Loading...
Planning Commission - 08/27/1990 y-� AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 27, 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 A. 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 Amendment 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 continued public hearing. B. HEDOUIST ADDITION, by Don Hedquist. Request for Preliminary Plat on 3 .9 acres into 5 single family lots and road right of way with variances for lot frontage on a public road to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Location: 12900 Gerard Drive. A continued public hearing. • Agenda ` Monday, August 27, 1990 Page 2 C. DONNAYIS EDENVALE AND DONNAYIS EDENVALE II, by Sunset Homes Corporation. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 7.3 acres, Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Plat of 7.3 acres into 19 lots and 1 outlot for construction of 50 multi-family units within 10 buildings. Location: South of Townline Road and northwest of Edenvale Blvd. A continued public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. PLANNER'S REPORT VII. ADJOURNMENT pcagenda.827 • EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 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; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary. ROLL CALL: Dodge absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Hallett moved, seconded by Bauer to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0-0. II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Ruebling to approve the Minutes of the July 23, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 2-0-2 . Hallett and Sandstad abstained. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. 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 Develop pent Concept Review on 39.21 acres, Planned Unit Developnt 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 continued public hearing. Franzen reported that this item had been continued by the Planning Commission for further consideration of the location of the commercial facilities, transition to the residents to the north, and screening for Highway #5. Bye and Norman arrived. Janet Rowe, representing the Church, stated that the Church had revised the plans to accommodate recommendations 1 through 7 of the Staff Report; however, the Church requested reconsideration of recommendation 8. The Church requested that the additional 41 spaces be provided as part of Phase II. Rowe believed that adequate parking was provided for Phase I and said that the Church would return for a re-evaluation for parking as part of the Phase II review process. Franzen reviewed the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report for the residents in the audience. Franzen reported that Staff agreed with the request by the proponent to have the requirement for the 41 additional parking spaces as part of Phase II. Bye asked for clarification on the phasing of the project. Franzen replied that Staff was concerned about the traffic after the Sunday services and believed that it was important for the upgrading of Dell Road from Highway #5 to Valley View Road to have begun prior to any construct. Norman asked if Staff meant that construction of the Church could not begin until the upgrading of the roadways had been completed. Franzen replied that the construction of the roadways and the Church could run • concurrently. Sandstad asked if it would a level grade at the railroad tracks and if the railroad agreed with the layout. Franzen replied that the railroad agreed in principle. Hallett asked for clarification on the location of the trail. Franzen replied that a sidewalk and trail would be placed on either side of Dell Road. Franzen added that the Church would be responsible to connect a trail from Dell Road to the wetland area and then make a connection to the underground crossing proposed for Highway #5. Hallett asked if this site had ever been used as a landfill. Franzen replied that he did not have an answer at this time, but could check with the Pollution Control Agency. Rowe replied that an Environmental Review had been done by Braun Engineering and no hazardous materials had been found. She added that it had been used as a dump site for a toy company in Chanhassen at one time. Franzen noted that many of the lending agencies today were requiring this time of study prior of approving financing. Ruebling noted that the Staff report stated that the southern entrance would be a right in only and questioned if this should not be both a right in and right out. Franzen replied the right out had been omitted and would be corrected. Terese Waters-McCabe, 18119 Evener Way, was concerned that Evener Way was already carrying more traffic than what it was designed for and was concerned that the proposed development would only add to the problem. She noted that there were several small children in the neighborhood and was concerned for their safety. Waters- McCabe believed that Evener Way was currently carrying more than just local and neighborhood traffic. Waters- McCabe did not believe that the neighborhood would have access to the bike path as currently proposed. She questioned if the residents would have any assurance that the landscaping would be provided as proposed and recommended that money be placed in an escrow account as a guarantee. Ruebling believed that when Dell Road was upgraded the traffic problem would be reduced. Waters-McCabe did not believe that anyone could be certain that this would be true. She added that Dell Road was one mile further to get to Valley View Road, the speed limits for both Dell Road and Evener Way were the same, and by taking Evener Way stop signals would be avoided. Bauer asked if a traffic study had been done. Franzen replied that a traffic flow map was not done with the project. Franzen reported that the City had determined that the road systems in this area could adequately • handle the traffic once Dell Road was upgraded. Bye believed that part of the problem was the access to Highway #5. Franzen stated that Evener Way had originally been proposed as a cul-de-sac and had been redesigned to allow for better emergency access. Hallett believed that in time the traffic would reroute itself to use Dell Road once the upgrading had been completed. Norman believed that related to traffic the Church use for this parcel would be better than industrial use. Ruebling asked Franzen to address the concern regarding security for the landscaping. Franzen replied