Loading...
Planning Commission - 06/09/1986 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 9, 1986 �30 P.M. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Richard Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant 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. LAKE PARK, by The Rottlund Company, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 16.7 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review within the RM-6.5 zoning district on 16.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 16.7 acres into 102 lots for construction of 98 townhome units. Location: Southwest quadrant of County Road #4 and Timber Lakes Drive. A public hearing. (8:15) B. STENEHJEM ADDITION, by Kathleen M. Stenehjem. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 with lot frontage variance, and Preliminary Plat of 3.34 acres into five single family lots. Location: North of Craig Drive, east of Duck Lake Road. A public hearing. (8:45) C. EIGHTEEN PARK BUSINESS CENTER, by Investment Services Group, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from I-5 Park to I-2 Park on 2.85 acres with Preliminary Plat of 2.85 acres into one lot for construction of a 37,000 square foot office/warehouse. Location: West of Washington Avenue, South of Flying Cloud Drive. 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. 0 MINUTES • EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 9, 1986 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Robert Hallett (7:35 p.m.), Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Chuck Ruebling MEMBER ABSENT: Chairman Ed Schuck STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Donald Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Bye, to adopt the agenda as printed. lot Motion carried--5-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Gartner, to approve the minutes of the May 27, 1986, special Planning Commission meeting, as written. Motion carried--5-0-1 (Bye abstained) (Acting Chairman Hallett arrived at 7:35 p.m.) IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. LAKE PARK, by The Rottlund Company, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 16.7 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review within the RM-6.5 zoning district on 16.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 16.7 acres into 102 lots for construction of 98 townhome units. Location: Southwest quadrant of • County Road #4 and Timber Lakes Drive. A public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 9, 1986 Mr. Bill Price, engineer for proponents, reviewed the site design with the Commission, including site access, landscaping, and architecture. Planner Enger reviewed the Staff Report of June 6, 1986. He stated that the previous approval for this property had been for 84 units when the City originally reviewed the Mitchell Lake Planned Unit Development of 1976. Staff noted that additional access to the property would be provided in the future along the south property line, in conjunction with access to future Miller Park, located south and west of the property. It was also pointed out that the final details of storm water drainage for the property needed to be worked out with the City Engineer. Planner Enger stated that the City Council was currently reviewing an engineering feasibility study regarding storm water drainage and the "chain of lakes" in Eden Prairie, which would be impacted by this drainage system, and which would have an affect on the development of this property. He noted that the Council was expected to act on the feasibility study some time in July. Mr. Price explained that the storm water from the site, itself, would be held on the property in the pond shown. He noted that it would be sealed to hold the water and, therefore, maintain the amenity to avoid a drying out of the pond. Gartner asked how the sealing of the pond would take place. Mr. Price explained that it would be done by one of several methods, including a polyethelene liner, clay, or imported material from South Dakota which was a natural sealer. Gartner asked about the 102 lots requested by platting versus the 98 units proposed for units. Mr. Price stated that the other four lots would be owned by the Homeowners' Association for this property and maintained as common space for the entire development. Anderson asked if there would be a walkway around the entire pond. Mr. Price stated that it would not be around the entire circumference of the pond, but would be routed along one side of the pond. Anderson stated that he was concerned about future maintenance of this area for attractiveness of the development, since it appeared to be the principle amenity for the property. Mr. Price stated that the intent was that it be maintained. He noted that the developers were considering the use of a well for the pond in order to assure that the water would stay fresh. Bye stated that she was concerned about the provision of adequate parking for the development, adding that she concurred with the Staff recommendation for additional parking on the property. Mr. Price indicated that he felt this was a matter which could be worked out with the Staff prior to City Council review. He added that proponents were willing to comply with all of the Staff recommendations. Anderson asked if the homeowners of this development would be part of the existing homeowners' association, or form another one. Mr. Bud Rotter, • proponent, responded that the existing association for the homes north of Timber Lakes Drive would not be part of the association for this development. He stated that it was likely, however, that the six units existing on the south side of Timber Lakes Drive would be combined in some manner into one association with the proposed development. Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 9, 1986 Acting Chairman Hallett asked if it would be possible for the development to provide for another access to the south at the road to be installed in the future for access to Miller Park. He stated that he felt another access may be necessary, considering the number of units in the development. Dodge stated that she felt additional landscaping would be necessary along County Road #4. She asked if there was potential for access to the south for this property in order to alleviate the traffic problem in the near future. Planner Enger stated that this could be reviewed with the proponents prior to Council review. Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he was concerned that the additional parking spaces be included with the minimum loss of green space possible to the property. Bye concurred. Acting Chairman Hallett asked about storage for snow on the property. Mr. Price stated that plans were to remove some of the snow by truck from the site to other locations. Acting Chairman Hallett asked what provisions, if any, Staff had recommended for the snow storage on the property. Planner Enger responded that Staff had suggested curbing along driveways and the road in order to avoid damage to the green areas of the yards by snow removal activities. Acting Chairman Hallett asked about the existing evergreens near County Road #4. Planner Enger stated that those trees were not located on the property, but on the adjacent property; therefore, they would not be disturbed. Mr. Ed Nash, 8072 Timber Lakes Drive, expressed concern for the potential traffic problems resulting from the new development. He stated that he felt having only one access to the property would create a bad traffic situation on Timber Lakes Drive. He pointed out that there would be approximately 200 additional cars resulting from this development. Mr. Nash added that he believed alternative access to County Road #4 should be provided for the development as soon as possible and asked when the access to the park would be constructed. Planner Enger responded that the Director of Community Services, Bob Lambert, was in the process of negotiating for the purchase of the necessary property for the access and the park at this time. He stated that Mr. Lambert had indicated that process should be complete by 1988. Mr. Nash asked about the phasing of the development. Mr. Rotter stated that the proponents were planning on completing the development within 18 months, if possible. Mr. Nash asked about the water quality of Mitchell Lake and the potential problems which would result with the storm water drainage system in the area because of this development. He stated that he felt the existing storm water drainage situation should be dealt with before additional development was allowed. Planner Enger stated that, in the past, the City had pumped the overflow from Round Lake into Mitchell Lake, which had begun to cause problems in this neighborhood. Currently, the City was pumping the overflow from Round Lake to the east into Purgatory Creek. He noted that the Council would be considering the storm water drainage study for the area as a public Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 9, 1986 improvements project at a meeting in the near future. Mr. Nash asked if this would be more "after the fact" rather than preventive. Planner Enger stated that it would have been inappropriate to perform any improvements much sooner, and that the storm water drainage improvements being discussed were timely, in terms of the level of development of the area. Ms. Rita Rove, 7988 Island Road, stated that she was representing the single family homeowners in the neighborhood. She stated that she concurred with the concerns regarding traffic and storm water drainage previously mentioned. She added that she was also concerned about the possibility of erosion into Mitchell Lake. Ms. Rove asked how long it would take to implement the storm water drainage improvements once the study was reviewed. Planner Enger explained that the City Council would be able to choose from various alternatives, which would include cost estimates, upon their review of the study. He stated that he felt the timing of this development and the storm water drainage improvements would be concurrent. Mr. David Ludvig, 7998 Island Road, member of the Timber Lakes Homeowners' Association, asked what procedures the City could implement to guarantee that there would be an access to the south for this development. Planner Enger explained that the City had several alternatives, the most common of which was requirement of a performance bond. Acting Chairman Hallett suggested that it may be necessary that several units be eliminated from the plan in order to provide for adequate space for snow storage, access, and green space. He asked if proponents were willing to consider the elimination of a small number of units, if necessary, prior to Council review of the item in order to mitigate these concerns. Mr. Rotter stated that he would be willing to eliminate units in order to facilitate these matters, if no other alternatives were available. He added that he was willing to work with Staff in order to accomplish this prior to Council review. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Ruebling, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Rottlund Company for Planned Unit Devleopment Concept Amendment of 16.7 acres of the Mitchell Lake Planned Unit Development of 1976 for Lake Park for construction of 98 townhome units, based on plans dated May 30, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of June 6, 1986, with the additional requirement that access to the south property line be provided for connection to the future public park road access to Miller Park and County Road #4. Motion carried--6-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 9, 1986 MOTION 3: Move to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Rottlund Company for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change within the RM-6.5 Zoning District for 16.7 acres known as Lake Park, for construction of 98 townhome units, based on plans dated May 30, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 6, 1986, with the additional requirement that access to the south property line be provided for connection to the future public park road access to Miller Park and County Road #4. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 4: Move to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Rottlund Company for Preliminary Plat of 16.7 acres into 102 lots for construction of 98 townhome units for Lake Park, based on plans dated May 30, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 6, 1986, with the additional requirement that access to the south property line be provided for connection to the future public park road access to Miller Park and County Road #4. Motion carried--6-0-0 B. STENEHJEM ADDITION, by Kathleen M. Stenehjem. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5, with lot frontage variance to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 3.34 acres into five single family lots. Location: North of Craig Drive, east of Duck Lake Road. A public hearing. Ms. Stenehjem gave a brief review of the proposed site development, adding that she had no objection to any of the recommendations of the Staff Report of June 6, 1986. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report, noting that a variance to the width of one of the lots at the street frontage would require review by the Board of Appeals. Gartner asked if shifting of lot lines between Lots 2 and 3 would eliminate the need for the variance. Planner Uram responded that Staff had reviewed this alternative, but that it had been rejected because of the reduction in the amount of buildable area that would result for Lot 3. Ruebling asked if the existing driveway to Duck Lake Trail would remain. Ms. Stenehjem stated that it would remain as the access to the existing house. She added that she was considering private restrictions in order to maintain the trees along the driveway. Mr. Michael Anderson, 6423 Craig Drive, asked if the development of the property would result in any additional assessments to his property. Planner Enger responded that this typically did not occur in situations like this; however, if his property were impacted by any assessments, there would be a public hearing process at the City Council and notification would be Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 9, 1986 • sent to the affected residents. Mr. Anderson suggested that perhaps one lot could be removed in order to provide for all lots to meet Code requirements. Mr. William Putnam, 6411 Craig Drive, stated that he did not currently have "legal" access to his property since the cul-de-sac proposed on Stenehjem property was to be dedicated to the City for that purpose. He asked when he would have "legal" access. Ms. Stenehjem stated that it would be available to him at the time of filing of the final plat. Mr. Putnam asked what the distance would be between his home and the house that would be located on the lot closest to him. Planner Enger stated that the minimum side yard was ten feet, therefore, there would be at least 20 feet between the homes. Mr. Putnam asked if the wooded areas would remain as is. Ms. Stenehjem responded that the lots would be sold to custom home builders and that she was planning to have them save as many trees as possible. She added that the quality of the homes would be equal to, or greater than, the homes existing in the area. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing. • Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Kathleen Stenehjem for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5, with a lot frontage variance for one lot to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, based on plans dated May 2, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 6, 1986. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Kathleen Stenehjem for Preliminary Plat of the Stenehjem Addition for Kathleen Stenehjem, with a lot frontage variance for one lot to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, based on plans dated May 2, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 6, 1986. Motion carried--6-0-0 C. EIGHTEEN PARK BUSINESS CENTER, by Investment Services Group, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from I-5 Park to I-2 Park on 2.85 • acres with Preliminary Plat of 2.85 acres into one lot for construction of a 37,000 square foot office/warehouse. Location: West of Washington Avenue, South of Flying Cloud Drive. A public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 9, 1986 Mr. Tony Feffer, proponent, reviewed the site characteristics and site plan features with the Commission. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of June 6, 1986. Planner Uram noted that an additional condition regarding the provision of adequate space and location for the Gustafson sign from the adjacent property should be added to the Staff recommendations. He explained that, upon notification of the public hearing, it had been pointed out that the sign for the Gustafson use would likely be obliterated, or forced into a variance situation, if provision was not made at this time. Acting Chairman Hallett asked when the City would require that the additional parking area be constructed. Planner Uram responded that Staff recommended that it not- be built until necessary, and that the parking spaces were not necessary at this time. Planner Enger pointed out that the area was gravelled currently, not green space; therefore, there would be no green space given up at the time of construction of the parking area. Acting Chairman Hallett asked about the requested variance to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for floor area ratio. Planner Enger responded that the maximum allowable floor area ratio for the I-2 Park District was 30% and that proponents were requesting 35%. This request was based on the floor area ratio for both lots involved in the development and considering the existing and proposed structures. Mr. Feffer stated that he believed that • the floor area ratio for the existing structure was under 30%, but that for the proposed building it would be greater than 30% based on the surveyed amount of property. He stated that the overall floor area ratio for all the property would then be 30% by proponents calculations. Staff did not concur. Planner Enger stated that Staff would review this with the proponent prior to Council review in order to determine which figures for lot and structure area were accurate. Ruebling asked if the building was 18 ft., or 20 ft., in height, based on conflicting information. Mr. Feffer stated that the plans had been changed to reflect an 18 ft. building height. Ruebling asked if this would have any affect upon the landscaping requirements for the development. Planner Uram stated that it would and that the Staff recommendation would be adjusted accordingly. Acting Chairman Hallett asked for questions, or 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--6-0-0 • MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Investments Services Group, Inc., for Zoning District Change from I-5 Park to I-2 Park for 2.85 acres for Eighteen Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 9, 1986 Park Business Center for construction of a 37,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse, based on revised plans dated June 6, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 6, 1986, with the added provision that the site plan be amended to provide adequate space for the Gustafson sign near the driveway of the property prior to Council review. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Investments Services Group, Inc., for Preliminary Plat of 2.85 acres into one lot for Eighteen Park Business Center for construction of a 37,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse, based on revised plans dated June 6, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 6, 1986, with the added provision that the site plan be revised to provide adequate space for the Gustafson sign near the driveway of the property prior to Council review. Motion carried--6-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS • None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Anderson, seconded by Ruebling. Acting Chairman Hallett adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. •