Loading...
Planning Commission - 09/23/1985 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 23, 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. 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. Location: Southeast corner of West 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing. (7:50) B. PRALLE ADDITION, by James R. & Kay L. Pralle. Request for Preliminary Plat of 1.05 acres into two lots. Location: Southeast corner of Paulson Drive and Ullman Circle. A public hearing. (8:00) C. ALPINE VILLAGE, by Habiger & Associates, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 7.58 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-22 to RM 6.5 on 7.58 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into two lots for construction of 30 townhomes. Location: East of Alpine Trail, South of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. A public hearing. (8:45) D. RAMADA INN, by Ramada Inns, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from C-Regional to C-Regional-Service on four acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 12.54 acres into one lot and two outlots for construction of a 180- room hotel . Location: Northwest corner of' I-494 and Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing. AGENDA September 23, 1985 Page 2 (9:30) E. FARRINGTON WOODS, by Barnett-Range Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 31.7 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances on 21.6 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 21.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 31.7 acres into one lot, one outlot, and road right-of-way, and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Reivew on 31.7 acres for construction of 252 apartment units. Location: West of U.S. #169, and North of Research Farm. 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. MINUTES • EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 23, 1985 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Robert Hallett, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge (9:15 p.m.), Virginia Gartner, Stan Johannes MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Dennis Marhula STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Donald Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, 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 Johannes, to approve the mintues of the August 26, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--3-0-1 (Bye abstained) MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to approve the minutes of the September 9, 1985, Planning Commission meeting as printed. Motion carried--3-0-1 (Bye abstained) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. 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 10.1 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.4 acres into one lot and one outlot. Location: Southeast corner of West 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 23, 1985 This item was continued from the August 26, and September 9, 1985, Planning Commission meetings in order to allow the proponents the opportunity to revise the plans in accordance with the approved design guidelines for the Prairie Center Business Park Planned Unit Development Concept. Staff had met with the Developer several times since the last Planning Commission meeting and mitigated all the technical problems raised by the Commission and in the Staff Report of August 23, 1985. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report evaluating the revised request. With respect to the proposed expansion of the development to the south, Planner Franzen noted that Staff was most comfortable with the alternative whereby DataSery would expand its own facility in a "mirror image" to the south. The other alternative showed another building for a different use, and indicated encroachment into the treed area to the southeast. The second alternative also represented less total square footage of structure on the site, but a similar structural appearance to the building shown in Phase I. Mr. Bob Worthington, representing Opus Corporation, briefly reviewed additional changes made to the plan since the last Planning Commission meeting. • Acting Chairman Hallett asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of DataSery for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 17.45 acres for an office/warehouse structure, based on revised plans dated September 16, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated August 23, and September 20, 1985. Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of DataSery for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 10.1 acres for an office/warehouse structure, based on revised plans dated September 16, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated August 23, and September 20, 1985. Motion carried--4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 23, 1985 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of DataSery for Preliminary Plat of 17.4 acres into one lot and one outlot for an office/warehouse structure, based on revised plans dated September 16, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated August 23, and September 20, 1985. Motion carried--4-0-0 B. PRALLE ADDITION, by James R. & Kay L. Pralle. Request for Preliminary Plat of 1.05 acres into two lots. Location: Southeast corner of Paulsen Drive and Ullman Circle. A public hearing. Planner Franzen explained that proponent was requesting, basically, a revised lot line between two parcels in order to obtain control over a treed area between the two lots. In order to accomplish this, a preliminary plat was required. Acting Chairman Hallett asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: • Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of James and Kay Pralle for Preliminary Plat of 1.05 acres into two lots, based on plans dated September 4, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 20, 1985. Motion carried--4-0-0 C. ALPINE VILLAGE, by Habiger & Associates, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 7.58 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-22 to RM 6.5 on 7.58 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into two lots for construction of 30 townhomes. Location: East of Alpine Trail, South of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. A public hearing. Mr. Charles Habiger, proponent, stated that he had held meetings recently with residents in the area surrounding the proposed development and that, based on those meetings and the findings of the Staff Report, he would like to request a continuance to see if the concerns could be mitigated by redesign. Mr. Habiger presented the materials for the development as proposed, reviewing proposed architecture and site characteristics of the property. Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 23, 1985 Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of September 20, 1985. He noted several concerns regarding the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to Medium Density Residential including compatibility with the surrounding existing uses of Low Density Residential, whether the proposed plan was a "better" Comprehensive Guide Plan designation was better than the existing designation, and whether the site plan details substantiated the change. Planner Uram stated that it was Staff's opinion that the use was not compatible with surrounding land uses, since the surrounding uses were all Low Density Residential and surrounding zoning districts were R1-22 and R1-13.5. With respect to a "better" plan than the existing Comprehensive Guide Plan designation would allow, Staff noted that, often, clustered units could more effectively save natural features of a property, but that this had not been shown with this plan due to the density proposed. And regarding site plan details of the project with respect to the requested Comprehensive Guide Plan change, Planner Uram stated that Staff was concerned about traffic, visual impacts, and transition with the project as designed. He also stated that, in order to service this property with sanitary sewer, it would require an extension of sanitary sewer of 950 ft. from the east and that proponents had not yet made any arrangements with the property owner to the east whose property the extension would cross. Gartner stated that she felt the residents of the community should be able • to depend on the integrity of the Comprehensive Guide Plan and felt that the neighborhood had reason for being concerned about this requested change based on the plans proposed. Gartner stated that she liked the proposed architecture of the project, but that she felt this was an inappropriate location for a project of this density. Bye stated that she did not feel that a project of this density would be an asset to this neighborhood. She added that she was concerned about the traffic situation with the addition of these units, as well. Johannes asked if a single family residential plan had been prepared for this site and how many units of single family residential would be allowed on this property based on the current Comprehensive Guide Plan designation. Planner Uram stated such a plan had been prepared by the developer and rejected, adding that 19 units would be possible under the current Comprehensive Guide Plan designation. Johannes asked if more of the natural features would be saved by multiple residential, or single family residential, development of the property. Planner Uram stated that it was possible that the multiple residential development of this property could save more natural features. Johannes stated that he was not certain that single family homes would be the best unit type for this property and added that he, too, was concerned about the traffic matters presented. Acting Chairman Hallett asked if there was land east of Purgatory Creek which was developable and whether the extension of the road proposed would be necessary to service such property. Planner Enger stated that there was developable land in this area, but that the extension of the road was not necessary for that property to develop. Acting Chairman Hallett asked what the advantage would be to allowing this road to be extended across Purgatory Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 23, 1985 Creek. Planner Enger stated that it would allow for another outlet for traffic out of that area, through the Alpine Way neighborhood, , and provide for additional access for public safety vehicles. Mr. Al Bode, 16090 Alpine Way, expressed concern for the proposed change to the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation for the project. He stated that his decision to purchase a home in this area was based upon the fact that the area was nearly completely developed as single family residential and that the City's plan indicated the same type of use for this remaining open property. Also, the property was zoned R1-22, a single family residential designation. Mr. Bode also expressed concern for the phasing of the project. He questioned how long construction traffic would be present and have an impact on the existing residential neighborhood, considering the fact that there was only one access to the property, which was through the existing neighborhood. He also questioned how such a small townhouse project could support an association in order to deal with snow plowing, architectural controls, etc. Mr. Bode expressed concern that such a small association may not survive the costs of such maintenance requirements and the project may become run down for lack of maintenance. With respect to other developments in the City, Mr. Bode stated that he had seen parks, trails, or other amenities dedicated to the City as part of the • development. He stated that this was not the case with the proposed project and asked who, besides the developer, would have anything to gain by the development of this property as proposed. Mr. Dwight Harvey, 16190 Alpine Way, stated that his property was located directly south of the proposed development. He stated that he supported and agreed with the comments made by Mr. Bode regarding the development. Mr. Harvey stated that he felt the development of this property may have a negative impact on the creek and wildlife in the area. In addition, he stated that he felt there was a problem with lack of transition to his home to the south and that of his neighbors. He presented pictures to the Commission of the property as viewed from his home. Mr. Harvey stated that, while some trees did exist between his property and the proposed development, they were deciduous trees, which would provide little, or no, screening for the majority of the year. He stated that he felt three-story townhoues would be very visible from his home, especially since the elevation of his property was greater than that of the proposed development. Mr. Harvey also expressed concern about the intentions of the developer to request a public improvement project for extension of sanitary sewer to the property. He stated that he felt this would be a burden to the City financially. Mr. David Quanbeck, 16150 Hillcrest Lane, expressed concern about the traffic. He stated that he felt that, due to the topography, if single family homes were developed on this property, it would likely be a development representing ten to twelve units, as opposed to the maximum possible of 19, which would mean substantially less traffic than the proposed 30-unit townhouse project. Mr. Quanbeck stated that he felt the developer was proposing a rather unusual situation by trying to locate so Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 23, 1985 many multiple residential units at the end of a single family neighborhood, with only one access, that being through the single family neighborhood. Mr. Quanbeck questioned the wisdom of this based on emergency vehicle access needs. Letters from residents, including two petitions, which were submitted prior to the meeting, were read into the record and made a part of the permanent file on the project. Concerns expressed were