that the proponent was required to provide bonding for the landscaping and this money was held by the City until one full year had passed. He added that the City conducted an inspection of the landscaping after the first year. Franzen also noted that the Church would be providing an irrigation system would help to assure that the landscaping would thrive. Ruebling asked Franzen to address the issue related to access for the bike path. Franzen replied that only two connection points were identified and he concurred that the access for the neighborhood would be inconvenient. Waters-McCabe stated that a map which had been provided by the City which lead residents to believe that a connection would be made within their development, which had not transpired. Ruebling recommended that Waters- McCabe talk directly with staff regarding this issue. Bauer asked Franzen how the City determined when a traffic study should be conducted for a project. Franzen replied that it varied with each project and where the project was located. He added that in the Major Center Area all projects required a Traffic Study. Franzen stated that because Highway #5 was being upgraded and a signalized intersection at Dell Road and a connection made to Valley View Road it was determined that the road system could handle the traffic. Bauer concurred with the other Commissioners that probably once the upgrade of Dell Road was complete the traffic patterns would change; however, he did not have a traffic study which provided facts to substantiate this believe. Bauer believed that it was important to listen to the concerns of the residents which lived on this street who did not agree that the Dell Road upgrade would help their situation. Bye concurred. Waters-McCabe stated that there was a difference of opinion even from the City Engineering Department, depending on who you spoke with. • Lynn Wilde, 7546 Kimberly Lane, stated that Evener Way was a direct connection to the High School and the Community Center. He believed that Evener Way had become a major thoroughfare. Wilde was in favor of the Church being developed in this location; however, he also believed that a further study of the traffic should be done. Wilde believed that some assurance from the Railroad should be provided before the project should be allowed to proceed. He did not believe that the traffic problems should be left to work themselves out after the fact. Wilde was also concerned about trail access and recommended that the Church consider a land exchange with adjacent property owners to allow for a better trail access. Bye stated that the trail and bike path issues were for the Park, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission to consider and that the Planning Commission could only make recommendations as to their location. Ruebling asked Franzen to clarify where the sidewalks would be located. Franzen replied that a sidewalk would be located on one side of Dell Road and a trail on the other side; however, at this time it had not been determined which side would have what. Hallett believed that it was important for the City to encourage trail development in the early stages of proposals. Cindy Groven, 7531 Kimberly Lane, stated that even though her home backed up to the wetlands, she would still not have trail access without crossing over a neighbors property. Groven was also concerned about the increase in traffic. Groven added that the speed limit was fast on Evener Way. Judy McCorkell, 18223 Evener Way, questioned why the City would design a map with the trails shown and then it was never developed. Ruebling replied that these were all issues which needed to be brought before the City; however, he did not believe that it related directly to this project. Ruebling encouraged the residents to contact Staff directly. Julia Foote, 7603 Kimberly Lane, stated that she was frustrated at this point and did not know who to speak with. She continued that this evening the Planning Commission had indicated that the Parks, Recreation, & Natural Resources Commission was where the trail issue should be addressed; however, at the last Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission meeting the residents were told to address the Planning Commission. Franzen replied that at the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission meeting no action was taken because they knew that the final plans had not yet been approved • by the Planning Commission. Franzen recommended that the residents speak directly with Bob Lambert, Director of the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Department. Bye asked if this item had also been continued by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission. Franzen replied that until final plans had been approved by the Planning Commission the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission did not want to take action. Bauer stated that he believed that the residents would find the Eden Prairie City Staff very helpful and willing to discuss their concerns. Bye stated that the Planning Commission would take some action this evening to direct the plan. Jan Gill, representing the proponent, stated that it appeared that a traffic problem could be created with Dell Road becoming a 4-lane road rather than the Church creating a problem. Gill further believed that any development would increase the traffic more than the Church use. Rowe stated that she appreciated the neighbors concerns regarding traffic. She added that the Church had conducted a demographic study of its members and had found very few members from this northern section of Eden Prairie. Rowe also noted that this plan was a 10-year plan and would not be fully implemented all at one time. Sandstad questioned if the right-in, right-out access for Dell Road and the lack of access to Highway #5 would not force traffic to go north on Dell Road. Franzen replied that there were two access points provided, with the full access being to the north. Franzen added that the Church had designed an internal roadway system to direct traffic to the access points. Franzen noted that there would not be enough room for two full access points. Norman asked if it would be difficult to provide a median cut at the southern access. Franzen replied that the access was too close to the intersection. Bauer stated that he was comfortable with the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, but he was uncomfortable with the traffic because of the concerns