Loading...
Planning Commission - 08/22/1988 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 22, 1988 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Ctiairman Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Christine Dodge, Doug Fell , Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Ed Schuck STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Sue Anderson, Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS (7:30) A. FAIRFIELD PHASES 2 THROUGH 6, by Tandem Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Medium Density Residential on 49.5 acres and from Industrial to Low Density Residential on 24.4 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 148.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances for street frontage and lot size on 148.2 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 92.7 acres and from rural to R1-13.5 on 53.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 148.2 acres into 367 • single family lots, 28 outlots and road right-of-way, review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for construction of a residential development. Location: West of County Road 4, southeast of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad. A continued public hearing. (8:30) B. MARCUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BUILDING, by Marcus Corporation. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on 0.65 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 1.61 acres into 2 lots and 1 outlot for construction of a 28,480 square foot commercial building. Location: East of Highway #169, West of Joiner Way, south of Prairie Center Drive. (9:15) C. CHESTNUT PLACE, by Chestnut Place Partners. Request for Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.69 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to N-Com on 1.69 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 1.69 acres into 1 lot for construction of a 8,208 square foot commercial center. Location: Northeast corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Chestnut Drive. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII . ADJOURNMENT *NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER, THAN LISTED. s NE NUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 22, 1988 City Council Chambers 7:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Charles Ruebling, Robert Hallett, Douglas Fell and Richard Anderson • MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Schuck STAFF PRESENT: Michael Franzen,Senior Planner; Don Uram,Assistant Planner; and Sue Anderson, Recording Secretary 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett and seconded by Fell to approve the agenda as printed. Motion carried 6-0-0. II. MEMBERS REPORTS None III. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 1988. MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett and seconded by Dodge to approve the minutes of the July 11, 1988, Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 4-0-2,Anderson and Fell abstained. Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 22, 1988 Page 2 • IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. FAIRFIELD PHASES 2 THROUGH 6, by Tandem Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Medium Density Residential on 49.5 acres and from Industrial to Low Density Residential on 24.4 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 148.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers for street frontage and lot size on 148.2 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 92.7 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 53.6 acres,Preliminary Plat of 148.2 acres into 367 single family lots,28 outlots and road right-of-way, review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for construction of a residential development. Location: West of County Road 4, southeast of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad. A continued public hearing. Franzen reported that Phase 1 of the Fairfield project had been approved by the City Council. Phase 2 to 6 were continued by the Planning Commission pending receipt of the Southwest Area Plan. He continued that although the study was not completed,there was adequate information, and plan modification to complete the review of the PUD Concept,the Guide Plan Change and the EAW,with rezoning and timing of the implementation of the development subject to City engineering study prior to final adoption. Franzen stated that the proponent made the recommended changes in response to the June 24, 1988,Staff Report as follows: 1) Revised plans to reduce the overall tree loss to 32% or approximately 1,300 caliper inches;2) If anticipated higher traffic volumes result on east/west collector roads,cul-de-sacs would be provided for safer access; 3) Revised the plans to show sidewalks and trails as recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department; 4) Provided additional right-of-way along Scenic Heights Road for future extension; 5) Revised plans • to allow access to the school site; and 6) Moved the intersection of the north/south collector road and Scenic Heights Road 150 ft.further east. Franzen stated that the remaining issue was the overall visual density of the R1-9.5 area. He offered three alternatives,one or all: a) Comply with minimum R1-9.5 zoning requirements for lot size and street frontage; b Add more Ri-13.5 lots; and/or c) Create individual neighborhoods with a distinctive architectural theme such that the R1-9.5 area would appear as a collection of smaller neighborhoods. Jim Ostenson of Tandem Corporation, gave a brief background on the location of the project. He stated that to comply with the Staff Report some lots were taken out and others made wider and they were in agreement with the staff recommendations. He added that when the Brauer Study was completed,they would return to the Commission for rezoning, and PUD waivers for lot size and street frontage. Hallett inquired if the residents who attended the last meeting in reference to this project, had been contacted about this meeting. Franzen replied he had been contacted by Steve Wagner who asked what action was up for consideration. Franzen stated he told Wagner that the Guide Plan Change was being considered and Franzen asked him if he any comments or concerns about that issue. Wagner stated that he did not object to the Guide Plan Change. Franzen inferred that he was concerned with the traffic on County Road#4 and how many uses would have to be built before improvements were made to the road. Hallett inquired if Scenic Heights Road would be addressed in the Southwest Study. Franzen replied affirmatively. Ruebling asked proponent if he was in general agreement with the staff recommendations. • He replied all but one issue has been resolved and that was the visual impact on density. He illustrated their plan for three separate neighborhoods of large lots, medium lots and cluster homes. They feel three separate areas would alleviate the visual impact. Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 22, 1988 Page 3 Hallett inquired as to the number of variances. Franzen replied that it was due to the cluster lots and the minimum size lot being less than 9500 sq.ft.for 33 lots. Anderson felt that this part of Eden Prairie should be as diverse as other parts. Fell was in agreement with the project. Dodge was concerned about the variances and a big home being built on a small lot. Franzen replied that with the variances at 9500 sq.ft., open space is provided and grading is limited,as a trade off for variances. He added that in the cluster area,given the past history of Centex, it would be unlikely that large homes would be built on cluster lots. Hallett stated the developer had an excellent track record and he would be in agreement because he knew that the developer would have control. Ruebling was hesitant on lot size variances. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Ruebling to close the public hearing on the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development Concept for Fairfield Phases 2-6. Motion carried 6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tandem Properties for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Industrial to Medium Density Residential on 49.5 acres,and from Industrial to Low Density Residential on 24.4 acres for Fairfield Phases 2-6, based on plans dated August 18, 1988,subject • to the recommendations of the Staff Report, dated August 19, 1988. Motion carried 6-0-0 MOTION 2a: Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Ruebling to clarify approval of the plans as proposed with the condition of Item C which was to reduce the overall visual density of the project through creating individual architectural themes of individual neighborhoods. Motion carried 6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tandem Properties for Planned Unit Development Concept on 148.2 acres for the Fairfield Development, Phases 2-6, based on plans dated August 19, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 19, 1988. Motion carried 6-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council a finding of no significant impact for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Fairfield Phases 2-6 development based on revised plans dated August 19, 1988.. Motion carried 6-0-0 • Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 22, 1988 Page 4 . MOTION 5: Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Ruebling to continue the public hearing for Fairfield Phases 2-6 for Planned Unit Development District Review,Zoning District Change and Preliminary Plat to the September 26, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, pending receipt and analysis of the Southwest Area Study. Motion carried 6-0-0 B. MARCUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BUILDING by Marcus Corporation. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on 0.65 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 1.61 acres into 2 lots and 1 outlot for construction of a 4,138 square foot commercial building. Location: East of Highway #169,West of Joiner Way, south of Prairie Center Drive. Mark Senn, proponent, presented the project and the request for a Zoning District Change and Preliminary Plat to allow for the construction of the 4,138 square foot credit union and photo processing center. The project would be on a 28,480 sq.ft. parcel of land requiring 28 parking spaces. The site plan presented depicted 20 parking stalls, and proponent could provide 18 spaces. The variance request was asked due to the photo processing center being a drive-up facility and would initially have only 3 employees, and the credit union would initially have 4 employees, leaving 11 parking spaces for credit union customers. Proponent illustrated circulation of traffic on the site plan. Uram reported that Staff was in agreement with the 18 parking spaces due to the nature of the businesses cliental. If the building use were to change, a total of 21 parking spaces would be . required for office and 33 spaces for retail. Any future land use would be restricted by parking constraints. Regarding traffic, Uram reported that the BRW estimated 15 trips in the p.m.peak hour for this site location. The likely p.m. peak hour trip generation from the credit union would include only the 4 employee trips and 3 trips for the photo processing center,for a total of 7 trips. However, Uram continued, if the land use or the hours of operation changed,the p.m. peak hours could possibly exceed the allocation. Staff,therefore,was recommending that the proponent agree to limit the hours of operation from 9 a.m.to 5 p.m. until it was proven that the p.m. peak hour trip generation would not exceed 15 trips. Fell observed that the project was being pinned in the corner and limited to growth. Uram stated that the developer was looking for a long-term lessor. Anderson commented that if the bank became successful, additional stacking in the drive-up lanes would be required to handle the business. Uram responded that BRW report indicated that the stacking distance for the credit union was acceptable. Proponent stated that the tenant was agreeable to the 5 p.m. closing time, but did not want to be strapped to the 9 a.m. starting time. The photo processing would be 99% drive through, and 1% walk in for supplies and questions. Dodge inquired as to what credit union would be the tenant. Proponent replied it would be a branch of Twin Cities Credit Union. Hallett pointed out that if the photo processing shop changed its percentage of walk-in business in the future,there would be-.a real.parking problem. • Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 22, 1988 Page 5 • Ruebling requested that a letter of understanding be included in the Developers Agreement listing the requirements for opening and closing hours. Staff replied they had no problem with the credit union opening earlier in the morning. Hallett asked if this agreement would hold for any business on that site in the future. Uram replied that any land use change would be reviewed by the City. Bye added that building permits would be required for any alterations to the site. Fell pointed out that if the businesses planned left after the site was planned for their use,the Commission would have to grant variances for a new tenant because they,the Commission, by agreeing to this limited parking space allocation, created a hardship,which is the prerequisite for a variance. The Credit Union representative stated that if the location is successful,they have intentions of purchasing the property and building. They in fact have first right of purchase and right of refusal. Hallett stated that closer evaluation was needed in respect to growth and sufficient parking. Fell stated that he approved of the project, but the limited scenario for future land use was in question. The proponent stated that the Credit Union's in Eagan and Rosedale do four times the business and have 14 parking stalls which have never all been filled at onetime. He added that if drive-up teller's were added,the owner would have to come before the Commission for approval. . Uram suggested that this be continued for two weeks and Staff would further research the parking issue. Hallett added that credit union's themselves should be evaluated as to number of customers and the numbers for walk-up photo customers. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Anderson and seconded by Fell to continue the public hearing on the request of Marcus Corporation for Zoning District Change for construction of a 4,138 sq.ft. building, to research customer traffic and parking on the site, until the September 12, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0 C. CHESTNUT PLACE. by Chestnut Place Partners. Request for Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.69 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to N-Com on 1.69 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 1.69 acres into 1 lot for construction of a 8,208 square foot commercial center. Location: Northeast corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Chestnut Drive. A public hearing. Franzen reported that the proponent was requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. He indicated the Commission that the Guide Plan did not identify Neighborhood Commercial sites as they are developed on the basis of demand and the size of the service area. The proposed commercial center is slightly over one mile away from the nearest neighborhood commercial center. The proponent described the proposed complex as being in the middle of a residential area. The project has approximately 8000 sq.ft., and a total of 66 parking spaces would be required. The plan presented depicted 34 actual parking spaces and 32 proof-of-parking spaces. The rear side of the Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 22, 1988 Page 6 . building would not have any loading facilities, doors,trash enclosures or lighting. The complex would blend with the residential neighborhood, and there would be no roof-top mechanical equipment. It would be screened at the rear of the building. Anderson questioned the 21' clearing and the traffic flow around the gas pumps. He felt double parking would most likely occur at the pumps,therefore creating a traffic bottle neck for vehicles. He asked if the gas pumps could be relocated to improve internal circulation. Fell stated that this was not just a drive lane for the gas station but for the entire facility. He indicated that pedestrian and auto traffic should be separate. Fell commented that overall parking would be adequate, and asked about the apartment residents access. Proponent replied that sidewalks would be in place for that purpose. Hallett inquired if the owners of the building were notified. Franzen stated the owners were notified but not the renters. Hallett suggested that the Human Rights Commission be consulted regarding renters rights. Hallett inquired to Staff how many superettes this would make for Eden Prairie. Franzen replied that this would be the fifth one. Ruebling inquired about the signage, and Franzen replied that a 14' high sign was being proposed. Hallett inquired of the other businesses planned for the site. Proponent replied that a dry cleaning business,video, pizza, sun-tanning, barber shop and sit-down restaurant were being considered. Fell asked if the traffic was addressed and where the access points were from the intersection. Hallett asked if site vision distances were adequate. Franzen responded that these would be • reviewed prior to City Council review. He added that staff would investigate the possibility of closing the driveway access closest to Chestnut on Anderson Lakes Parkway and build the driveway off Chestnut Drive and provide a better internal by-pass lane to improve site access and internal circulation. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Fell to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Chestnut Place Partners for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.69 acres for Chestnut Place for construction of an 8,208 sq. t. commercial center, based on plans dated August 3, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 19, 1988, and 1) move the pumps for pedestrian safety;2) sidewalks and pedestrian access along Chestnut and Anderson Lakes Parkway; 3) lighting modified; 4) public safety looked at and reviewed; 5) hours of operation defined before going to City Council; and 6) clarification of signage. Motion carried 5-1-0, opposed by Anderson. Anderson opposed due to safety caused by location of pumps in traffic lanes. Hallett agreed and changed his vote. Proponent stated they will look in to an alternative circulation plan to reduce conflicts with cars and pedestrians. Motion carried 4-2-0, opposed by Anderson and Hallett. Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 22, 1988 Page 7 • MOTION 3: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Chestnut Place Partners for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.69 acres,with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for Chestnut Place for construction of an 8,208 sq.ft. commercial center, based on plans dated August 3, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 19, 1988. Motion carried 4-2-0, opposed by Anderson and Hallett. MOTION 4: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of the request of Chestnut Place Partners for Preliminary Plat of 1.69 acres into one lot for Chestnut Place for construction of an 8,208 sq.ft. commercial center, based on plans dated August 3, 1988, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 19, 1988. Motion carried 4-2-0, opposed by Anderson and Hallett. V. OLD BUSINESS Anderson suggested that Commission not introduce agenda items after 11:00 p.m. He felt it was not fair to the residents, nor could the Commission act in a professional manner or make professional judgements at that hour. He was agreeable to starting earlier or holding additional meetings. Bye suggested the Commission members make motions to help move the meeting along. The consensus was that the residents have to right to have their comments as a part of public record. • Ruebling suggested a time limit on discussion. When a project did not have an agreeable conclusion it would be suggested that it be continued in deference to the other items on the agenda. Some Commission members stated they would rather hash out the problems than to continue the proposal and further backlog the calendar. VI. NEW BUSINESS On September 19th at 6:30 p.m. the Southwest Area Study would be presented and discussed. The Hustad Company would be holding a neighborhood meeting at City Hall for Bluff Country Corners sometime this fall. Commission and Council and Staff are invited to attend and participate. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT Franzen reported on the items scheduled for September 12, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Vill. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Fell to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. •