Loading...
Planning Commission - 08/28/1989 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 28, 1989 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Christine Dodge, Doug Fell , Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Douglas Sandstad STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES A. June 12, 1989 IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS *NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED BELOW ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER THAN LISTED. . (7:35) A. EDEN PRAIRIE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT (FESTIVAL CENTRE) , by Curt Johnson Properties. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment and Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.2 acres with waivers. Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 16.2 acres and Site Plan Review on 16.2 acres for development of a 153,756 square foot commercial retail and entertainment complex. Location: East of Plaza Drive and south of Valley View Road. A continued public hearing. (8:15) B. BURNETT ADDITION, by Transtar. Request for Preliminary Plat of 4.57 acres into 9 single family lots. Location: 9940 Bennett Place. A public hearing. (8:45) C. NELSON ADDITION. by David Nelson. Request for Zoning District Change and Preliminary Plat on 2.41 acres into 6 single family lots. Location: 9950 Bennett Place. A public hearing. (9:15) D. BLUFFS WEST 8TH, by Hustad Development. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 2.12 acres and Preliminary Plat of 2.12 acres into four single family lots, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Location: North of Bluestem Road & access off Bennett Place. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT • PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1989 7 : 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Christine Dodge, Doug Fell STAFF MEMBERS : Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Scott Kipp, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA, MOTION• Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad .to approve the Agenda as published . Motion carried 5-0-0 . II . MEMBERS REPORTS III . MINUTES MOTION• Ruebling moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Minutes of the June 12, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as published . Motion carried 5-0-0 . IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. EDEN PRAIRIE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT (FESTIVAL CENTRE) , by Curt Johnson Properties . Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment and Planned Unit Development District Review on 16 . 2 acres with waivers . Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 16 . 2 acres and Site Plan Review on 16 . 2 acres for development of a 153,756 square foot commercial retail and entertainment complex. Location: East of Plaza Drive and south of Valley View Road . A continued public hearing. Scott Kipp reported that the proponent had returned to the Planning Commission to address the signage proposal for the site . A preliminary image sketch with the proposed • signage was presented to the Planning Commission. Ron Krank, representing the proponent, stated that a 4 foot signage band area was being proposed for the south Planning Commission Minutes 2 August 28, 1989 • and east sides of the building with 36 inch letters. Kipp stated that the previous sign plan has been revised to remove any and all signage from the 40 foot marquee . The revised plan provides for a sign band to run along the face of the colonnade at the same height as the building's signage band area. Kipp reported that Staff recommended approval of the project with the addition that a restrictive covenant be implemented to limit the location of signage to the south and east building elevations only. Sandstad asked for clarification on the restrictive covenant. Kipp replied that a covenant had been written for the Factory outlet Center to limit the amount of signage for the site because of a trade-off for the 58 foot pylon sign along the I-494 frontage and to protect the City of the addition of any more future pylon signs . Sandstad then asked if there would be any restriction placed on the sign design or color scheme . Kipp replied that the sign criteria would be reviewed by Staff . Krank stated that the signs would be consistent with City code using individual internally lit letters . • MOTION 1 : Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0 . MOTION 2 • Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Curt Johnson Properties for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment for a 153,756 square foot commercial, retail, and entertainment complex to be know as the Festival Centre, based on revised plans dated August 11, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated July 7, August 11, August 24, and August 25, 1989 . Motion carried 4-0-0 . MOTION 3• Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Curt Johnson Properties for Planned Unit Development District Review on 16 . 2 acres, with waivers, and Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District for development of a 153, 756 square foot commercial, retail, and entertainment complex to be known as Festival Centre, based on revised • plans dated August 11, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated July 7, August 11, August 24, and August 25, 1989 . Motion carried 4-0-0 . Planning commission Minutes 3 August 28, 1989 MOTION 4 • Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Curt Johnson Properties for Site Plan Review on 16 . 