Loading...
Planning Commission - 10/26/1981 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, October 26, 1981 7:30-PM, City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Hakon Torjesen, Grant Sutliff, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Dennis Marhula STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 13, 1981 MINUTES III. MEMBERS REPORTS IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. EDEN GLEN 3RD ADDITION, by Jesco, Inc. Request ,to preliminary plat 3. 856 acres for construction of a hotel. Located west of Glen Lane, east of Eden Road, and north of Single Tree Lane. A public hearing. B. KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN, by Delaria Kitchens. Request to rezone from Rural to Regional Commercial and preliminary plat 0.835 acres for a fast food restaurant. Located west of US 169/2125 east of Eden Road, and north of Single Tree Lane. A public hearing. C.. CITY WEST, by Richard W. Anderson Inc. Request to amend the Comprehensive Guide Plan on approximately 40 acres designated Medium Density Residential to Office, Regional Commercial ; approval of an 87 acre PUD Concept of Office, Regional Com- mercial , and Multiple Residential Uses, and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located east of new Shady Oak Road (Co. Rd. 61) , and south of Crosstown 62. A continued public hearing. 0. WOODDALE BAPTIST CHURCH, by Wooddale Baptist Church. Request for amendment to the City Guide Plan from Residential to Public; Planned Unit Development Concept approval for church uses; re- zoning from Rural to Public; and preliminary plat approval . Variances requested are: 60 foot high sanctuary peak, 75 foot high landmark, a non-hardsurface parking area for the first phase, on a total' of 31 acres. Located east of Golden Ridge, south of Shady Oak Road, and west of US 169/212. A continued public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved Monday, October 26, 1981 7:30 PM, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Grant Sutliff, Virginia Gartner, Dennis Marhula, Robert Hallett, Hakon Torjesen (8:52PM) STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary I. - APPROVAL OF AGENDA Gartner moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0. II. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 13, 1981 MINUTES This item was moved under Old Business. III. MEMBERS REPORTS None IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. EDEN GLEN 3RD ADDITION, by Jesco, Inc. -Request to preliminary plat 3.856 acres for construction of a hotel . Located west of Glen Lane, east of Eden Road, and north of Single Tree Lane. A public hearing. The Planner bri_dfly reviewed the request and stated that the site cannot be final platted without rezoning. He then reviewed the staff report dated October 15, 1981. He also stated that cash park fee of $1400/acre should be added to the report. Bearman stated that no grading or disturbance to the land should occur at- all -- until final plat approval . MOTION 1 Sutliff moved to close the public hearing on Eden Glen 3rd Addition preliminary plat. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 Sutliff moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated October 5, 1981 as per the staff report dated October 15, 1981 adding #5-Subject to cash park fee of $1400/acre; and #6-No grading or disturbance to the site shall occur at all until final plat approval . Gartner seconded, motion 0 carried 6-0. .approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 26, 1981 B. KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN, by Delaria Kitchens, Inc. Request to rezone from Rural to Regional Commercial and preliminary plat 0.835 acres for a fast food restaurant. Located west of US 169/212, east of Eden Road, and north of Single Tree Lane. A public hearing. The Planner briefly reviewed the request and stated that the approved Eden Glen PUD Design Framework Manual should be upheld for the coloring of the cupula. Sutliff asked the elevation of the cupula. The Planner replied it is 8 ft. which brings the total building height to approximately 23"ft. Bearman stated he felt it is important to uphold the approved PUD Design Framework Manual. MOTION 1 Retterath moved to close the public hearing on Kentucky Fried Chicken (Eden Glen_ 2nd Addition) plat. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 Retterath moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Kentucky Fried Chicken rezoning from Rural to C-Reg-Ser as per the plans dated October 5, 1981 and the October 16, 1981 staff report with special emphasis on #6 of the staff report which reads: That the cupula be a solid dark color. ; and that the original approved Eden Glen PUD Design Framework Manual be upheld; and the MnDOT letter dated October 20, 1981. Gartner seconded, motion carried 6-0. J C. WOODDRLE BAPTIST _CHURCH, by Wooddale Baptist Church. Request for amendment to the City Guide Plan from Residential to Public; Planned Unit Development Concept approval for church uses; re- zoning from Rural to Public; and preliminary plat approval . Variances requested are: a 60 foot high sanctuary peak, 75 foot high landmark, a non-hardsurfaced parking area for the first phase on a total of 31 acres. Located east of Golden Ridge, south of Shday Oak Road, and west of US 169/212. A continued public hearing. The Planner stated that Mr. Fred Hoisington, Brauer & Assoc. , was present to give the presentation. Hoisington reviewed the ownership, zoning, slopes, drainage, soils, vegetation, the concept plan, access, phases of parking, and grading plans. He also reviewed the variance requests and stated that they would like to park one (1) bus on the site during the 1st phase construction. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated October 16, 1981 adding to #2, 150 feet on the south side of the eastern parking lot be left for soils to consolidate such as was done on Braun's Industrial Office Building; and noted (#8). that the 2nd phase parking has a bus storage proposed however, one (1) bus should be allowed to be • stored on the site prior to the 2nd phase but should be totally screened. He also stated that cash park fee is not applicable to churches. Gartner asked about the road vacation. The Planner stated that that is not expected to occur for a number. of years and stated that when the City vacates a road ROW, it is returned to the adjoining property owners and stated that this is an item that the City Attorney would look at. -—--- --- --ccFp-rvveu Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 26, 1981 Retterath asked about the tax situation. The Planner replied ail 'the property would be tax exempt. Hallett asked what the property in the south of the site would be used for. Hoisington replied that would be recreational. Hallett then asked if any land will be dedicated. The Planner stated that that could be made part of the final platting and stated the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission looks at that. I. Bearman asked if the access on Co. Rd. 61 is necessary. Hoisington replied yes. Bearman stated he was concerned with the land use and asked the total asphalt coverage. Hoisington replied 43% coverage. Bearman expressed his concerns with the asphalt coverage, and the parking. He then stated he felt that phase 2 parking should be made phase 1 parking with a possible parking ramp and asked the possibility of this. Hoisington replied that he felt that a parking ramp is not a compatible use of the land. Bearman stated that he felt that the parking should be screened as much as possible.and that phase 2 parking should be switched with phase 1 parking and make 470 parking spaces in that first phase and there would be room for additional parking in the future. Hoisington stated that there is a problem with getting into the building if that is done. • Sutliff asked why the landmark is proposed at such a high elevation. Hoisington replied for identification, -and that it' an hors part of the walkway to the main entrance for the church. Jerry Speilman, 6601 Golden Ridge Drive, stated that the proponent has done a good job in working with the neighbors and felt that phase 1 parking should be switched with phase 2 parking. , Torjesen asked the Planner to state different ways to finish a parking lot that will be used 2 or 3 hours a week. The Planner stated that in the long run, asphalt parking lots are the best. Sutliff asked if screening on the recreation field is necessary. The Planner replied no. Hallett asked if the recreational uses are for the church members only. Pastor Leith Anderson replied it would be for the community also. MOTION 1 Gartner moved to close the public hearing on the Wooddale Baptist Church PUD and preliminary plat request. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0. MOTION 2 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD dated 9/21/81 as per the October 16, 1981 staff report adding to #2 of the report, 'accepting . the south 2 of the eastern parking lot' and adding to #8 'accepting one (1) and only one bus on phase 1 parking and it must be totally screened. Retterath seconded. Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 26, 1981 DISCUSSION Retterath asked that #9 be added to read ' that some type of land dedication or cash park fee be investigated for the community use of the facilities'; and #10 that the 470 spaces of parking be built in phase 2 parking area and that phase 1 parking be phase 2. Gartner was o.pposed to #10. AMENDMENT Retterath moved to amend the motion to_ include the 470 front (fnitia) parking be placed where phase 2 parking is located. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 4-3. Gartner, Hallett and Marhula voted no. VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION WITH AMENDMENT Motion carried 6-1. Hallett voted no because of the amendment:. MOTION 3 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to Public based upon the 9/21/81 plans and the October 16, 1981 staff report with the same additions as in motion 2. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0. MOTION 4 Gartner moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat dated 9/21/81 as per the October 16, 1981 staff report with the same additions as in motion 2. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0. D. CITY WEST, by Richard W. Anderson, Inc. Request to amend the Comprehensive Guide Plan on approximately 40 acres designated Medium Density Residential to Office, Regional Commercial ; approval of an 87 acre PUD Concept of-Office, Regional Comm- ercial , and Multiple Residential Uses, and approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located east of new Shady Oak Road (Co. Rd. 61) and south of Crosstown 62. A continued public hearing. The Planner reviewed two plans; 1) the ' flip flop' plan; and 2) the Oct. 26, 1981 staff recommendation plan. He then stated that Mr. Peter Jarvis of BRW, Dick Anderson, ADI, and Scott Anderson of ADI were present. Jarvis reviewed ADI's letter dated Oct. 21, 1981 and gave a brief presentation. Sutliff stated he noticed one more section of high density residential designated on the ' flip flop' plan and asked how many more acres this is. The Planner replied approximately 12 acres. The Planner stated that he felt that the most suitable place for residential is located in the center of the site and stated that the staff recommendation of October 26 which changes the high density residential on the western portion of the site next to Shady Oak Road to small office and placing the high density residential on the eastern portion of the site would be good. He went on to explain that an example of small office would be the Lake. Ridge Office Park. approved Planning Commission Minutes -5= October 26, 1981 Sutliff stated that he felt that Lake Ridge Office Park is too dense. Bearman asked that the buffer be architectural rather than determined by whether it is office or residential and stated that he felt that townhouse offices would be better than residential townhouses. Torjesen stated he agreed with lower density along Shady Oak Road but that the offices should extend to the bottom of the site along Shady Oak Road. Bearman asked that the buffer be arc-httectu.ral ratherthan pl.antings and stated that he felt that townhouse offices would be better than residential townhouses. Torjesen