Loading...
Planning Commission - 01/28/1985 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, January 28, 1985 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula, Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. RESEARCH FARM ADDITION, by Northrup King. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Sports Center, Low Density Residential and High Density Residential to Regional Commercial, Office, Industrial, and Multiple Residential for 189+ acres. Location: West of Highway #169, at Anderson Lakes Parkway. A continued public hearing. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Landscaping/Screening Ordinance Amendment VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, January 28, 1985 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Dennis Marhula (8:30 p.m.), Ed Schuck, Hakon Torjesen (7:45 P.M.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Stan Johannes STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was mde by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to adopt the agenda as • printed. Motion carried--4-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to adopt the minutes of the January 14, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--4-0-0 (Torjesen arrived at 7:45 p.m.) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. RESEARCH FARM ADDITION, by Northrup King. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Sports Center, Low Density Residential and High Density Residential to Regional Commercial , Office, Industrial, and Multiple Residential for 189+ acres. Location: West of Highway #169, at Anderson Lakes Parkway. A continued public hearing. Mr. Richard Putnam, Tandem Corporation, representing proponents, presented a Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 28, 1985 series of slides depicting the character of the site and showing existing types of development which would likely be built on the site based on the plans proponents were advocating. (Marhula arrived at 8:30 p.m.) Planner Enger reviewed the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report dated January 25, 1985, with the Commission. He pointed out that several of the site characteristics represented areas of concern to City Staff, including: the ridge area, the creek bed, the character of Anderson Lakes Parkway, the visibility of Staring Lake, access to Highway #169, etc. Planner Enger then reviewed Eden Prairie against other surrounding communities for amount of land area built, zoned, and guided by comprehensive plans for industrial development. Eden Prairie was higher than any other community, with the inclusion of the area of the Browning Ferris Industries Landfill, second from the highest, excluding the Browning Ferris property. He pointed out that the City would realize certain consequences from changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan to industrial in this area, and outlined the areas of concern, including the need for additional land for residential development. • Planner Franzen reviewed Alternative #3 of the Staff Report which was an alternate plan for a Comprehensive Guide Plan change. He stated that it was Staff's opinion that this would be a plausible alternative for development of this property, which would deal with proponent's requests and Staff's concerns. Marhula asked about the status of the improvements to Highway #212 and the impact of those improvements upon development of this site. Staff responded that the alignment for Highway #212 was currently being reviewed by the Transportation Committee. Marhula asked whether the land uses proposed by Northrup King would be appropriate if existing Highway #169 was downgraded in the future due to the realignment of Highway #212. Staff responded that the traffic engineers for the proponents had predicated their traffic study on the basis of Highway#212 being built and realigned. The realignment of Highway #212 would have an impact on this site in that its construction would ultimately decrease the traffic volumes for Highway #169 in this area down to the levels of traffic existing at this time. Chairman Bearman asked if a time table had been established for the construction of Highway #212. Staff responded that this had not been done yet. Torjesen stated that he would prefer an extension of the residential land uses on the east side of Anderson Lakes Parkway across Highway #169 to the west in order to maintain the residential character of this road. He added that, in general , he felt Alternative #3 of the Staff Report represented a good solution for maintenance of the balance of uses within the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Marhula suggested that it may be appropriate to "exchange" locations of the uses within the proposed plan by showing residential use along either side Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 28, 1985 of Anderson Lakes Parkway at its intersection with Highway #169 on this property in exchange for relocation of the commercial/industrial uses shown by proponent to the southwest portion of the property. Gartner stated that she was not in favor of creating a "strip" zone of commercial/industrial usage along Highway #169. Planner Enger stated that there was a mixture of uses along highway frontage within the community, pointing out that much of I-494 in its north/south alignment through the community was residential in character, while the east/west portion of I-494 through Eden Prairie was oriented towards office and commercial uses. He added that there was a mixture of uses along Highway #169 through the community, as well . The Staff report pointed out that, regardless of the use