Loading...
Planning Commission - 09/09/1985 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 9, 1985 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula 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 (7:35) A. EDEN POINTE APARTMENTS, by Eden Pointe Partnership. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 15.3 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, on 15.3 acres, Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to RM-2.5 on 15.3 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 15.3 acres into one lot for construction of a 143-unit apartment complex in 9 buildings. Location: Southeast quadrant of Pioneer Trail and Homeward Hills Road. A continued public hearing. •(8:35) B. DATASERV, by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 17.4 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 9.56 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.4 acres into one lot and one outlot for construction of an office/warehouse building. Location: Southeast corner of West 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing. (9:05) C. EDEN PRAIRIE CONVENIENCE CENTER, by K. Charles Development Cor- poration. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Commercial on 2.3 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 13.5 acres, Zoning District Change from Office to Commercial Regional Service on 2.3 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 2.3 acres into one lot for construction of a 25,000 square foot office building and restaurant building. Location: Northwest corner of Highway #169-212 and Eden Road. A continued public hearing. (9:35) D. LION'S TAP, review of excessive fill (beyond permit approval), from Lion's Tap grading operation deposited on Sever Peterson's land. Location: Northeast corner of U.S. #169 and County Road #4. 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. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 9, 1985 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett (7:35 p.m.), Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula MEMBER ABSENT: Julianne Bye STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to adopt the agenda as printed. Motion carried--5-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. EDEN POINTE APARTMENTS, by Eden Pointe Partnership. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 15.3 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, on 15.3 acres, Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to RM-2.5 on 15.3 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 15.3 acres into one lot for construction of 143 apartment units in nine buildings. Location: Southeast quadrant of Pioneer Trail and Homeward Hills Road. A continued public hearing. This item had been continued from the August 12, 1985, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow proponents to redesign the plans responsive to the concerns of the Commission, surrounding residents, and Staff. Mr. Peter Beck, representing proponents, reviewed the history of the project to date. He then noted the changes which had been made to the plan, including: The project had now been reduced to 143 units; the most southern building had been removed from the plan and units from that building had been included within other structures on the property, creating different building types and architectural variety; the interior road had been redesigned to allow for greater stacking distance to Homeward Hills Road; a pedestrian system had been added for internal circulation; a greater buffer Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 9, 1985 had been created to the existing 9 Y single family residents to the west and south, including increased setback and increased plant materials; building materials were modified to include 75% brick; fencing was eliminated and replaced by landscaping materials; trash enclosures of architecturally compatible materials had been added; and, grades of the driveways had been reduced to 5-6% for the south driveway and 8% for the north driveway. Mr. Beck stated that the distances between buildings for the redesigned project were also increased, in order that no unit was looking into another unit. Mr. Beck noted that 70% of the property would be in open space. Regarding the concern of the neighborhood raised at the previous meeting dealing with the impact of apartment units on single family residences, Mr. Beck stated that proponents had reviewed other projects in other communities. He indicated that proponents had found that a project of the type and quality they were proposing had no negative impacts on single family neighborhoods in terms of value of the single family properties. Mr. Beck stated that all of the conditions listed in the Staff Report were acceptable to the proponents, and that they would be willing to comply with these items. Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report regarding the project. He stated that Staff was still concerned about the acloseness of the two buildings at the northeast corner of the project. Planner Enger reported that he had discussed the matter of the icy road conditions of Homeward Hills Road with the Director of Public Works. Upon review of, the Director did not find any record of complaints for the road. The Director of Public Works also indicated that there would be no significant impact on such road conditions based on the difference between 103 and 143 units on the property. Planner Enger stated that he had also discussed the matter of potential crime problems with the Public Safety Department. They informed him that their studies had shown that when a neighborhood loses its identity, i .e. neighbors stop recognizing each others cars, or do not know each other, crime increases. With respect to this project, Public Safety noted that these were small buildings, with a greater chance for residents within each structure recognizing each other, and therefore, would likely not be a location for crime to increase. The Public Safety Department also informed Planning Staff that there was no evidence to support any conclusion that multiple family developments bring an increase in crime to adjacent single family neighborhoods. Marhula asked if this project had been reviewed by the Mill Creek Homeowners' Association, or if it was required