Loading...
Planning Commission - 06/25/1990 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 25, 1990 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Christine Dodge, Tim Bauer, Julianne Bye, Robert Hallett, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad. 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 III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS 7:45 A. CHI-CHITS RESTAURANT, by Consul Restaurant Corporation. Request for PUD District Review with waivers as part of the overall Preserve Commercial Park North Planned Unit Development, on 2.23 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.23 acres for construction of an additional parking lot for Chi-Chi's Restaurant. Location: Prairie Center Drive and Crystal View Road. A public hearing. 7:55 B. HEDOUIST ADDITION, by Don Hedquist. Request for Preliminary Plat on 3.9 acres into 6 single family lots and road right-of-way with a variance for lots without frontage on a public road to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Location: 12900 Gerard Drive. A public hearing. 8:35 C. EDEN PRAIRIE ASSEMBLY OF GOD, by Eden Prairie Assembly of God. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial and Public Open Space to Church on 32 .7 acres, from Industrial to N-Com on 3 acres, and from Industrial to Office on 2.5 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 39.21 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 32.7 acres with waivers, Zoning District Change from I-Gen, R1-22 and Rural to Public on 32.7 acres, Site Plan Review on 32.7 acres, Preliminary Plat of 39.21 acres into 4 lots and road right-of-way for construction of a church and other commercial and office uses to be known as Eden Prairie Assembly of God. Location: State Highway #5 at Dell Road. A public hearing. Agenda Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, June 25, 1990 Page 2 9:35 D. ANDERSON LAKES CENTER 2ND ADDITION (EDEN PRAIRIE POST OFFICE) , by William S. Reiling. Request for a Zoning District Change from Rural to Office and Site Plan Review on 5.4 acres, Preliminary Plat of 13 .3 acres into 3 lots and 3 outlots for construction of a 46,598 square foot U.S. Post Office. Location: West of Highway #169, east of the Columbine Road/Garden Lane intersection. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT AGO625.BJS • EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY1 JUNE 25, 1990 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Christine Dodge, Tim Bauer, Julianne Bye, Robert Hallett, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad. STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary. ROLL CALL: Bauer and Sandstad absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Norman to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0-0. II. MEMBERS REPORTS •III. MINUTES MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Norman to approve the Minutes of the May 29, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 4-0- 0. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. CHI-CHITS RESTAURANT, by Consul Restaurant Corporation. Request for PUD Amendment Review and Site Plan Review for parking lot expansion on 2.23 acres. Location: Prairie Center Drive and Crystal View Road. A public hearing. Tom Mitchell, attorney representing the proponent, stated that the proposal was to enhance the existing parking. Presently 116 parking stalls were provided. A temporary arrangement had been agreed upon between the proponent and Lariat Companies to construct a 36 space parking area on the lot to the south of Chi-Chi's Restaurant. Mitchell noted that the preliminary bids which had been received to construct the parking lot were higher than anticipated and Chi-Chi's Restaurant may not proceed with the expansion. Hallett was concerned that the decision to proceed was being based solely on cost and not on need. Mitchell replied that • Chi-Chi's Restaurant currently met the City Code requirements for parking without the expansion. Hallett asked Staff if the City Code should be adjusted to require more parking spaces for restaurants. Uram replied that from the beginning, Staff had indicated that additional parking may be necessary; however, the project did meet City Code. Uram added that 1 parking space per 3 seats might be too lenient and should be looked at further. Hallett stated that he was concerned about the parking issue related to restaurants proposing to develop in the future. Norman asked what would happen to the parcel if Chi-Chi's Restaurant did not develop the parking lot. Mitchell replied that the property was owned by the landlord, Lariat Companies, which planned to develop the lot in the future. MOTION 1: Hallett moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 2: Hallett moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Consul Restaurant Corporation for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the overall Preserve • Commercial Park South Planned Unit Development Concept on 2.23 acres for expansion of the Chi Chi's Restaurant parking lot, based on plans dated June 19, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 22, 1990. Hallett asked if there would be any problem by approving the proposal when the proponent had indicated that it may not proceed. Uram replied that Staff had understood that the proponent would proceed immediately with the project; however, since the project currently met City Code requirements it would not make a difference if the proponent did not proceed. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 3: Hallett moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Consul Restaurant Corporation for Site Plan Review for the Chi Chi's Restaurant parking lot expansion, based on plans dated June 19, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 22, 1990. Bye concurred that the parking requirements per City Code should be given further consideration for future developments. • Motion carried 4-0-0. B. HEDQUIST ADDITION, by Don Hedquist. Request for Preliminary Platting on 3 .9 acres for single family residential. Location: • 12900 Gerard Drive. A public hearing. Frank Cardarelle, representing the proponent, presented 3 proposals for the Planning Commission's consideration. The alternate plans were presented because of the topography of the property and its affect on the development. Cardarelle presented the original plan with 6 lots and a public street. He noted that with this plan, the tree loss would be severe. The second plan showed the removal of the existing home. Cardarelle stated that the existing home could not be moved and would have to be destroyed. He added that the second plan resulted in grading problems, excessive tree loss, and a retaining wall would be required. Plan 3 proposed a private road, similar to the private road at Boulder Point. The impact on the trees and the hills would be reduced with Plan 3 . Cardarelle believed that Plan 3 would satisfy the majority of the concerns of the neighbors. This proposal would allow the Hanson's to utilize the road if they wished to develop their property in the future. Cardarelle said that the major concern was the grading for a public street and the resulting tree lose. The plans depicted actual floor plans currently being constructed by builders. The price range would be $250,000. Cardarelle noted that Don Hedquist was present to answer any questions. Cardarelle believed that the existing home could be remodeled to fit it with the 5 new homes proposed. Uram reported that the proponent had been working with Staff for approximately six months on this project. He stated that the difficulty with the project resulted from the existing home and the topography of the property. Staff recommended the use of the private road to save trees and reduce grading. Uram noted that the plan depicts 50-foot building pads and if the size of the pads were increased from those shown additional grading would be required. Uram stated that the value of the existing home was estimated at $75,000 and the new homes plan would be valued at approximately $250,000. Uram questioned the compatibility of the existing home with the new homes proposed. Uram reported that several options existed to change the plan. One lot could be eliminated. He added that the original plan had been for 4.5 lots. The reduction of one lot could save an additional 100 of the trees. Uram stated that Staff did not make a specific recommendation for this project, but was requesting direction from the Planning Commission. Ruebling arrived at 8:05 PM. Floyd Siefferman, 6997 Edgebrook Place, believed that the proponent was asking for special treatment because they had developed the front two lots first. Siefferman read portions from the City Code referencing the requirement for a lot to have frontage on a public street. Siefferman also believed that lot 6 was not 120 feet deep and did not meet the 25-foot rear lot setback requirement. Siefferman was concerned that emergency vehicles would not be able to turn around in the smaller cul-de-sac. Siefferman believed that the law was applicable to everyone and was not above that of one individual. Siefferman recommended a plan with 4 lots and a public street. Siefferman noted that the engineering report had reversed • the directions. Siefferman believed that the plan as proposed would not be consistent with the existing neighborhood. He concurred that removing the constraint of the existing home would improve the plan. Siefferman believed that a large portion of the 3.9 acres was actually part of the road right-of-way. Uram reported that City Engineer, Alan Gray had requested that he apologize for the error in the report and concurred that the directions were backwards. Howard Kaerwer, 12800 Gerard Drive, stated that the neighbors had tried to keep the property as natural as possible. NSP had dedicated 18 acres and he had dedicated 2 acres for a wildlife preserve area. Kaerwer was concerned about the effect of drainage during and after the construction of the new homes and the effect of the project on the creek. Kaerwer also voiced a concern regarding the density of the project and recommended a reduction in lots. Kaerwer concurred with Staff's concern related to an increase in the size of the building pads and the effect on grading. Barbara Kaerwer, 12800 Gerard Drive, stated that she was proud of the way Eden Prairie had developed. Kaerwer noted that the land which had been dedicated by them and NSP was used by the local schools to study nature. Kaerwer was concerned that nature