Loading...
Planning Commission - 01/26/2006 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,JANUARY 23, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Larry Kacher, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz,William Sutherland STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Al Gray, City Engineer Mike Franzen, City Planner Scott Kipp, Senior Planner Regina Herron, Planner 1 Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Kacher, Kirk, Rocheford, Sutherland. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 12, 2005 A quorum was not met to approve the minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 9, 2006 A quorum was not met to approve the minutes. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 2 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE#2006-01 at 9995 Gristmill Ridge. Request to: Permit a 7 foot side yard setback for a deck addition. City Code requires a minimum 10 foot side yard setback in the R1-13.5 Zoning District. Michael Lintner, owner of the property at 9995 Gristmill Ridge, presented the proposal. He stated that in the last year he has spent a considerable amount of time with the builders and his neighbors to come up with the blueprint for the deck that he is submitting this evening. He pointed out that because of the triangular nature of his lot he is requesting a 3 foot variance to accommodate his deck. He utilized the overhead projector to illustrate the position of the deck and hot tub and the location of the stairs. He pointed out that some of the hardships would be per his doctor's orders he needs a hot tub to accommodate his back pain. The second hardship would be the triangular shape of his lot. The third reason would be that approximately 20 percent of his lot is allocated to easement versus 10 percent for every other lot in his subdivision. This easement is due to the sewer, drainage and utility easement on the rear of the lot. Mr. Lintner pointed out that water drainage from the neighbor's house into his backyard and basement created another hardship. An additional hardship is the 21 foot Blaze Maple tree that would have to be destroyed if the deck was moved to accommodate the current easement. Stoelting asked Herron to review the staff report. Herron stated that the Commission should address the three alternatives to this request that are listed in the staff report. The alternatives would be to change the shape of the deck to meet setbacks; reduce the size of the deck to meet setbacks; or relocate the deck to meet setbacks. Herron also pointed out the requested Commission actions. They are as follows: Approve Variance Request 2006-01 as submitted finding: the variance will not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood, only 6 percent of the deck encroaches into the setback, the deck is 24.72 feet from the neighboring house to the east. The next action would be to Approve Variance Request 2006-01 with modifications. And the last action would be to Deny Variance Request 2006-01 because alternatives exist to design the expansion and meet City Code requirements. Stoelting asked Herron if there were any concerns with encroachment. Herron stated that the deck does not encroach into the easements. Stoelting asked if the sewer system encroached into the easement. Gray stated that it did not. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Nelson asked if it is allowed to take drainage away from one house to another. Gray stated that the City would have to look into this particular situation but currently they have had no complaints in regards to this issue. Gray stated that Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 3 there is a possibility that the workmanship in the building of the house had caused a nuisance. Koenig stated that Mr. Lintner should have approached the City in regards to this issue. Mr. Lintner stated that he is working with the builder to change the flow of drainage. Stoelting asked Mr. Lintner to address the three alternatives that were in the staff report and also the steps leading up to the hot tub. Mr. Lintner stated that he had to have steps to go from the deck to the hot tub. Stoelting asked Mr. Lintner if he needed to steps that were located to the right of the hot tub. Mr. Lintner stated that the steps were needed in order to go from the deck to the hot tub. Stoelting asked where the 7 foot yard setback would be located. Utilizing the overhead projector, Mr. Lintner illustrated where the setback would be located. He also pointed out that he did not feel that the lot lines lined up to specification. He felt that his house was 2 feet further to the west than what the survey states. Stoltz asked if the City agrees with that information. Herron stated that the Certificate of Survey that was used was from the Building Department but another option would be to have the house resurveyed. Fox stated that Certificate of Surveys are fairly accurate and to prove that it is accurate the homeowner should have the house resurveyed. Stoltz asked if the City agrees with Mr. Lintner assessments regarding the lot line and Herron agrees that there is a possibility that Mr. Lintner could be correct. Stoelting pointed out that if the homeowner were to get the house and lot resurveyed this could possibly delineate the variance. Mr. Lintner stated that he does not wish to spend the money to get the house resurveyed. Nelson stated that this is an oddly shaped yard and the encroachment is not that great and she feels that tearing down the Blaze Maple tree would be hardship enough. Seymour asked if there would be screening on the deck or lattice work. Mr. Lintner stated that it would be lattice work. Koenig asked Mr. Lintner how far the deck would be from the Blaze Maple tree. Mr. Lintner stated that if would be 3 feet from the steps. Koenig asked if Mr. Lintner discussed this project with his neighbors and how they felt about it. Mr. Lintner stated that he has spoken with his neighbors and they are in favor of the project. