Loading...
Planning Commission - 07/09/1990 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION • Monday, July 9, 1990 7:30 p.m. 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. Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS 7:40 A. BORUCKI ADDITION, by Jim Borucki. Request for Preliminary Plat of . 62 acres into 2 single family lots within the R1-13.5 Zoning District. Location: 6517 Rowland Road. A public hearing. • 8:10 B. ST. ANDREW'S PARKING LOT EXPANSION, by St. Andrew Church. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Public on 3 .5 acres, with a variance to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Site Plan Review on 3.5 acres, Preliminary Plat of 12.4 acres into 2 lots, one outlot and road right-of-way for construction of additional parking spaces. Location: Northwest corner of Baker Road and St. Andrews Drive. A public hearing. 8:40 C. J & L ADDITION, by Frank R. Cardarelle. Request for Preliminary Plat of .56 acres into 2 single family lots within the R1-13 .5 Zoning District with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Location: 11081 Blossom Road. A public hearing. 9:15 D. MENARDIS 6TH ADDITION (A TO Z RENTAL) , by Jim Way. Request for Preliminary Platting on 1. 68 acres into 2 lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for a retail and service business. Location: 12450 Plaza Drive. A public hearing. • AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, July 9, 1990 Page 2 9:45 . E. R.G. READ OFFICEIWAREHOUSE, by R.G. Read & Company, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment and Site Plan Review within the I-2 Zoning District on 3.79 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 43,944 square foot office/warehouse building. Location: Edenvale Industrial Park. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT AGO709.BS • EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES • MONDAY, JULY 91 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: Dodge, Hallett, and Ruebling absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Norman moved, seconded by Bye to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0-0. II. MEMBERS REPORTS 1&71II. MINUTES MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Bye to table the Minutes of the June 25, 1990 Planning Commission meeting to the July 23, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. BORUCKI ADDITION, by Jim Borucki. Request for Preliminary Plat of 0. 62 acres into 2 single family lots within the R1- 13 .5 Zoning District. Location: 6517 Rowland Road. A public hearing. Frank Cardarelle, representing the proponent, presented the plans for a 2-lot plat. The existing garage would be removed and a new garage constructed. Cardarelle believed that an additional single-family home would buffer the Carmel project. Storm sewer and sanitary sewer would be connected. Turn- around driveways could be provided for each of the lots. Cardarelle believed that this proposal would be an improvement for the neighborhood. He added that proponent understood that Rowland Road needed to be upgraded prior to any development. • Franzen reported that the proposal met all R1-13.5 zoning requirements. Franzen noted that the main question was when the development should take place. The site distance needed to be corrected and Staff recommended that no Final Platting occur until the final alignment for Rowland Road had been determined and sanitary sewer connections had been made. Staff further recommended that the plans be revised to reflect turnaround driveways for both homes prior to City Council approval. Bauer believed that turnaround driveways were essential unless the road design changed drastically. Cardarelle stated that the proponent was comfortable with the recommendation for the turnaround driveways and that the Final Plat not be issued until the completion of the feasibility study. Bauer then asked if there would be any drainage problems created for the homes on the other side of Rowland Road. Fanzen replied that little grading would be required for the building pad. Bye asked for clarification on when actual construction could begin related to the Final Plat approval. Franzen replied that the proponent would have to wait for Final Plat approval before construction could begin. Bye then asked if the Feasibility Study showed that problems would arise from this proposal would there be time to make corrections prior to City Council review. Franzen indicated that the rise in the road to the north would be lowered to improve sight distance. The feasibility study would not be completed before Council • review. Bauer asked if the new road alignment would take a large portion of the proposed property. Franzen replied that the plat provides additional R.O.W. for Rowland Road Upgrading. MOTION 1: Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 2: Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Jim Borucki for Preliminary Plat of 0.62 acre into two single family lots within the R1-13.5 Zoning District, based on plans dated June 29, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 6, 1990 with the addition of turnarounds as per plans presented to the Planning Commission on July 9, 1990. Motion carried 4-0-0. B. ST. ANDREWIS PARKING LOT EXPANSION, by St. Andrew Church. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Public on 3 .5 acres, with a variance to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Site Plan Review on 3 .5 acres, Preliminary Plat of 12.4 acres into 2 lots, one • outlot and road right-of-way for construction of additional parking spaces. Location: Northwest corner of Baker Road and St. Andrew Drive. A public hearing. Pastor Rod Anderson, representing the proponent, stated that the church was experiencing congestion in the parking area. Anderson • noted that the current parking lot did meet City Code requirements. Anderson explained that the congregation was also investigating relocation of the church and had looked at over 25 sites to date. The church was requesting permission to use the recently acquired property adjacent to the church for a temporary parking facility for 37 spaces. Sandstad asked Anderson if the church had acquired Outlot A. Anderson replied yes. Sandstad then asked for clarification on the reference to temporary use. Franzen replied that City Code required that a hard-surface be provided and a variance would be necessary to proceed with a gravel surface. Sandstad asked if the land use approval for parking would be permanent. Franzen replied yes. Bye asked what time frame the church was proposing. Anderson replied that the church would like to arrive at definite conclusions related to relocation in 1990, but would like the temporary parking to accommodate members now. Bauer