would . be destroyed by this proposal. She believed that the homes would be much too close together as proposed. Kaerwer recommended that the existing home be removed. Kaerwer also recommended the development of a proposal which would result in less grading and a reduction in the impact to nature. Kaerwer was concerned about the watershed in the area. Karen Hanson, 13008 Gerard Drive, stated that she would prefer that this remain as one lot. Hanson noted that the other lots in the neighborhood were very large. Hanson stated that they had no intention of developing their property further at this time or in the future. She was concerned about emergency vehicles being able to access the homes because of the narrower road. Jerrold Miller, 7120 Gerard Drive, questioned the statement made by the proponent regarding the need to develop the project because the property was part of an estate settlement. Miller noted that Mrs. Beckman was still alive. Miller believed that Hedquist was simply a developer which wanted the City to allow him exceptions from the rules which applied to other developers. Miller believed that for public safety reasons the road should be developed as a public road. Don Hedquist, proponent, stated that he was the nephew of Mrs. Beckman and had purchased the property from his aunt. . Hallett believed that it did make sense to propose a private road to save trees and reduce the amount of grading needed. He added that 6 lots was too many and believed that the maximum lots should be 5. Hallett concurred that the existing home needed to be removed. The plans should be changed to depict 70-foot building pads in lieu of the 50-foot pads as presently shown. Hallett • believed that even with a private road 6 homes were too many. Bye stated that she could be persuaded to approve a private road if long-term benefits to the community could be shown. Norman believed that Eden Prairie had been forced into too many variances in the past, that the smaller cul-de-sac would be a public safety hazard, and that respect should be given to the long- term residences. Cardarelle stated that the original plan did show the use of a public road and did meet all City requirements for lot size and setbacks. Staff had recommended the consideration of a private road. There would be a 16-foot differential over the site for the development of a public road and a retaining wall would be required. Uram did not believe that this was the time to discuss exact details for the road location. Hallett concurred that the benefits of a private road versus a public road needed further consideration. Dodge concluded that the Planning Commission concurred that the item needed to be continued. • Uram stated that the original plan presented did meet City Code; however, it would probably not be approved due to the severe tree lose. Uram requested direction from the Planning Commission. Dodge asked if the Public Safety Department should review the plan. Uram replied that this private road was exactly like that used in the Boulder Point project. Norman asked who would maintain and plow the private road. Uram replied that a homeowners association would need to be established and that the residents would pay for the maintenance and plowing. Ruebling stated that he would prefer a plan with a public road and 4 lots. Ruebling believed that the houses were too close together with the present plans and believed that with 4 lots, more open space would be provided. Uram stated that the road would be public to the Hanson property. Norman concurred that the maximum number of lots should be 4. MOTION 1: Bye moved, seconded by Hallett to continue the public hearing to the July 23, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. The direction of the Planning Commission was a reduction in the number of lots, further discussion as to the benefits of the private road versus the public road and the relationship to the tree inventory, the removal of the existing home, and the building pads should be shown as 70 feet. Motion carried 5-0-0. • 8:35 C. EDEN PRAIRIE ASSEMBLY OF GOD, by Eden Prairie Assembly of God. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendments from Industrial and Public Open Space to Church on 32.7 acres, from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.0 acres, and from Industrial to Office on 2.5 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept on 39.21 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers, on 32.7 acres; Zoning District Change from I-Gen, R1-22, and Rural to Public on 32.7 acres; Site Plan Review on 32.7 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 39.21 acres into four lots and road right-of- way for construction of a church and other commercial and office uses. Location: North of State Highway #5, east of Dell Road. Location: State Highway #5 at Dell Road. A public hearing. Jim Basser, representing the proponent, reviewed the main points outlined in the application. Basser requested that the Planning Commission look at the parcel as a whole unit. Franzen reported that Staff was comfortable with the church and office land uses in this location, but did question the use of commercial development. Staff recommended consideration of alternate uses to serve the needs of the residents