Loading...
Planning Commission - 06/06/1983 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission Monday, June 6, 1983 7:30 p.m., City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. MEMBERS REPORTS IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. LEN SWEDLUND & REPUBLIC SUPPLY COMPANY. Request for Pre- liminary Plat of 14 acres into three (3) lots of approximately 4.6 acres for single family detached homes. Location: South of Riley Lake Road and east of the Carver/Hennepin County boundary. A continued public hearing. B. JAMES REFRIGERATION. Request for Zoning from Rural to Office for 2.16 acres for an office building. Location: Southwest corner of Shady Oak Road and Highway #169. A public meeting. C. REMBRANDT RIDGE, by Neil A. Lewis and Associates. Request for Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 10.4 acres for 19 single family residential lots. Location: East of 168th Avenue West and south of Chatham Woods. A public hearing. D. HIGH TRAIL ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, by Countryside Investments, Inc. Request for Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 10 acres for 25 single family detached lots. Location: 6451 Duck Lake Road. A public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS A. Proposed Ordinance for Commercial Stables VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed Ordinance for Signage for Churches, Schools, and Other Public Buildings VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 6, 1983 City Hall, 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen MEMBERS ABSENT: Stan Johannes STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Kate Karnas, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried--6-0-0 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. III. MEMBERS REPORTS None. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. LEN SWEDLUND & REPUBLIC SUPPLY COMPANY. Request for Pre- liminary Plat of 14 acres into three (3) lots of approximately 4.6 acres for single family detached homes. Location: South of Riley Lake Road and east of the Carver/Hennepin County boundary. A continued public hearing. At its meeting of May 23, 1983, the Planning Commission continued this item pending information regarding the status of the final plat in the City. Planning Staff reported that, according to the Engineering Department, the final plat had never been placed on an agenda and that no final plat was submitted in a completed form for City review. Greg Frank, McCombs-Knutson Associates, representing the proponent, reviewed the contents of a letter submitted to the City, dated June 1, 1983, responding to the concerns of the Commission at the Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 6, 1983 previous meeting regarding setting of precedent with respect to the variance to lot size requested by the proponent. Dennis Howly, 6430 Undestad, asked if the lots proposed would be the only lots in the area. Staff responded that they were not and pointed out the other subdivisions in the vicinity. Torjesen stated that he felt the circumstances warranted special consideration of the request of proponent. MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Torjesen, seconded by Gartner, to recommend approval of the request of Len Swedlund and Republic Supply Company for preliminary plat of 14 acres into three (3) lots, located on the northeast side of Lake Riley, based on the findings of the Staff • Report of May 20, 1983, due to the unique circumstances involved with this project. Marhula questioned whether the land was located outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. Staff stated that it was. He also questioned whether this project would adversely affect the adjacent development in the City of Chanhassen. Mr. Frank stated that it would not. He added that, should there come a time when sewer and water would be necessary for this site, it would likely come from the existing Chanhassen development. However, it would not be a problem to add these three lots to the existing capacity of Chanhassen's sewer and water in this area. Motion carried--3-2-1 (Gartner, Marhula, and Torjesen in favor; Chairman Bearman and Schuck against; Hallett abstained) B. JAMES REFRIGERATION. Request for Zoning from Rural to Office for 2.16 acres for an office building. Location: Southwest corner of Shady Oak Road and Highway #169. A public meeting. Charles James, proponent, reviewed the proposal with the Commission, explaining significant site and design features of the project. Planner Enger reviewed the Staff Report of June 3, 1983, regarding • the proposal and pointed out the variances requested by proponent as part of the project. Staff explained that this was an unusual site to deal with as it had three street frontages and, therefore, three front yards. The variances requested included building height of greater than 30 ft. ; number of parking spaces required for the Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 6, 1983 square footage of the structure--14 spaces short of required amount; and, front yard setbacks for structures. Planner Enger stated that one of the recommended conditions of approval was the addition of pedestrian access from the site to the intersection of Bryant Lake Drive and Shady Oak Road. Hallett asked if the parking spaces eliminated by the removal of the western 12 ft. wide bank drive-out area could be made up anywhere else on the site. Planner Enger stated that he did not feel that they could. Chairman Bearman questioned when the requirement for 8 parking spaces per 1,000 gross sq. ft. of floor area for banks was initiated. Planner Enger stated that it had been in effect for many years. Tim McCoy, architect for proponent, stated that the mechanical equipment for the building had not yet been completely designed; however, it was their intention to place the mechanical equipment within the ceilings of the structure. The Commission asked Mr. James about his intentions for use of the building. Mr. James responded that, other than the bank, his firm was the only other confirmed tenant at this time. It