raised by the residents which lived in the area. Bye stated that this area would be developed at some point and recommended a traffic management plan be developed for Evener Way. Hallett believed that this was an appropriate location for a Church. Ruebling believed that even a traffic consultant would have to make too many assumptions in this area. • Bye recommended that the City Council review the traffic issue further. Bye believed that Dell Road would be more responsible for traffic problems than the Church. MOTION 1: Bye moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Assembly of God for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Industrial and Public Open Space to Church on 32 .7 acres, from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial on three acres, and from Industrial to Office on 2.5 acres for a church and other commercial and office uses, based on revised plans dated August 24, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 22, August 10, and August 24, 1990. Motion carried 5-1-0. Bauer voted NO. Ruebling asked if all the plantings were to be done as part of Phase I. Franzen replied that this was part of the recommendations from the previous Staff Report. MOTION 3: Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Assembly of God for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 39.21 acres for construction of a church and other commercial and office uses, based on revised plans dated August 24, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 22, August 10, and August 24, 1990. Motion carried 5-1-0. Bauer voted NO. MOTION 4: Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Assembly of God for Planned Unit Development District Review on 32.7 acres, with waivers, and Zoning District Amendment from I-Gen, R1-22 and Rural to Public on 32 .7 acres for construction of a church and other commercial and office uses, based on revised plans dated August 24, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 22, August 10, and August 24, 1990. Motion carried 5-1-0. Bauer voted NO. MOTION 5: Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Assembly of God for Site Plan Review on 32.7 acres for • construction of a church, based on revised plans dated August 24, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 22, August 10, and August 24, 1990. Motion carried 5-1-0. Bauer voted NO. MOTION 6: Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Assembly of God for 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, based on revised plans dated August 24, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 22, August 10, and August 24, 1990. Motion carried 5-1-0. Bauer voted NO. Bauer stated for the record that he would have voted yes for the project if a traffic study had been done and if that study had stated that the improvements to Dell Road would eliminate the traffic concerns voiced by the residents. MOTION 7: Bye moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission that the trail system be examined to provide better access to the trail. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 8: Bye moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council that further review be conducted related to the traffic issues on Evener Way. Motion carried 6-0-0. B. HEDOUIST ADDITION, by Don Hedquist. Request for Preliminary Plat on 3.9 acres into 5 single family lots and road right of way with variances for lot frontage on a public road to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Location: 12900 Gerard Drive. A continued public hearing. Franzen reported that there was some confusion regarding notices sent out to the residents. It had been brought to the attention of Staff that several of the residents believed that this item had been withdrawn. Staff, therefore, recommended that this item be continued for any final action until the residents could be properly advised. Franzen noted that the proponent had agreed to .a continuation. Ruebling recommended that the proponent make a presentation this evening regarding the changes made to date. Frank Cardarelle, representing the proponent, stated that . the tree loss had been reduced and 70-foot building pads had been depicted on the plans. The plan consisted of 5 lots with 3 neck lots with private drives to each. The tree loss was calculated at approximately 23%; however, the proponent was willing to bond for the 37% tree loss. Franzen reported that the changes made to the plans were based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission at the last meeting to address tree savings and lot access. Franzen noted that a comparison had been provided in the Staff Report related to private road access versus public road access. He added that grading would be approximately 70% for a public road system. Franzen stated that normally Staff would not recommend for a project to develop a proposal with variances; however, there were times when flag lots were necessary to save the trees. Franzen noted that Staff used a very specific criteria for the consideration of flag lots. The lot sizes for this plan average approximately 30,000 square feet and the homes could be seen from the public road. Staff believed that this plan provided for the least amount of impact on the adjacent properties. Franzen noted that the tree loss percentages relied on the project being built according to the grading plan. Staff had planned for the larger houses based on a reasonable market expectation. Franzen stated that the tree loss was higher than average; however, based on the constraints for the property believed the calculated tree loss to be reasonable. It would be important for the deed restrictions and covenants to be placed on the property. Franzen reported that Staff had looked into the benefits of removing the existing home, but found that additional tree loss would occur. A conservancy easement would be given to the City and provisions included which prohibited the removal of trees or grading in the area. Staff believed that the proponent had provided a better plan. Norman asked where the access would be located for the existing home. Cardarelle replied that the driveway would remain as it exists today. Howard Kaerwer, 12800 Gerard Drive, stated that he was pleased to see the improvements in the plan. Kaerwer questioned the use of three separate driveways. The plan showed three 12-foot driveways, for a total width of approximately 54 feet to allow for space between each drive. He noted that the