to be. Mr. Beck responded that he had reviewed their bylaws and did not find any such provision. However, he noted that all of the residents in the Mill Creek development were notified of the neighborhood meetings held by the developer. Marhula asked if this western portion of the Mill Creek Planned Unit Development had been approved prior to the development of the single family neighborhoods to the west and south. Planner Enger stated that the entire Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 9, 1985 Mill Creek development had been approved in 1973, while the single family residential neighborhoods to the west and south had been approved in 1978 and 1979. Dodge stated that she felt brick was a preferable exterior material to what was previously proposed. Mr. Greg DuMonceaux, 9733 Mill Creek Drive, stated that he would have a clear view of the project from his home in Mill Creek. ' He stated that he was aware that there would be more development to the west and that he thought most of the residents of Mill Creek were also aware that development of this property was expected, and that the type of development would be Medium Density Residential. Mr. DuMonceaux stated that he felt it was a good project and that the developers had been sensitive to the views of the property from Mill Creek. He added that he felt the exterior materials shown presented a positive image of the project. Mr. Mark Boomgaarden, 11870 Runnel Circle, indicated that he was concerned about the zoning of the property. He stated that he felt the density should be less than proposed. Mr. Boomgaarden also expressed concerns for the proposed holding pond in the southeast corner of the property, traffic, and road improvements that may be required by the development of this property. Ms. Jan Daly, 12260 Travois Road, stated that she agreed with the concerns • of Mr. Boomgaarden, adding that she did not feel the developer had proven a case for the need of more apartments in the City of Eden Prairie, particularly in this location. Ms. Daly stated that she was still uncomfortable about the possible increase in crime in her neighborhood. Mr. Ken Meyer, 9741 Portal Drive, stated that he would prefer lower density on the site. He added that he preferred the proposed brick exterior materials for the development. Mr.Greg Damlo, 12117 Cartway Curve, asked about the future upgrading of Homeward Hills Road. He questioned whether the upgraded road would be located "closer" to the existing single family residents, or to the proposed multiple family development. He asked that the City consider not locating the upgraded road closer to the single family residents on the west side of Homeward Hills Road. Mr. Damlo stated that he preferred the proposed brick exterior materials and that he would like to see a minimum percentage of brick required on the structures. Planner Enger stated that City Code required 75% of the structure to be brick, unless a variance was granted. He noted that Staff was not supporting such a variance. Ms. Linda Rudberg, 12100 Travois Road, stated that she supported the use of brick as an exterior material for the property. She asked for more information as to the impact of this development on the value of their homes. Mr. Marty Mehl, 9821 Laguna Circle, stated that he appreciated that the developers had removed the south-most building from the development, and that he favored brick as an exterior materials for the property_. He indicated that his major concern was the density of the project and the potential for increased crime, road improvements, public services, etc. Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 9, 1985 caused b more people in one lace. Mr. Mehl stated that he felt the Y p p p project would be better for the existing residents if it were in private ownership, instead of available for rental . Mr. Damlo asked how many units would be allowed under RM-6.5 zoning. Planner Enger estimated that it would be approximately 108 units. Marhula stated that he felt Staff should review the plans for upgrading of Homeward Hills Road to determine whether additional right-of-way was necessary from this development and to determine the location of the road bed within the right-of-way. Marhula stated that he felt the question of density for any project should be looked at carefully. He stated that there could be a difference between density and the number of units for a particular project. Marhula stated that less units would not necessarily mean a better project. For example, an RM-6.5 zone could possibly be the appropriate zoning for a ten-story apartment building. The density may be allowable under the RM-6.5 zone, but the design of the project may not be completely acceptable for the area. Chairman Schuck stated that the City could not control whether the units were rental, or not, any more than the City could control whether a single family home was rented out. • Regarding the proposed ponding in the southeast quadrant of the property, Planner Enger stated that most of the projects within the City provided a sedimentation pond for stormwater run-off purposes. At this point, it was still possible to proceed either way with the pond for the southeast portion of the property, i .e. it could be an open water pond, or a pond which would hold water only temporarily during wet times of the year. Mr. Beck stated that proponents would be willing to work with the neighborhood to determine what type of pond would be most acceptable to them, prior to Council review of the project. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Pointe Partnership for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 15.3 acres for construction of 143 apartment units in nine buildings, based on revised plans dated August 30, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated August 9, and September 6, 1985. Motion carried--6-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 9, 1985 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Pointe Partnership for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zonin District Change from RM-6.5 to RM-2.5 on 15.3 acres for construction of apartment units in nine buildings, based on revised plans dated August 30, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated August 9, and September 6, 1985, and with the following added conditions: 1d. Redesign the elevations to provide for 75% brick per City Code requirements; le. Review the design plans for the upgrading of Homeward Hills Road and the impact of the future design on both the existing single family homes to the west and the proposed development. The location of the road bed within the right-of-way may be more towards the east; and 1f. Modify the landscape plan to provide additional berming and plantings along the south portion of the property; 1g. Determine the type of stormwater holding pond to be constructed in the southeast portion of the property after conferring with the residents to the south of the project and the City Engineering Department. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend to the City Council' approval of the request of Eden Pointe Partnership for Preliminary Plat of 15.3 acres for construction of 143 apartment units in nine buildings, based on revised plans dated August 30, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated August 9, and September 6, 1985, and with the following added conditions: 1d. Redesign the elevations to provide for 75% brick per City Code requirements; le. Review the design plans for the upgrading of Homeward Hills Road and the impact of the future design on both the existing single family homes to the west and the proposed development. The location of the road bed within the right-of-way may be more towards the east; and 1f. Modify the landscape plan to provide additional berming and plantings along the south portion of the property; 1g. Determine the type of stormwater holding pond to be constructed in the southeast portion of the property after conferring with the residents to the south of the project and the City Engineering Department. Motion carried--6-0-0 B. DATASERV, by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 17.4 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 9.56 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.4 acres int one lot and one outlot for construction of an office/warehouse building. Location: Southeast corner of West 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing. Mr. Bob Worthington, Opus Corporation, reviewed the revised plans with the Commission. Changes had been made responsive to the Commission and Staff concerns, including the following: The loading dock area was completely enclosed; the south wall indicated a different architectural treatment involving jogs in the building, brick as the exterior material, and window bands similar to the office portion of the structure; landscaping and Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 9, 1985 • screeninghad been increased along the road frontages b g g y placing "proof-of- parking" areas along the perimeter of the site and landscaping within those areas, which also had the effect of increasing the front setbacks from 50 ft. to 69 ft. ; a 20 ft. wide, bermed and planted island had been added to the parking lot; and mechanical equipment would be grouped and screened with architecturally compatible material . It was also noted by Mr. Worthington that proponents intended to preserve the wooded area along the south and southeast portions of the property. He added that, at the next meeting, proponents would be prepared to show the Commission how the expansion of the structure would be located on the remainder of the site and, in the event that the DataSery building was not expanded, how another building for another user would work on the site. Mr. Worthington stated that proponents did not want Commission action at this meeting; however, they would want to have any additional comments and direction the Commission may have prior to requesting a Commission recommendation at the next meeting. Johannes asked if the band of windows would be continued across the south side of the structure in order to continue the office-like appearance of the structure to the warehouse portion of the structure. Mr. Worthington acknowledged that this would be done. Chairman Schuck stated that he preferred the jogs which had been introduced to the south side of the structure. He added that he would prefer to see a door on the loading dock area. Chairman Schuck stated that the revised plans appeared to be more in keeping with the guidelines which had been established and approved for the Prairie Center Business Park. Johannes asked if the entryway to the loading docks would be sufficiently screened by the landscaping proposed. Planner Enger explained that the area would likely be well screened based on the locations of the plant materials on the site. He stated that Staff would review this in greater detail upon receipt of the revised landscape plan from the proponent. Hallett asked if it would be possible to include a band of windows along the north side of the structure as well . He added that he concurred with Chairman Schuck that the redesigned project was more in keeping with the guidelines for the Prairie Center Business Park. Hallett asked if the berms along the front yards of the property would remain in the event that the proof-of-parking areas were needed along the perimeter of the site. Planner Enger explained that the effectiveness of the berms would remain and that if the proof-of-parking areas were needed, there would likely be "internal" retaining walls installed against the berms, instead. Marhula stated that he was satisfied with the manner in which the loading dock was now being treated. He noted that there had been a history of the sensitivity of this site to grading work, adding that there were cuts proposed of up to 30 ft. He asked that proponents be aware of this in the construction of this project on the property. Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 9, 1985 i Marhula encouraged proponents to present detailed plans of the future plans for the south portion of the property as action on the north portion may be dependent upon future plans for the south portion. Mr. Worthington stated that these plans would be available at the next Planning Commission meeting. Marhula stated that he concurred in the concerns of Hallett regarding the proof-of-parking areas of the site. He also asked if there were any internal sidewalks planned in the area of the parking lot in order to provide for safety of pedestrians in this area. Mr. Worthington stated that this would be added to the plans and shown in greater detail at the next Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to continue this item to the September 23, 1985, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponents opportunity to complete revisions to their plans. Motion carried--6-0-0 C. EDEN PRAIRIE CONVENIENCE CENTER, by K. Charles Development Cor- poration. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Commercial on 2.3 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept • Amendment on 13.5 acres, Zoning District Change on 2.3 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 2.3 acres into one lot for construction of a 15,750 square foot building. Location: Northwest corner of Highway #169-212 and Eden Road. A continued public hearing. Planner Enger reported that Staff had been in contact with representatives of the Eden Prairie Convenience Center since the August 26, 1985 meeting. Since that time, a number of revisions had been made to the existing site plan, however, those revisions were not yet complete. Proponents had requested additional continuance of Commission action on this item to the October 7, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to continue to the October 7, 1985, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponent additional time for revisions to the project. Motion carried--6-0-0 D. LION'S TAP. Review of Excessive Fill (beyond permit approval), from Lion's Tap grading operation deposited on Sever Peterson's land. Location: Northeast corner of U. S. Highway #169 and County Road #4. Planner Enger reported that Staff had been in contact with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and found that they are still awaiting information from Mr. Peterson prior to making their final determination on this matter. Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 9, 1985 Hallett asked whether an agricultural use could be allowed for the fill area, if a land-hold agreement was executed as discussed at the previous meeting. Planner Enger responded that it could be allowed in accordance with City Code, but that this would not mean storage of equipment or outside storage of any kind. He added that any further development should be denied until sewer and water were available to the site. Chairman Schuck stated that, since patrons of the Lion's Tap were using the filled area on Mr. Peterson's property for parking, some method of policing the parking, or preventing parking in this area, was necessary immediately. Hallett stated that, in that regard, he felt the City should make every attempt to facilitate the realignment of the intersection of County Road #4 with Highway #169. Mr. Sever Peterson stated that he had no difficulties with the property remaining in a Rural zoning category in terms of use. He stated that if parking machinery on the property was not allowed, he would not do so. He reaffirmed that the would be willing to meet any, and all, requirements of the Rural District. Johannes stated that he was most concerned about the possibility of setting a precedent by allowing the fill to remain in this area. He added that, while he did not want to cause any financial hardship by requiring the removal of the fill, he still felt that it may be a necessary alternative. Marhula stated that he suspected that the major impact of filling in this floodplain area would be upon Mr. Peterson's property, but that the City should consider whether other properties would be impacted, as well, including major roads, such as County Road #4 and Highway #169. Marhula stated that he felt that the land use matter was a separate issue. He concurred with Chairman Schuck that the parking by patrons of Lion's Tap needed to be controlled in the immediate future and suggested that fencing, or some other type of barrier, be installed to prevent such parking. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City Council approval of the fill on Mr. Peterson's land, subject to the following: 1) A land-hold agreement being signed by Mr. Peterson including conditions precluding development of the property until sewer and water were available to the site; 2) Allowing only Rural use of the site; 3) Immediate measures be implemented to prevent parking by patrons of the Lion's Tap on the filled property; and 4) Subject to any conditions which may be imposed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Riley-Purgatory- Bluff Watershed District. Marhula stated that he felt it was necessary to have the data from DNR and the Watershed District regarding impact of the fill in the floodplain on adjacent properties prior to taking any action on this item. Motion failed--2-4-0 (Chairman Schuck, Dodge, Johannes, and Marhula against) Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 9, 1985 MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to continue this item to the October 7, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, pending receipt of findings from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Riley-Purgatory- Bluff Watershed District as to potential impact on the adjacent properties and upon County Road #4 and Highway #169 of filling within the floodplain. Motion carried--6-0-0 IV. OLD BUSINESS Highway _#212 Progress Report Gartner stated that she had recently attended a meeting regarding the progress of the Highway #212 corridor through Eden Prairie. She stated that the current schedule was for Highway #5 to its intersection with Mitchell Road would be completed in 1986, the intersection of Highway #5 with County Road #4 would be improved in 1987, and the railroad bridge would be replaced in approximately 1989. V. NEW BUSINESS None. VI. PLANNER'S REPORT Meeting Dates for October and November, 1985 Staff noted that, due to public holidays, it would be necessary to change the meeting schedule for the Planning Commission in October and November, 1985. MOTION: Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to adopt the following schedule for meetings in October and November, 1985: Special Meeting Monday, October 7, 1985 Regular Meeting Monday, October 28, 1985 Special Meeting Tuesday, November 12, 1985 Regular Meeting Monday, November 25, 1985 Motion carried--6-0-0 VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.