was his intention to use the top floor of the structure as office space for Integral Refrigeration Systems, one of the firms he headed. At this time, he had less than ten employees, but he wanted to reserve the remainder of the top floor for growth of the company. His firm built and designed grocery and small convenience stores. This construction function would be staying in another location. Mr. James stated that he was comfortable with the amount of parking provided on the site. He added that, as the building owner, he did not want to be in the position of creating a situation whereby his tenants would have cause to complain about parking. Torjesen stated that he felt the project was attractive and that the land use for this parcel was appropriate. However, he stated concern that the site was "too tight" for the volume of the use proposed. Torjesen asked if the site could be scaled down to avoid the need for any of the variances requested. Mr. James responded that it would be rather difficult to do at this time. He stated that he felt the variances requested were justifiable based on the unusual circumstances of having three front yards to the site based on the three street frontages and the unusual shape of the parcel caused by the right-of-ways for the roads. Mr. James pointed out that one of the variances required for • front yard setback was a situation where the parking lot "knicked" the setback with a corner of the parking area. Hallett questioned City policy regarding Cash Park Fees for such a project. Staff responded that the project would be charged Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 6, 1983 • $1,400.00 per acre per City Code. Schuck asked Mr. James to explain the economics of removing a floor from the building. Mr. James stated that the parking structure was an extremely expensive proposition for any developer. For example, an asphalt surfaced parking lot would cost approximately $2-300 per parking space. For a parking structure such as this, the cost was closer to $4,000 per parking space. Mr. James stated that it was necessary for him to be able to recover the cost of construction of the ramp by having adequate rental space available within the building. Mr. James suggested that the City consider effective striping of the parking lot to allow for smaller spaces, designated for compact cars only. On his site, this would add several parking spaces. Staff confirmed that eight spaces would be picked up by such a striping method. Marhula questioned whether the amount of right-of-way for the roads in this area was excessive. Staff responded that it was greater than required by Code. Marhula stated that he felt this should be kept in mind in viewing the site. He stated that the amount of right-of-way gained along Bryant Lake Drive alone would create a situation where no setback variance would be necessary from this Sfrontage. Schuck stated that he felt the magnitude of the variances requested was not significant, but was justified based on the case presented by proponent. Torjesen expressed concern for the height of the structure. Mr. James pointed out that each successive floor was smaller than the one below it by the design. The site coverage was below the maximum allowed by Code. He stated that the building was designed in this manner to allow for use of the ground area for parking space purposes, and even with that, and the parking structure, it was still difficult to design the site with the required amount of parking spaces. Chairman Bearman asked for questions and comments from members of the audience. Jerry Steelman, 6601 Golden Ridge, stated that he would prefer to see at least one story eliminated from the structure. He added that he felt the building was attractively designed and felt the use would provide a good neighbor for the existing residents. Janet Gehereke, 6622 Golden Ridge, stated that she, too, felt the structure was an attractive one, but felt that it should be required to meet all Code requirements. Curtis Knutson, 6511 Undestad Street, asked how the mechanical equipment would be handled. Mr. McCoy, proponent's architect, explained the procedure for placing the equipment within the Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 6, 1983 ceilings of each floor. He pointed out that this added to the height of each floor, as an alternative to placing all such equipment on top of the building in view. Mr. James stated that he felt the City could appreciate the difficulties involved in designing a structure to fit such a site with the physical constraints involved due to the roads. He stated that he felt every effort had been made by his designers to prepare a project that would fit the Code requirements as much as possible. Chairman Bearman stated that there were many examples in the City where the number of parking spaces required was in excess of the needs of the uses within the structures. He suggested that perhaps the time had come for the City to review the parking requirements for various uses. He pointed out that the City of Minnetonka, for example, required much less in terms of parking spaces for such uses and appeared to be having no problems with a lesser requirement. Gartner stated that she felt proponent had a difficult site to deal with and had prepared an attractive project for the site. MOTION• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City Council approval of the requested zoning from Rural to Office for office use for James Refrigeration, per written materials dated May 3, 1983, and plans dated May 6, 1983, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of June 3, 1983, and the addition of the following conditions: #8. Parking lot lighting shall be down-lighting, no more than 20 ft. in height, with cut-off luminars; and #9. No mechanical equipment shall be located on the roof of the structure. Hallett stated that he would like proponent to consider an overpass, if necessary, for pedestrian traffic if traffic patterns in the area so indicated. Torjesen stated that he still had concerns that the site was too tightly designed and could be scaled down to meet Code. Motion carried--4-2-0 (Hallett and Torjesen against) C. REMBRANDT RIDGE, by Neil A. Lewis and Associates. Request for Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 10.4 acres for 19 single family residential lots. Location: East of 168th Avenue West and south of Chatham Woods. A public hearing. • Roger Nelson, proponent's engineer, presented the project for Commission consideration. He explained the features of the site and stated that the site met all Code requirements. Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 6, 1983 • Planner Enger reviewed the Staff Report of June 6, 1983 and reviewed the recommendations of Staff to be met regarding design detail for the project. Marhula asked if the cul-de-sac had been designed to City specifications. Staff responded that it had. Chairman Bearman asked for questions and comments from members of the audience. Bill Michaelson, 16167 Whittington Walk, stated concern for the drainage of the site and how it would affect the lots to the north. Staff responded that the detail of the storm sewer would be reviewed and dealt with by the Engineering Department before the Council review. Anita Gelderhaus, 16855 North Manor Road, stated that she, too, was experiencing storm water problems and asked that Staff review this prior to final action on the project. Curtis Knutson, 6511 Undestad, stated that even though his lot was higher in elevation than the project proposed, he was also experiencing water problems in his area. Donna Healen, 16795 Whittington Walk, asked if there ever became a point with a project where the City would state that it would not be feasible due to the costs involved. She stated that the reason for her question was that her neighborhood, Chatham Woods, had been assessed much more than the average amount due to the public improvements projects for their area. She questioned whether this particular storm sewer project would be assessed against lots in her neighborhood. Chairman Bearman stated that this would be a decision for Council in the future, but that the developer would be responsible for the work to be done which would be required as a result of development of the project parcel. Bob Borosh, 6470 Undestad, asked who would be responsible for any mistakes made or problems caused as a result of this development. Staff responded that it would have to be determined by attorneys at the time of the situation. Bob Lund, 6501 W. 168th Avenue, questioned whether the storm sewer for this project would affect his property. He stated that his property was wet at this time. Dick Settingson, 16752 Whittington Walk, expresed concern for the storm sewer situation, also. He asked if there would be more water flowing through the area than currently. He stated that he felt the density of this project was greater than the Chatham Woods area and questioned whether it would affect his property values. He asked Mr. Nelson if covenants and restrictions would be available for review by the public in the future. Mr. Nelson stated that none were proposed. Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 6, 1983 • Hallett questioned whether a walkway system had been considered for this project. Staff responded that the streets were of a low traffic character. In addition, trails were, or would be, in existence leading to the area parks; therefore, no trails were considered for this small site. Staff stated that a sidewalk may be appropriate along the street. MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for zoning from Rural to R1- 13.5 for Rembrandt Ridge Estates by Neil A. Lewis, based on plans and written materials dated May 26, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of June 3, 1983, and with the addition of the following condition #lg: Staff review the need for a sidewalk along the W. 168th Avenue street frontage. • In discussion, the Commission stated concern for the number of storm water drainage problems mentioned by surrounding residents and asked that the City Engineering, Department be prepared to answer the questions raised at the Planning Commission at the hearing before the Council. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for preliminary plat of 10.4 acres for 19 single family residential lots for Rembrandt Ridge Estates by Neil A. Lewis, based on plans and written materials dated May 26, 1983, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of June 3, 1983, with the addition of condition #lg: Staff review the need for a sidewalk along the W. 168th Street frontage. Motion carried--6-0-0 D. HIGH TRAIL ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, by Countryside Investments, Inc. Request for Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 10 acres for 25 single family detached lots. Location: 6451 Duck Lake Road. A public hearing. • Lloyd Erickson, RCM, engineer for the proponent, reviewed the request with the Commission. He stated that there were 95 trees, six inches in diameter, or larger, on the site, which the proponent would attempt to save during construction. Mr. Erickson stated that a ,neighborhood meeting had been held prior to the Commission meeting Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 6, 1983 where surrounding residents had been asked to expresss concerns regarding the project. Planner Enger reviewed the Staff Report of June 3, 1983 with the Commission, pointing out the areas of concern. The storm water pond was shown as encroaching upon Lots 7, 8, and 9 in the back yards, leaving little usable space for the future residents of these lots. Also, both ponds planned for the project required better access and better location of the connecting swale for purposes of future maintenance of them once deeded to the City. Planner Enger stated that other matters of concern included the fact that eight of the proposed lots abutted four existing lots along the eastern border of the project, and that trees would be lost with the road, as designed in the current location. Chairman Bearman asked whether the street patterns had been designed to avoid the loss of trees. He stated that if this was