driveways would need to be sloped. Kaerwer stated that the original plan had shown a 24-foot wide private road. He believed that a cul-de- sac could be possible depending on the cut-in. Kaerwer was concerned about the drainage onto his property. He believed that the building pads were now closer to his property line, which left no place for the water to drain. Kaerwer was pleased to see the conservancy easement. Barbara Kaerwer, 12800 Gerard Drive, stated that she personally had an intense reaction to the tree loss because she and her husband had planted many of the trees in the area. She was concerned about the use of 3 separate driveways and recommended the use of a common drive so that the building pads could be moved further up the hill. Kaerwer recommended that the lots be reduced to four. She noted that there was still a significant amount of wildlife in the conservancy area and hoped that it would remain. Ruebling asked why 3 separate driveways had been proposed. Franzen replied that the initial concern had been for maintenance and private access. Sandstad asked if the undeveloped property would be considered an outlot. Franzen replied that a conservancy easement would be set up as part of a covenant. Ruebling recommended that the proponent consider consolidation of the driveways to one common drive. Hallett believed that the proponent had improved the plan. Franzen stated that a letter would be mailed out to residents which had been at the first Public Hearing. Kaerwer asked if the storm sewer line could be relocated. Franzen replied that another issue was storm water drainage, which would drain into the valley. He added that he would talk specifically with Bob Obermeyer and report back to the Planning Commission. Kaerwer asked if the storm water drainage could be connected to Nine Mile Creek. Ruebling summarized that the outstanding issues were the driveway access, sanitary sewer location, and storm water drainage. MOTION 1: Hallett moved, seconded by Bye to continue the Public Hearing to September 10, 1990. Motion carried 6-0-0. C. DONNAY'S EDENVALE AND DONNAYIS EDENVALE II, by Sunset Homes Corporation. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 7.3 acres, Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Plat of 7_3 acres into 19 lots and 1 outlot for construction of 50 multi-family units within 10 buildings. Location: South of Townline Road and northwest of Edenvale Blvd. A continued public hearing. Franzen reported that this parcel had been zoned medium density since 1982 and the proponent wanted to continue to build multiple unit buildings. Paul Donnay stated that 16 units had been approved in 1982 . The approval was for four 4-unit buildings, the same units as found at Round Lake. He added that Phase II would consist of two 4-unit townhouses, three 6-unit buildings, and one 8-unit facility. Donnay stated that the plan had been designed to save the larger trees. Ruebling asked what was planned for the outlot. Donnay replied that the outlot was undevelopable; it was a holding pond. Franzen added that it would be necessary to maintain the holding pond. Ruebling asked if it would be a permanent pond. Franzen replied yes. Ruebling noted that Mary Ericksen, 15157 Lesley Lane had been present to discuss the plan but had to leave before the item was presented. Doug Bakke, 15174 Patricia Court, stated that he had met with Donnay several times and was pleased with the appearance of the units. Bakke added that Donnay had assured the adjacent residents that the backside of the buildings would be made more attractive with shutters, etc. Bakke stated that Donnay had also assured the 40 residents that as much of the underbrush as possible would be left natural. Hallett noted that brick and shutters for the backside of the buildings was not part of the Staff recommendations. Donnay replied that shutters, dormers, and additional windows had been added to the plans. Franzen concurred that the backside of the buildings were plain. Donnay stated that brick had also been added to the back of the buildings. Donnay showed the Planning Commission the new design for the backside of the buildings. Hallett asked Bakke if this design reflected what he had expected. Bakke replied that this was exactly what had been discussed. MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Sunset Homes Corporation for Zoning District Amendment within the RM- 6.5 Zoning District on 7.3 acres for 50 multiple family units, to be known as Donnay's Edenvale and Donnay's Edenvale II, based on revised plans dated August 13, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 24, 1990. Motion carried 6-0-0. • MOTION 3: Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Sunset Homes Corporation for Site Plan Review on 7.3 acres for construction of 50 multiple residential units, to be _ known as Donnay's Edenvale and Donnay's Edenvale II, based on revised plans dated August 13, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 24, 1990. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 4: Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Sunset Homes Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 7.3 acres into 19 lots and one outlot for construction of 50 multiple residential units, to be known as Donnay's Edenvale and Donnay's Edenvale II, based on revised plans dated August 13, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 24, 1990. Motion carried 6-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS Hallett asked if stop lights were being installed on County Road #1 and Franlo Road. Franzen replied yes. Hallett believed that the lights on County Road #4 had been approved at the same time as County Road #1 and asked when the lights for County Road #4 would be installed. Franzen replied that he would need to check with Alan Gray. Bye asked if the Engineering Department could provide the Planning Commission with an update periodically. Ruebling recommended that the pedestrian traffic on Anderson Lakes Parkway and Highway #169 also be reviewed. Norman stated that she would like to know how much property had been zoned but had not been developed at this time. Franzen noted that some of the zoning was 20 years old. Franzen added that with the new Site Plan Review Ordinance a plan was null and void if not developed within two years after approval. VI. PLANNER'S REPORT VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bye moved, seconded by Norman to adjourn the meeting at 10: 00 PM. Motion carried 6-0-0.