eden Prairie the development had stayed away from wetland areas. Franzen stated that the new NX.R.P. ponds created cleaner water going into the wetland areas. Sandstad believed that this was important for Eden Prairie because of the number of wetlands in existence. Planning Commission November 26, 1991 Page 10 Hawkins asked about the wetland next to Flagship. Franzen replied that at one time the entire area had been agricultural. Franzen believed that the 90's would bring about many environmental issues for City Staff to review. These new laws would help to preserve the natural character of the land. VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION• Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 PM. Motion carried 6-0-0.