in the adjacent neighborhoods. Franzen believed that a neighborhood commercial project, such as a PDQ, would be more appropriate for the area. • Franzen noted that Attachment B recommended a shift of the commercial development further to the north. He added that the proposal as per Attachment B would also solve the access problems. Attachment C showed how the parking would be screened from the residential areas. Franzen reviewed the alternatives outlined in the Staff Report. Franzen reported that Staff was most comfortable with the 2nd Alternative and Attachment B. Norman asked if a traffic light would be located at the intersection of Highway 5 and Dell Road. Franzen replied yes. Norman then asked if the residents in the adjacent neighborhoods had been notified. Franzen replied that the standard notices had been mailed. Mary Hoff, 2657 Shenandoah Way, Plymouth, stated that she sold real-estate in the area adjacent to this project and was concerned about the view and about the protection of the wetlands. Hoff asked what the impact would be to traffic in the area. Basser replied that the Church also had the same concerns. The wetlands were protected by government agencies. Basser added that the Church intended to plant more trees to adequately screen the view to the north. Basser believed that the Church would be much more pleasing to the residents than an industrial project. Franzen replied that there would not be any grading in the wetland area. He added that the view would be open beyond the trees and a transition would be needed. • Brion Roberts, 20411 Ruth Meadows Lane, Rogers, supported the project. Roberts believed that the traffic patterns would be different from the industrial developments in the neighborhood and in Chanhassen and the use would be compatible. Dodge requested that the Planning Commission first decide if a Comprehensive Guide Plan change would be acceptable. Hallett asked Basser if the church was presently located in Eden Prairie. Basser replied yes, the church had a 20,000 square foot facility. Hallett then asked what the church intended to do with the present facility. Basser replied that the church had been placed on the market for sale. Hallett stated that he was concerned that 40 acres of property was being taken from the tax roll. Basser replied that the seller did not wish to sell only a 3 to 4 acre portion of the parcel. Basser added that the church would only be developing approximately 20 acres of the parcel. Ruebling asked how the property to the north of Dell Road was guided. Franzen replied that the property was fully developed and was guided low-density residential. Ruebling then asked about the property to the east of the proposal. Franzen replied that a small portion to the east was not developed, but was also guided low- density residential. Ruebling believed that the neighborhood commercial and office facilities should be developed further to the north as recommended by Staff on Attachment B and further recommended that the location of the office and the neighborhood commercial facilities be switched. Bye concurred that the commercial and office facilities be moved to • the north. Hallett stated that because the location of the property was the entrance to Eden Prairie it was important to screen the facilities adequately. Basser replied that the City was in control regarding the requirement for screening and the church would comply with the City's requests. Hallett asked why the church wanted to develop a private walkway rather than having the city develop the path. Basser replied that this did need further discussion. Dodge believed that the City preferred dedication of the property. Franzen replied that the location of the trail had not been determined. Norman concurred with the Staff recommendation on Attachment B and also believed that screening of the rear of the facility was important for the residents in the area. A discussion regarding the affect of the project on the tax roll took place among the Commission members. Franzen noted that the church had enough parking on the property to meet City Code and in addition the church would retain the right to use a shared parking area. Dodge summarized that the Planning Commission approved of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change for the church and office but felt that the change to commmercial was not justified. Franzen requested direction from the Planning Commission as to site plan issues. • Bye requested clarification on the Condition Use Permit. Franzen replied that Eden Prairie did not issue Condition Use Permits, the church is a specific use, but zoned public. Norman asked if this proposal was contingent on the sale of the existing church. Basser replied no. Dennis Batty, architect for the proponent, stated that there would be a 200-foot setback from Highway to the commercial buildings. Phase I will provide 170 parking spaces and will only cover approximately 17% of the site. The entire development will cover only 37% of the site. There will be 3 levels of parking. The proponent concurred with the Staff recommendation regarding screening. Batty stated that the spire height was restricted to 30 feet. Batty questioned where the 30 feet would be measured from due to the 60-foot slope on