2 acres for development of a 153,756 square foot commercial, retail and entertainment complex to be known as the Festival Centre, based on revised plans dated August 11, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated July 7, August 11, August 24, and August 25, 1989 . Motion carried 4-0-0 . B. BURNETT ADDITION, by Transtar. Request for Preliminary Plat of 4 . 57 acres into 9 single family lots . Location: 9940 Bennett Place . Peter Knable, representing the proponent, presented the plan for a 9 lot subdivision on 4 . 57 acres which complied with all City Codes and Ordinances . Although the Staff Report recommended a private drive for two lots in lieu of a future cul-de-sac, the developer would prefer the original plan. Knable noted that the road as currently proposed would provide for the center of the road to be directly across from a 3 car garage . The proponent was concerned that by moving the road to the north five • significant oak trees would be lost, which would be approximately an additional 95 caliper inches . Also by moving the road to the north the corner lot would require a variance . The original plan by the proponent had been for 2 cul-de-sacs and no through street connection to Purgatory Road. Knable stated that a neighborhood meeting had just been held earlier this evening. Anderson asked if the setback and lot size could be met on the corner lot . Franzen replied that a standard setback and lot size could be met by reconfiguring lot lines . Franzen reported that Staff was concerned about piece meal development in this area. Staff had made roadway recommendations based on City Council policy that the use of cul-de-sacs should be minimized . The through street would provide for additional routes for emergency vehicles . Franzen stated that a significant amount of fill would be required on this parcel if the cul-de-sac from the Hustad property was extended to serve the back lots . The overall road plan as prepared by Ron Kruger 's office in 1988 depicted this back area as being served by a cul-de-sac, however, a grading plan and tree inventory was not available at the time . After reviewing the grading necessary to extend the cul-de-sac and resultant 50% tree loss, it made more sense to create flag lot access by driveway. Sight distance was taken into careful consideration regarding the access paint on Bennett Place . Residents were concerned about headlights shining into the Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 28, 1989 . homes of the neighbors directly across from the entrance road. Franzen noted that the road could be moved only 20 feet to the north and a variance would not be required on the corner lot. A 4 foot retaining wall was currently proposed to save the trees and the realignment of the road would not change this. Franzen stated that Staff was recommending approval of the project with the realignment of the roadway to the north with flag lots, and that the project adhere to the Tree Replacement Policy. The construction of an east/west trail system is along the street extension. Variances would be required on the flag lots as they would lack frontage on a city street. Patrick Finnegan, 9925 Bennett Place, stated that he owned the home directly across from the access point and was concerned about the headlights shining in his home and was also concerned for the safety of the children in the neighborhood with the increase from the roadway being extended. Finnegan said that it was human nature to speed to get up the steep hill and, therefore, the speed on Bennett Place was too fast. He and other neighbors had talked with the police department to try to slow down the traffic. Finnegan stated that he would prefer to see a a- way stop sign at the intersection. He encouraged the proponent to adhere to Staff 's recommendation to move the • road at least 20 feet to the north and would prefer that it be moved 30 to 35 feet if possible. Bye commented that the Planning Commission could not have a stop sign placed at the intersection, but could request that other City bodies look into the issue . Randy Stoneman, 9947 Bennett Place, agreed that the road should be moved 20 feet to the north. He believed that it made good planning sense to keep the access road away from the Finnegan driveway. Stoneman asked if it was difficult to massage lot lines because it seemed that the proponent was opposed to seeking a variance on the corner lot . ,lane Kelly, 9900 Windsor Terrace, stated there was constant traffic on Bennett Place and the traffic was moving too fast. Kelly was concerned that someone was going to get seriously injured. Susan Boutin, 11407 Creekridge, concurred with the other neighbors about the potential increase in traffic and the current speed of the traffic; however, she was also concerned about the about the tree loss in the flag lot areas and about having a substandard home built on the corner lot if thy.