the same as those stated by neighbors (above). Mr. Habiger thanked the residents for their comments and stated that he would work them and the City Staff to mitigate these concerns, in particular the impacts of the development upon the existing single family neighborhood. MOTION: Motion was made by' Bye, seconded by Johannes, to continue this item to the October 28, 1985, Planning Commission meeting for modification of the plans responsive to resident, Commission, and Staff concerns. Gartner stated that she was not in favor of a Comprehensive Guide Plan change for the property. Staff noted that additional notice would be sent regarding the October 28, • 1985, Planning Commission meeting, to the surrounding residents. Motion carried--4-0-0 (Dodge arrived at 9:10 p.m.) D. RAMADA INN, by Ramada Inns, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from C-Regional to C-Regional-Service on four acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 12.54 acres into one lot and two outlots for construction of a 180- room hotel. Location: Northwest corner of I-494 and Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing. Mr. Dale Beckman, BRW, representing proponents, reviewed the proposed development, including site characteristics and building features. He noted that there was the potential for shared parking with the property to the north of the site. Mr. Mickey Sheppard, architect for proponents, reviewed the architecture and design of the structure with the Commission. He noted that the exterior materials would be mostly brick and glass, with some stucco accent areas. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of September 20, 1985, regarding the proposal . Bye stated that she liked the project design and the architecture of the project. She questioned whether the screening of the loading dock was adequate from the public roads. Mr. Beckman reviewed the sight lines into the loading dock area and the location of plant materials on various parts of the site which would block vision of the loading dock from public roads. Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 23, 1985 Dodge asked what the possible uses would be for the property to the north. Mr. Beckman responded that the uses may include a restaurant, small office building, a banking facility, etc. He added that no use had been finally determined at this time. Gartner asked if proponents would be requesting signage along I-494. Mr. Beckman stated that the proponents felt the site was adequately signed from the north, east, and west, without signage needed along I-494. Acting Chairman Hallett asked for Staff's opinion regarding the request for variance to the required number of parking spaces, which proponent would be taking before the Board of Appeals. Planner Enger explained that this site was providing parking a higher ratio of spaces per room than any other proposal for a hotel in the community. He added that this hotel, unlike others proposed in the community, did not have additional uses beyond rooms, such as banquet or convention facilities. Therefore, he stated that Staff was not uncomfortable with the request for a variance. Acting Chairman Hallett asked if liquor would be served in the hotel restaurant. Mr. Beckman responded that there were no plans for this at this time. Acting Chairman Hallett asked for questions and comments from members of the audience. There were none. • MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Ramada Inns for Zoning District Change from C-Regional to Commercial-Regional-Service for four acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for a 180-room hotel, based on revised plans dated September 17, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 20, 1985. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Ramada Inns for Preliminary Plat of 12.54 acres into one lot and two outlots for construction of a 180-room hotel , based on revised plans dated September 17, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 20, 1985. Motion carried--5-0-0 E. FARRINGTON WOODS, by Barnett-Range Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 31.7 acres, Planned Unit Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 23, 1985 Development District Review with variances on 21.6 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 21.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 31.7 acres into one lot, one outlot, and road right-of-way, and Environmental Assessment Worksheet Reivew on 31.7 acres for construction of 252 apartment units. Location: West of U.S. #169, and North of Research Farm. A public hearing. Planner Enger explained that Staff had met with the proponent many times over the last four months to deal with several issues involving this proposal . At this time, changes were still needed in the architecture of the project. However, proponents had not had time to complete these changes prior to the meeting. Since all the plans had not been completed, there has been no Staff Report. Proponents requested a brief review by the Commission at this time to confirm that the direction of the project was accurate and to determine if there were any other concerns of the Commission prior to a full presentation at the next Commission meeting. Mr. Don Brauer, representing proponent, reviewed the plans for the site with the Commission. Ms. Helen Dowds explained the architecture proposed for the development, stating that the exterior of the structures would be 75% brick, or better, material . She stated that there would be four "villages" within the development, each accessed from a different point along the public road through the project. • Mr. Russ Barnett, proponent, indicated that some of the reasons for change included that Eden Prairie did not currently have any projects quite like this in the community, and that their marketing research had found a need for small condominium units in the City. Therefore, the changes in architecture were being proposed. Johannes asked if Staff had had an opportunity to review the density of this project in terms of the closeness of the structures. Planner Enger stated that this was one of the design considerations which had been worked on by the proponents earlier in their design of the project. Acting Chairman Hallett asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to continue to the October 7, 1985, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow plan modifications. Motion carried--5-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 23, 1985 0 VII. PLANNER'S REPORT Actions of the Board of Appeals Planner Enger reviewed several issues which had been, or were scheduled before the Board of Appeals. The Commission concurred that land use issues should at least be reviewed by the Planning Commission in order that their input could be given to the Board of Appeals for their consideration prior to action on such matters. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Bye, seconded by Johannes. Acting Chairman Hallett adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. •