ultimately designated for this development along Highway #169, there would be difficulty in ascertaining the best design of any use, while creating the least impact on the land use and on Highway #169. Hallett stated that he felt the balance of land uses would work out well based on proposed Alternative #3 for Comprehensive Guide Plan land uses for this site. He stated that he felt any building of an industrial nature could be accomplished in an attractive manner which would fit the neighborhood, if proper controls, through a design framework manual, or other planning tools, were adopted. Hallett stated that he would also prefer to see residential usage located adjacent to the existing residential • area to the west of the Northrup King property. Schuck stated that he, too, preferred Alternative #3 for Comprehensive Guide Plan land uses for this site. He added that he felt office/service uses could be appropriate in this area, if properly done and tightly controlled. Chairman Bearman asked about difference between the number of daily trips which would be generated by residential development of this property, versus the mixed uses development as proposed. Mr. Mitch Wonson, Benshoof and Associates, traffic consultants for proponent, explained that residential development of the property would result in approximately 3,800 more trips per day than a mixed development as proposed. Torjesen suggested that the commercial portions of the property could be developed with a "residential character" as had been done in other parts of the community. Chairman Bearman stated that he felt strongly that a design framework manual was necessary before action could be taken on the requested Comprehensive Guide Plan change. He stated that he felt the most important thing to accomplish with this stage of review would be to make certain that development controls were in place so that the residents, City, and proponents would know precisely what type of development would take occur in this area. Chairman Bearman suggested that more residential use within the property may be better since the type of traffic generated would have less impact on peak hour situations. Marhula stated that he felt the width of the commercial area along Highway #169 shown in Alternative #3 should be widened in order to allow for greater Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 28, 1985 opportunity for good design of a commercial park instead of a commercial strip. Schuck and Hallett concurred. Torjesen expressed concern about the balance of designated uses within the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He suggested that proponents look at ways to reduce the office and office/service uses and increase the residential uses within their proposed plan. Schuck suggested that proponents try to better define what was meant by "office" and "industrial" usage within their plan so there would be no questions as to whether light, or heavy industrial uses, or office or office/service uses would be expected in the future. Mr. Ed Ludtke, 12630 Crowfoot Court, pointed out that he was the only resident from the area present at this meeting. He expressed concern that others were not present as he was aware that other residents had concerns about the development, too. He asked if the residents could be renotified about the project, since this project had been continued so many times at the Planning Commission level. Torjesen stated that he concurred with Marhula's earlier suggestion exchanging locations of the commercial usage along future Anderson Lakes Parkway for residential use currently in the southwest corner of the • property. He added that he also concurred with the need for a design framework manual for this property prior to any action being taken on the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan change. Hallett stated that he liked the idea of a corporate headquarters site to the north of Staring Lake on the property. Gartner concurred. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to continue the public hearing to the February 11, 1985, Planning Commission meeting and that Staff be directed to renotify the residents regarding the continuation of the hearing on this project. Motion carried--6-0-0 (Schuck left the meeting at 10:15 p.m.) V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Landscaping/Screening Ordinance Amendment Staff explained that the purpose of the proposed amendment to the section of the Code currently dealing with landscaping was to quantify the amount and size of landscaping expected by the City proportionate to the size and height of the building. The proposed amendment was similar to ordinances in effect surrounding communities; however, it was written to be more Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 28, 1985 responsive to the difference between heights of buildings. Also proposed by the amendment was a bonding requirement for screening of rooftop mechanical equipment. It was Staff's opinion that this would help the City to enforce what the Code currently requires. Torjesen asked if the requirements of the proposed amendment would add appreciably to the cost of the landscaping and screening of any particular project. Staff stated that, in their opinion, the proposed amendments would not do so, but would rather provide for uniformity throughout the City. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposed Landscaping/Screening ordinance changes. Motion carried--5-0-0 VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT • MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett. Chairman Bearman adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m.