done, the few trees lost would not be significant and would likely make it possible to avoid the need for variances as requested on the lots. Chairman Bearman asked if one lot could be dropped from the northeast corner of the project. Mr. Erickson stated that the proponent agreed that this could be done. He pointed out that the existing trees in this area were dense and would act as an effective physical buffer between the two properties. Marhula expressed concern that the grading plan indicated little flexibility in terms of types of homes which could be built on the sites. He stated that he felt the proponent should take this into consideration. Dawn Howard, 6430 Undestad, expressed concern for the density of lots which would be abutting her lot adjacent to the northeast corner of the project. Joanne Baden, 6540 N. Coachlight Manor, asked how many of the trees in the northeast corner of the property were Elms. She expressed concern that while the developer may state that the trees will remain, once the developer was gone and new homeowners were in place, there was no guarantee that the trees would not be removed. Bob Borosh, 6470 Undestad, stated that he was opposed to the proposed encroachment on the pond area. Sue Paul, 6529 Countryside, asked how the site grading and development would affect the natural features of the site and the surrounding area, particularly the pond. Mr. Erickson stated that the amount of standing water in the area would actually be reduced because a portion of the storm water would be piped underground. • Other than that, he stated that he did not feel the natural features of the site would be adversely affected by the development. Staff pointed out that the City was in the process of a storm water drainage project along Duck Lake Road at this time, which would Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 6, 1983 alleviate some of the storm water problems in the vicinity. Gartner asked where the storm water from this project would be directed. Staff responded that the water would be directed to Purgatory Creek, and the various ponding areas in the north creek area. Planner Enger stated that it was a requirement of the Watershed District that there be upland storage areas for storm water. Katherine Stengum, property owner to the north of the project, stated that she was concerned about the proposed location of the road to be extended through her property at some time in the future when her land and that of her neighbors would be developed. She stated that she felt it would be better to redesign the road as there was an existing grade change of 30-40 ft. a short distance from the proposed location of the road extension, which would make it impractical for future use. Marhula stated that he felt there were many areas of concern remaining on this project. He stated that there were concerns regarding 1) the transition to the lots to the east in Coachlight Manor; 2) grading plans reflecting limitation to the types of houses which could be built on the lots; 3) access to the property to the north; 4) the excessive length of the cul-de-sac within the project; 5) concern about maintenance of the roads and ponds on-site; 6) trees to be conserved; and 7) storm water drainage for the site. He stated that he felt it was the consensus of the Commission that the project should be revised in these areas prior to a recommendation. The other members of the Commission concurred. Hallett questioned what the policy was for requiring a development plan for a project reflecting varying housing types possible for " a project. Staff responded that this was generally done with the R1- 9.5 projects only. MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to continue the public hearing on this project to the June 27, 1983, meeting to allow proponent to address the concerns listed by the Commission, surrounding property owners, and Staff. Motion carried--6-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS A. Proposed Ordinance for Commercial Stables Zoning Administrator, Jean Johnson, presented the proposed Commercial Stables Code for Commission review. She stated that the • revisions previously discussed by the Commission had been added into the Code and that the City Attorney had reviewed the request and made recommendations. Planning Commission Minutes 10 June 6, 1983 • Chairman Bearman stated that he was concerned with the provision requiring a 50 ft. perimeter of unusable property when adjacent to other subdivisions. The Commission concurred that Subdivision 3, sections C and D should be amended to reflect this change. MOTION• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposed Code Amendment to allow Commercial Stables, as amended, within Eden Prairie under controlled conditions. Motion carried--5-1-0 (Torjesen against) Torjesen stated he was against as he felt that creation of such Code requirements was over-regulation of the use within the City. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed Ordinance for Signage for Churches, Schools, and Other Public Buildings . Zoning Administrator, Jean Johnson, presented the proposed Code amendment regulating signage for churches, schools, and other public buildings within the community. She reviewed a letter received from Fred Hoisington, representing one of the City churches, regarding the proposed amendment. Mr. Hoisington was present and stated that he felt the City should allow for flexibility in the type of signage allowed for such uses due to the variety of uses which currently were taking place and the variety of needs of such uses. The Commission discussed allowing signage for each street frontage adjacent to such uses. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposed Code Amendment for signage for churches, schools, and other public buildings as presented, with amendments as discussed. Motion carried--6-0-0 VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner. Planning Commission Minutes 11 June 6, 1983 Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 11 :55 p.m,. Respectfully submitted, e� (?-h� Kate Karnas Planning Secretary