• size of the lot was reduced . • Tom Ganbucci believed that the headlight issue could be resolved with a height elevation of the road being adjusted . Ganbucci also believed that it would be in the Planning Commission Minutes 5 AugUSt 28, 1`89 city's best interest to have public streets throughout the subdivision rather than flag lots . He said that if the road was moved in any direction either another tree would be lost or the headlights would shine in someone 's windows . Ganbucci stated that he would be willing to construct a barrier of some type or provide landscaping to mitigate the headlight issue . The road was at 80 grade and he did not believe should really be an issue. Ganbucci stated that he could not solve everyone 's problems and added that the road access point as presently proposed would be directly across from a three-car garage. Ganbucci did not believe that this proposal was creating any safety issues for the neighborhood. Ganbucci stated that the tree loss would be intensified with the use of the flag lots and was concerned about the two lots being missed by emergency vehicles . Bob Anderson, 11263 Creekridge Drive, stated that the traffic on Bennett Place was currently significant and that speed of the traffic was a safety issue . He believed that it was a good idea to consider a 3-way stop sign. Anderson noted that the Cardarelle development was at a significantly higher grade. Don Schober stated that it was not possible for the cars • coming from either direction to see one another when coming up the hill because of the angle of the road . He believed there would be a serious accident one day. Franzen stated that sight distances were based on a 30 mile per hour speed. Franzen added that Staff had measured site distance on Bennett Place in the field to verify that site distance criteria was met. Ruebling asked if the sight distances were measured from where a car would normally stop at the stop sign. Franzen replied yes . Ruebling asked if the retaining walls had to be moved if more trees would be saved. Knable replied that the trees were set 25 feet from the retaining walls. He added that the 18 and 19 inch oaks would be lost and in addition another 18 inch and a 28 inch oak would be lost on the lot to the north if the road were moved because of the house pads . Franzen noted that all of the trees would have been lost due to site grading for the homes not because of the road shift . Hallett asked if a variance would be required on the corner lot if the road were moved or if the lot lines • could be adjusted . Franzen replied that a variance would not be required on the corner lot if the road were only moved 10 feet to the north. If the road is shifted 20 feet, a variance would not be needed if the west lot line Planning Commission Minutes 6 August 28, 1989 • is moved 10 feet to the west, so the lot size would be the same . Hallett believed that the road realignment would help the resident directly across from the access point . Hallett added that the request for a stop sign or enforcement of the ,speed limits was a public safety issue. Hallett stated that he supported that Staff recommendations . Anderson concurred with the residents that the traffic was fast on Bennett Place . He noted that the City did not support speed bumps or Children-at-Play signs. Anderson stated that he would be opposed to a stop sign at the top of the hill because of problems with traffic in the winter . Sandstad stated that he would like to see the Staff recommendations upheld . He was also concerned about the addition traffic and recommended contacting the police department to enforce the speed in this area. Ruebling asked what had been the rationale for not using the second cul-de-sac on the Nelson site . Ruebling stated that there may be a benefit to the cul-de-sacs in this case . Franzen replied that a number of issues had been taken in to consideration when looking at the road system; • grading, tree loss, traffic patterns, and emergency vehicle access as reasons for the through street from Bennett to Purgatory Road. No significant trees would be lost or extensive grading required . The through road helps distribute traffic better in the area and provides better emergency vehicle access. Franzen added that 1 flag lot with 1 building pad provides more of a buffer and saves more trees . He noted that the corner lot could be removed and the road moved to the north 100 feet to meet a 35 MPH site distance criteria. Knable asked if the tree loss calculation was based on the plan being proposed. Franzen replied that the 30% calculation was based on 2 flag lots . Knable then asked Franzen if the calculation had taken into consideration the additional tree loss which would occur if the road was moved 20 feet to the north. Franzen replied this had been taken into consideration . Franzen added that if the cul- de-sac was extended from the south through the Hustad land to the back lots tree loss would be about 50%. Anderson believed that this was too much development for .such a small space, taking into consideration the trees, safety, and access issues . Wallace Hustad, stated that he would be opposed to the • cul-de-sac because he would lose one lot due to the grades in the area and that the through street provided better access to his land . Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 28, :1989 • Bye stated that the Planning Commission needed to look at the whole road system and what was best for everyone . Bye added that she supported the Staff recommendation because she believed that Staff had taken into consideration what was in the best interest of Eden Prairie . MOTION 1• Hallett moved, seconded by Anderson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0 . MOTION 2• Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Transtar for Preliminary Plat of 4 .57 acres into nine (9 ) single family lots to be known as the Burnett Addition, based on plans dated August 14, 1989, subject to the Staff Report dated August 25, 1989 with the following recommendations from the Planning Commission: 1) Further review be given to determine if Lot 1, Block 1, would need a variance, and 2) Review any signage necessary to control the speed of the traffic. Anderson believed that Staff 's proposal would reduce the • tree loss . Motion carried 5-0-0 . C. NELSON ADDITION, by David Nelson. Request for Zoning District Change and Preliminary Plat on 2 . 