asked Anderson to present the rationale for the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Franzen replied that a notice for a hearing on the change to the Comprehensive Guide Plan had not been published and, therefore, this item would need to be continued. Bauer recommended that the proponent be prepared to address this issue at the July 23, 1990 meeting. Anderson stated that the • church's compelling reason for the change would be to utilize the parking for a special rally scheduled for the 2nd Sunday in September. Bauer stated that the compelling reason for the request should result in the benefit to the entire community. Franzen reported that Staff was initially concerned how the parking lot would fit in with surrounding uses and recommended that a neighborhood meeting be held. Staff further requested that the plans be revised to provide adequate screening of the parking area. Anderson stated that the church had invited residents to a meeting to discuss the proposal; however, no one attended. The church had also extended an invitation for neighborhood residents to stop in at the church office if they had any questions. Bye asked if the overall long-term plan was to acquire additional adjacent land for further expansion. Anderson replied that the church wished to eliminate on-street parking and to accommodate members. Franzen noted that the approval at this time was for a parking lot use. Bye then asked if the use could be considered a temporary use exclusive for the church. Bob Smith, representing the proponent, presented plans for the parking lot area. He noted that the parking lot was 8 feet lower than the street and proposed a 4-foot high berm. Smith stated that pine trees would also be planted. • Sandstad asked Smith if this plan had been revised in response to Staff's request for additional screening of the parking area. Smith replied yes; however, Staff had not seen the plans prior to this evening. Franzen replied that plant material alone would not screen the parking lot adequately and added that Staff would need time to review these plans further before a recommendation could be made. MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to continue the public hearing to the July 23, 1990, Planning Commission meeting pending revision by the proponent of the grading and screening plans in accordance with Attachment A of the July 6, 1990, Staff Report, and pending receipt from the proponent of substantiation of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the Property. The proponent should be prepared to present compelling reasons for the request for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. This item should be published for City Council review for the first meeting in August. Motion carried 4- 0-0. C. J & L ADDITION, by Frank R. Cardarelle. Request for Preliminary Plat of 0.56 acre into 2 single family lots within the R1-13.5 Zoning District with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Location: 11081 Blossom Road. A public hearing. Frank Cardarelle stated that he would like to continue with the subdivision as originally proposed; however, the existing home does not fit in with the present neighborhood. Cardarelle recommended that the existing house be removed and the property divided into two lots. He added that he had a potential buyer for the property if the lot could be subdivided. Cardarelle proposed that deed restrictions be placed on the property to only permit the construction of a maximum 2200 square foot home with a two-car garage. Uram stated that the main question for consideration was if the variance requests for a reduction in lot size from the minimum 13,500 sq. ft. were justified. Uram noted that the actual tree loss would need to be calculated on actual building pad sizes. He reported the request for variances would be heard at the July 12, 1990 meeting of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Steve Scriver, 9936 Windsor Terrace, believed that Cardarelle had only made half an effort to sell the property as it currently existed. Scriver was concerned about a reduction in the property values in the neighborhood. Scriver stated that because there wasn't a park in the area, the neighborhood depended on the larger yards for recreation areas and was concerned that if the current lot was divided into two lots, the yard area would be too small. Scriver supported a proposal to remove the existing home, but would like the lot to remain as a single lot. Patrick J. Finnegan, 9925 Bennett Place, stated that he lived adjacent to the proposed property and was in opposition to the request for variances. Finnegan stated that the property had not . been maintained and was an eyesore to the neighborhood. Finnegan said that he had been told that an existing shed would be torn down; however, this had not been done. Finnegan believed that if the property were properly landscaped, the home could be sold. Finnegan stated that he was not opposed to the home being removed, but recommended that the lot remain as one single lot. • Sandstad asked if the property lines were modified if the lots could meet the requirements. Uram replied that Staff had tried to have both of the lots come as close as possible to meeting the R1-13.5 lot size requirements. Finnegan asked for an explanation of the process for the variance request and the remainder of the process for approval. Commissioner Bye explained the process. Bauer stated that while he would rather see two nice homes on this property, he believed that property owners should be able to rely on what was proposed when they purchased their property. Bauer further believed that it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to protect the majority. Bye was concerned about the tree loss. Cardarelle stated that he would complete the grading in the front year and upgrade the exterior of the house; however, he believed that two houses of equal size would be preferable. Jane Kelly, 9900 Windsor Terrace, stated that she had purchased her home approximately 3 years ago and had been assured that the home would be brought up to the standards of the neighborhood. Kelly added that she was not disappointed with the home, but with the upkeep of the property. Kelly was opposed to the subdivision of the lot. Kelly presented a petition to the Planning Commission signed by 12 residents which passed by the Cardarelle property several times a day. Kelly was concerned about the tree removal on the property. The petition will be forwarded to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Bye to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 2: Bauer moved, seconded by Bye to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Frank R. Cardarelle for Preliminary Plat of 0.56 acre into two single family lots within the R1-13 .5 Zoning District, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for the J & L Addition, based upon the following findings: 1) The variances created by the subdivision are not justified and are self-imposed by the land owner. 