the site. Batty noted that the proponent had attempted to build the church into the side of the hill. The building needed to be higher than the 30 feet allowed. Batty noted that a portion of the existing hill would remain for screening and that a 5-foot high berm could be constructed along the entire portion of Highway 5. Franzen reported that Staff was not recommending a sausage berm, . but was recommending a variable height berm. Dodge asked if an agreement on the traffic restrictions would prohibit the church from developing a daycare center in the future if it so desired. Bye asked when the church would like to open for services. Basser replied that it was difficult to project. The church would like to sell the present site first. Hallett believed that the homeowners across the wetlands should be notified of the next public hearing. Basser believed that the gas station, restaurant, office, and church were compatible uses. Basser did not believe that Attachment B would accomplish the goals the Staff wished to accomplish. The gas stations which had indicated interest in the location were interested in the west bound traffic and would not be interested in being located 2 blocks from the intersection. Ruebling stated that what Basser had described for the gas station was not a neighborhood commercial zoning use, but a regional commercial development. Ruebling stated that he favored a neighborhood commercial development. Basser replied that what was being discussed was a gas station at an intersection versus a station 3 blocks away from the traffic. Franzen added that a neighborhood commercial use to serve residents • to the north does not rely on Hwy. 5 traffic as would a pumper gas like Amoco. Franzen noted that the Jamestown neighborhood commercial with gas was located 1000 feet south of Hwy. 5. MOTION 1: Bye moved, seconded by Ruebling to continue the public hearing to the July 23, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Dodge summarized the Commission's recommendations that the church and office use were acceptable. A neighborhood commercial gas station/convenience store would be acceptable, but a regional commercial (large restaurant and pumper gas) use would not be acceptable. The height of the spire was within appropriate limits. Parking requires better screening in order to provide better transition to the residential areas to the north. Notices of the next public hearing should be mailed out to residents across the wetland area. Motion carried 5-0-0. 9:35 D. ANDERSON LAKES CENTER 2ND ADDITION (EDEN PRAIRIE POST OFFICE) , by William S. Reiling. Request for a Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 5.4 acres, Preliminary Plat of 13.3 acres into • three lots and 3 outlots, and Site Plan Review on 5.4 acres for a United States Post Office. Location: Northwest quadrant of Anderson Lakes Parkway and U.S. #169. A public hearing. Brian Marshall, representing the Postal Service, stated that the facility would be a full-service post office with 51 employees to begin operating. Parking would be provided for 64 employees, 30 customer vehicles and 6 government cars. Property is available if expansion would be necessary in the future; however expansion is not expected for at least 10 years. Marshall explained the site selection process. The facility is expected to be completed in March 1992 . Ruebling asked if the building would fit in with the existing buildings. Marshall replied that the building would be a standard proto-type, but there would be flexibility in the brick color and the landscaping. MOTION 1: Ruebling moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 2: Ruebling moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of William S. Reiling for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 5.36 acres for construction of the Eden Prairie Branch of the United States Post Office, based on plans dated May 24, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 22, 1990. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 3: Ruebling moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of William S. Reiling for Site Plan Review on 5.36 acres, within the Office District, for construction of the Eden Prairie Branch of the United States Post Office, based on plans dated May 24, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 22, 1990. MOTION 4: Ruebling moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of William S. Reiling for Preliminary Plat of 5.36 acres into one lot for construction of the Eden Prairie Branch of the United States Post Office, based on plans dated May 24, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 22, 1990. V. OLD BUSINESS Franzen reported that there was no discussion at the City Council meeting regarding the letter to Kelly Doran. Ruebling asked if any action had been taken regarding the parking on the lawn at the Rueter Facility. Franzen reported that the • management of the Rueter Facility had directed the Staff to park on the lawn. He added that plans were being made to enlarge the parking area. VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNERIS REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Norman moved, seconded by Bye to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 PM. Motion carried 5-0-0.