stated he agreed with Bearman but felt that the offices should extend to the bottom of the site along Shady Oak Road. Sutliff asked the proponent if they are familiar with Lake Ridge Offices. Jarvis replied yes and stated he felt they would work. Marhula stated he felt that the plan which was presented at the last meeting was well screened and felt that the 'small offices should not extend to the bottom of the site and felt that with them extending, conflicts would arise. Walter Carpenter, 13000 W. 78th Street, representing Minnesota Tree, felt that this proposal should be located in the Major Center Area and that this will be competitive with the MCA. Torjesen stated that he felt that the Oct. 26, 1981 staff recommendation plan is increasing the overall density of the project more than the Guide Plan designates. Jerry Speilman, 6601 Golden Ridge Drive, stated he felt this project should be located in the Major Center Area and also felt that it would be competitive with the MCA. Dick Feerick, 6518 Leesborough Ave. , stated he would like more residential on the site. Ken Beersdorf, on behalf of Len Uherka, 6301 Shady Oak Road, stated he was concerned about the best location for residential - in the center of the site versus on the outer edges. Jam Gerecke, 6622 Golden Ridge Drive, stated she supports the Guide Plan as is , and felt the plan should be according to it. Mack Hyde, representing an owner in the MCA, felt that an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared for this site. The Planner stated that that decision is up to local government to decide and stated that the 'EIS process is 'made for Projects that will have a state wide impact. John Gertz, The Preserve, stated he agreed with the comments made by Mr. Carpenter and Feerick. Marhula asked small office to be defined. The Planner replied 2 story buildings, or buildings that are 10,000 square feet and under FAR. Torjesen stated he felt that the staff recommendation plan dated Oct. 26, 1981 will leave the site more dense than what the Guide Plan shows. The Planner stated that the Guide Plan allows for almost 300,000 sq. ft. of office on the site and allows 50% FAR coverage which would be 6 acres of buildings on one of the sites on the western portion of the site that are designated high density residential. He further stated that the original proposal was 3 times more dense than the Guide Plan allows and this proposal is now 2 times the density a l l rr_,,^rl .approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 26, 1981 Torjesen stated that he would like the' areas on the western portion of the site to be medium density residential rather than high density residential or office. Gartner asked how the proponent felt regarding small offices. Jarvis replied they are comfortable with that idea. MOTION 1 Hallett moved to close the public hearing on City West PUD. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0. MOTION 2 Hallett moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Guide Plan Amendment dated July 15, 1981 as per the staff recommendation dated October 26, 1981 modified as follows: change the high density residential along Shady Oak Road to be small office, (i.e. , 2 story building, 10,000 sq. ft. and uinder'office bUillcding) retaining the high deugity residential piece inn the center of the site. Retterath s,�conded. AMENDMENT Sutliff moved to make the high density residential along Shady Oak Road be made medium density residential retaining the high density piece in the center of the site. Torjesen seconded, motion failed, 2-5. Sutliff and Torjesen voted aye. AMENDMENT" aTorjesen moved to amend the motion making the Qrs6all -,-,c,office along Shady Oak Road to be medium density residential retaining the high density piece in the center of the site. Gartner seconded. DISCUSSION ON AMENDMENT Gartner stated she did not feel that medium density residential was appropriate. Hallett asked if medium density residential is more appropriate for that portion of the site. The Planner replied he felt that high density residential would be better than medium density residential . VOTE ON AMENDMENT Amendment failed, 1-6. VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION WITHOUT AMENDMENT Motion carried 7-0. MOTION 3 Hallett moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD dated July 15, 1981 as per the staff recommendation dated October 26, 1981 with the same changes as in motion 2. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0. MOTION 4 Hallett moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Environmental Asses- sment Worksheet dated Revised Oct. , 1981 subject to revisions as per the October 21, 1981 revised plan and the staff recommendation dated October 26, 1981. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0. approved Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 26, 1981 V. OLD BUSINESS Sutliff moved to approve the minutes with the following additions and/or changes: P. 4, under 1st 'Enger paragraph' add on the last line, after 1,000, 'sq. ft. ' P. 5, 2nd line should read 'occuring on Shady Oak Road north of Crosstown. ' P. 9, item C, 2nd motion, 3rd line should read 'investigate the development agreement of Stewart Sandwiches to connect. . Marhula seconded, motion carried 7-0. VI. NEW BUSINESS Bearman stated that on October 31, 1981 at 10:00 AM, the City Council will hold a special meeting to discuss Codification and when they will have another meeting to discuss Codification in depth. Sutliff asked the status of the Slope Ordinance. The Planner stated that the City Attorney has drafted an ordinance and that he is studying it now. Torjesen asked the progress of the Housing Task Force. The Planner replied nothing has been done yet. • Hallett stated that he attended the Land Use Workshop on October 23, 1981 and found it to be very interesting and reviewed a couple of points that he heard. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT The Planner reviewed the upcoming agenda. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Marhula moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:24 PM. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 7-0.