2) The lots created are significantly smaller than those of the existing surrounding lots in the area. 3) The impact of the proposed subdivision is severe on existing natural site features, causing 144 caliper inches of trees to • be removed for the addition of one unit. Motion carried 4-0-0. D. MENARDIS 6TH ADDITION (A TO Z RENTAL) , by Jim Way. Request for Preliminary Platting on 1. 68 acres into 2 lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for a retail and service business. Location: 12450 Plaza Drive. A public hearing. Roman Roos, representing the proponent, stated that Phase II and III had now been completed and the owners proposed a commercial lot split. Variances would be required for the zero lot line setback to building and parking. A common resolution for the parking variance would be a cross parking easement. Roos said that because Eden Prairie was such a young community, zero lot line setbacks had not been done; however, several of the older surrounding communities did allow for this type of splitting of commercial property. Sandstad asked Roos if the proponent was familiar with the condominium split recommended by Staff. Roos replied that the proponent was aware of the condominium process; however, did not wish to pursue this avenue because a separate property identification number would not be created by this process. Uram noted that Eden Prairie would require the same type of • documents to be filed for the plat that would be filed for the condominium procedure. Roos stated that in Richfield, multiple ownership of strip malls was common and did not see anything wrong with an owner wanting to sell a portion of the building. Roos noted that in two surrounding communities, the splitting of the building was accomplished with a PUD Amendment. Roos stated that he could not see any reason why Eden Prairie should not allow the splitting of commercial property. Uram stated that a split in the building had not originally been anticipated by the proponent or Staff. Uram reported that Staff recommended that the proponent file a condominium plat. Staff believed this process to be the cleanest method for the City and still accomplished the goals of the proponent. MOTION 1: Norman moved, seconded by Bye to close the public hearing. Bauer did not believe that what took place in other communities was necessarily right for Eden Prairie. Bauer believed that other methods were available which would accomplish the goals of both the proponent and the city. Bauer noted that the method proposed by the proponent did not meet City Code. He added that if the • proponent chose to file for a condominium plat, the process would not require a review by the City. Jim Way, owner, stated that he understood that the condominium process could be done; however, both methods accomplished the same • results and the bankers had recommended the splitting of the property. Way added that he did not understand why the City was having a problem with this request. Sandstad replied that the proposal did not meet City Code and required variances. Uram added that a total of 5 variances would be required. Roos asked if there was a possibility that the present City Ordinance had some loose ends related to this type of request. Uram replied that the City Code was continuously being reviewed and updated when determined necessary. Motion to close the Public Hearing carried 4-0-0. MOTION 2: Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Jim Way for Preliminary Plat of Menard's 6th Addition (A to Z Rental) represented by plans dated May 24, 1990, based upon the following findings: 1) The proposed plat creates the need for variances which did not previously exist. 2) The proponent's purpose for the platting request, to split the property for mortgage financing purposes, can be accomplished through a condominium process, which would not produce the need for variances. 3) The platting of the property would create a precedence for such plats within multi-tenant buildings, many of which may not have been designed for such purposes. Motion carried 4-0-0. E. R.G. READ OFFICE/WAREHOUSE, by R.G. Read & Company, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment and Site Plan Review within the I-2 Zoning District on 3 .79 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5. 0 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 43,944 square foot office/warehouse building. Location: Edenvale Industrial Park. A public hearing. Wayne Jeskie, representing the proponent, stated that the same building plan was review last winter, but would now be constructed on twice the amount of land. Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the proposal based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report. MOTION 1: Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0. • MOTION 2: Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of R. G. Read & Company, Inc. , for Zoning • District Amendment within the I-2 Zoning District on 3.79 acres for construction of a 43,944 sq. ft. office/warehouse building, based on plans dated June 26, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 6, 1990. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 3: Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of R. G. Read & Company, Inc. , for Site Plan Review within the I-2 Zoning District on 3 .79 acres for construction of a 43,944 sq. ft. office/warehouse building, based on plans dated June 26, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 6, 1990. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 4: Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of R. G. Read & Company, Inc. , for Preliminary Plat of 5.0 acres into two lots for construction of a 43,944 sq. ft. office/warehouse building, based on plans dated June 26, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 6, 1990. Motion carried 4-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS • Bye recommended that the estimated times be eliminated from the public agenda. Bauer stated that it was frustrating to wait for the proponents when the meeting was progressing faster than anticipated. Sandstad believed that it was important for the estimated times to be made available for the Planning Commission. Franzen stated that it was typical for more residents to come to meeting during the fall and winter. He stated that the times would only be printed in the letter of transmittal. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 PM. Motion carried 4-0-0. Is