41 acres into 6 single family lots . Location: 9950 Bennett Place . Peter Rnable, representing the proponent, stated that the plan was for the development of 6 lots on 2 .5 acres with a zoning change from R1-22 to R1-13 . 5. He added that these were standard lots and variances would not be required . Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the project based on the Staff Report dated August 25, 1989 . MOTION 1• Hallett moved, seconded by Ruebling to close the public hearing . Motion carried 5-0-0 . MOTION 2• Hallett moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council ,approval of the request of David Nelson for • Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13 . 5 on 2 . 41 acres, to be known as the Nelson Addition, based on plans Planning Commission Minutes 8 August 28, 1989 dated August 25, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 25, 1989 . Motion carried 5- 0-0 . MOTION 3• Hallett moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of David Nelson for Preliminary Plat of 2 . 41 acres into six (6) single family lots, to be known as the Nelson Addition, based on plans dated August 25, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 25, 1989 . Motion carried 5- 0-0 . D. BLUFFS WEST 8TH, by Hustad Development. Request for zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13. 5 on 2 .12 acres and Preliminary Plat of 2 .12 acres into four single family lots, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Location: North of Bluestem Road & access off Bennett Place . Wallace Hustad stated that it had been determined that two flag lots would provide the best solution to allow access to the Brown Land Company and the Nelson properties . Franzen reported that three different property owners were involved with 'the development in this neighborhood. Staff had wanted to be consistent with Council direction for flag lots when the Bluffs West 7th Addition was reviewed. The purpose of these lots was to maintain the natural features of the area. Staff recommended approval of the project based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report dated August 25, 1989 . Franzen added that Staff was concerned about the drainage in the low area of the development and was, therefore, requesting that the proponent to provide a watershed study prior to City Council Review. Donald Schober was concerned about maintaining the aesthetics of the property. Schober asked if there would be an access road for this project . Franzen replied there would be driveway access for each of the lots . Schober then stated that each of the three projects provided another access from Bennett Place and was concerned about the additional traffic. Schober also believed that the water problem was more than what it was being made out to be . He added the property was very sandy and stated that he would like to see the results of the watershed study. Susan Boutin, 11407 Creekridge, asked what a flag lot was. Franzen replied that it was a lot which did not meet the minimum street frontage requirement per City Code . Randy Stoneman, 9947 Bennett Place, concurred with Mr. Planning commission Minutes 9 August 28, 1989 Schober that there would be too many access points from Bennett Place and was also concerned about the 10d grade on Bennett Place . Peter Knable stated that the triangular area would need to be platted and would request that utilities be extended for storm sewer . Franzen replied that these items were part of the overall plan for the area. Franzen stated that further study of the elevation of the piping needed to be completed. The proponent needs to show where the water will go and the projected amount of run-off . The size of the low area and the soil conditions also needed to be taken into consideration. Franzen noted that the proponent was required to provide erosion control fences and hay bales . The construction limits would be staked . Franzen concurred with Mr. Schober that the area would look very different because of the number of trees in the area. The tree loss was estimated at 336. Franzen stated that Bennett Place could have been designed at a lesser grade but more tree loss would have occurred due to grading on each side of the road . The Engineering Department had designed the road based on a 30 MPH speed. MOTION 1. • Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0 . MOTION 2• Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13 . 5 on 2 .12 acres, to be known as Bluffs West 8th Addition, based on plans dated August 25, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 25, 1989 . Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 3: Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Preliminary Plat of 2. 12 acres into four (4 ) single family lots, to be known as Bluffs West 8th Addition, based on plans dated August 25, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 25, 1989 . Motion carried 5-0-0 . V. OLD-BUSINESS VI . NEW BUSINESS VII . PLANNER ' S REPORT Planning Commission Minutes 10 August 28, 1989 VIII . ADJOURNMENT MOTION• Ruebling moved, seconded by Hallett to adjourn the meeting at 9 : 55 PM. Motion carried unanimously. •