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Stoltz, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Seymour, to approve the variance to permit a 7 foot side yard setback in the R1-13.5 Zoning District,based on plans stamped dated December 20, 2005, and the staff report dated January 20, 2006, with the Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 4 hardship being the unusual shape of the land and the location of the tree. Motion carried 5-0. B. HORIZON PLACE by Commercial Horizons. Request for: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Regional Commercial on 1.74 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.52 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review on 5.87 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 1.74 acres; Site Plan Review on 5.87 acres; Preliminary Plat of 7.52 acres into 1 lot and road right-of-way. Pat VanAbel, of Commercial Horizons, a retail and office developer from Appleton and Green Bay, Wisconsin,presented the proposal. He started out by stating that Horizon Place is a redevelopment of the Birdies Sports Park. Mr. VanAbel stated that their company has owned this piece of land since 1990. Because of the retail development in the area, they felt it best to turn this parcel of land into commercial use. He stated that they will be using the same architects as the Fountain Place Development. He pointed out that they would like to put an Office Max, which would be an 18,000 sq. foot building, into the Retail A lot and a small shops retail building, an 11,000 sq. foot building, into Retail B lot. Stoelting asked Herron to review the staff report. Herron stated that there are two outstanding issues that Staff would like to highlight. The first issue would be the east elevation to the Office Max building. The City would like to see the architecture improved along the side of the building. Also they would like the landscape requirement met. There is an additional 40 caliper inches that need to be met and the City would like to see that on the south side to act as a buffer to the neighboring residential apartment. The Staff does recommend a continuance of this project to the February 27, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Stoelting asked the project proponent to address the issues that Herron brought forward from the staff report. Kim Larsen, of RSP Architects, addressed the issues. She stated that RSP Architects were the designers for Fountain Place and that the current design of the building is taken from the Fountain Place buildings. She stated that what she understood was that the staff report was addressing the Office Max building. Stoelting asked her to illustrate this building using the overhead projector. Ms. Larsen pointed out that the east elevation along Hwy 212 is the one in question. She also illustrated that Office Max was designed to mimic the architecture design of the Michaels building. Ms. Larsen said that she did speak with Michael Franzen in regards to the elevation issues. She asked him to look at the whole elevation of this architectural unit and not just one side. She stated that the east elevation does not have a lot of architectural decoration but there is more articulation on the front of the building; with the majority of the articulation being at the entry way. She used the overhead projector to illustrate the architectural design of the building. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 5 Stoelting asked Herron what the City Staff would like to see. Herron stated that in looking back at the Fountain Place Design,particularly at the east elevation of the Michaels building, it appears rather plain. Because it is visible to the public that is why the City would like to see more articulation on the east side of the Office Max building. Herron pointed out that there were two options that were addressed in the Staff report. Option 1 would be to add cornice to the left side of the building to match the right side and to also repeat some change in material and also repeat the band. Option 2 would be to repeat the entry element on the right side of the building. Herron used the overhead projector to illustrate these options. Stoelting asked the project proponent to address the options that Staff had presented this evening. Ms. Larson stated that in repeating the element in Option 1 it would basically make it the same. She stated that they are trying to create a rhythm and felt that passerbys would also see the highly articulated front side. She stated that as far as adding repeat change in material, it might be too much for that side of the building. She said that they are focusing on elevations and having a resting place for the eyes in regards to traffic traveling by the store. Ryan Edstrom, of Westwood Professional Services, stated that they are working with the City Staff to come up with the caliper inches that are needed for the trees. Stoelting asked the project proponent to address the issue of signage on the buildings because the staff report has requested some movement of the signs. Ms. Larson stated that they do not have a problem with moving the signs. Stoelting asked the project proponent about the issue of meeting the one-half foot candle lighting requirement at the south side of the building. Ms. Larson stated that there is not a problem with complying with that issue. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Koenig asked Fox to address the landscaping issue. Fox stated that in regards to commercial shopping centers, they are in line for what the City is asking for. Herron stated that when the Fountain Place project was being constructed they had an excess number of trees on their lot and as part of the approval they were able to transfer some of the trees over to lot 1 and that is where some of the inches come from. They did get credit for some of the trees that were transferred over to the Birdies lot. There is a deficit because the trees on the Birdies lot are not considered significant. Stoeltz asked how great the deficit was. Herron said about 12-15 percent. Koenig asked in regards to transplanting the trees from Birdies, are they subject to the same bond issues that other trees are subject to if they do not survive the transplant. Fox stated that they do allow the transplanting of trees but they are also subject to the same bond issues as landscaping trees would be subject to. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 6 Stoelting reiterated that the plan does still need an additional 40 caliper inches of trees. Ms. Larson agreed with that amount. Koenig pointed out that increasing the size of trees would also satisfy that caliper inch requirement. Herron stated that that would be an option and the City has also recommended using the south side of the building for landscaping. Mr. Edstrom said that Westwood Professional Services will continue to work with the City Staff to resolve the issue of the tree requirements. Nelson stated that she agrees with the City Staff in regard to the east side of the building and she would also like to see a bit more design on that side of the building. Koenig also agrees that there should be more design, as did Stoltz and Seymour. Ms. Larsen stated that their office did receive the Staff report earlier that day and they produced a fallback plan in regards to the recommendations. She illustrated these changes utilizing the overhead projector. The new design was not in color. Herron agreed that this was an improvement over the previous drawing that was submitted. Koenig stated that she would like to see a continuance in regards to this project. The Commission members agreed with this suggestion. Nelson stated that when they do resubmit the proposal she would like to see it in color. Stoelting asked the project proponent if they would be satisfied working with the City Staff in regards to the changes of this proposal. Ms. Larsen stated they would work with the Staff to meet all of the requirements. Franzen stated that normally the City would request a 30 day continuance,but in this case the City would make an exception to have it continued for only two weeks. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Koenig, to continue request to the February 13, 2006, meeting, and to revise the development plans according to the staff report and other requirements as identified by the Commission. Motion carried 5-0. C. LONE OAK CENTER BY Dove Capital LLC. Request for: Guide Plan Change from Regional Commercial to Community Commercial on 5.27 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.27 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 5.27 acres; Zoning District Change from Commercial Regional Service to Community Commercial on 5.27 acres; Site Plan Review on 5.27 acres; Preliminary Plat on 5.27 acres into 3 lots and road right-of-way. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 7 Dean Devolas, of DJR Architecture, located at 333 Washington Ave N, Minneapolis,presented the proposal. He stated that the project is located on Mitchell Road and Hwy 5. He utilized the overhead projector to illustrate the project. He stated that the basic concept of the project was to put the two main buildings at the perimeter and pocket the parking in the center, wrapping the retail area around that. He also pointed out that additional parking would be located below the retail building. Mr. Devolas stated that the project consists of a pharmacy, which is 13,000 square feet, and a multi-tenant retail area of 12,000 square feet that would be located in the center of the project, a deck overlooking the wetlands, a restaurant spot that would be located on the south end of the building, and on the north side a bank with office area above it totaling 9,000 square feet. Mr. Devolas also illustrated where the entry and exit points would be to this area as well as the preliminary views of the architecture. He also said that there would be a monument sign and wrought iron fencing and a gate that would be located along the perimeter of the site. And lastly, there would be a sidewalk development. Mr. Devolas pointed out that the three materials that they would use for this project would be brick, a silver metal, and a few accents of stucco to give it variety and change of texture. Stoelting asked Kipp to review the staff report. Kipp stated that this site was originally the site of the old police department. He said the previously approval project for the site consisted of a hotel and restaurant but the project did not move forward. Kipp also pointed out that there are some PUD waivers with this project, but that these waivers are similar to the ones that were approved in 2000 for the previous project. He said that basically the waivers are associated with setbacks to obtaining some additional right of way along Lone Oak Road to include a sidewalk so that the City has control and ownership of the property, as well as platting the overall property into separate lots for marketing purposes. Kipp said that the property is 5 acres, which would be consistent with the community commercial zoning. He stated that Staff does recommend approval of the project based on recommendations of page 5 and 6 of the staff report. Stoelting asked if there were any issues regarding landscaping. Kipp stated that there is a recommendation in the report that the developer add additional tree replacement to meet the tree replacement requirement. Kipp stated that he did talk with the developer and they said they will be meeting this requirement. Nelson asked Staff if the silver metal that was to be used on this building has been used on other buildings in Eden Prairie, and if so, would it wear well. Kipp stated that there are some buildings in Eden Prairie that are using this type of metal. Dean Devolas said the metal would hold up very well. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 8 Stoelting asked Mr. Devolas to review the traffic flow in regards to the bank drive-thru and the pharmacy drive-thru. Mr. Devolas stated that from Mitchell Road, there would be a right turn in and a right turn out. He also said there would be an additional entry/exit point on Lone Oak Road. He then described the flow of traffic thru the site and drive-thru areas. Koenig asked Gray to go over the traffic study that had been completed on this project. Gray stated that in looking at the traffic around the Loan Oak Road and Technology Drive area he pointed out that there would be long term challenges in this area. He also said that these long term challenges would be there regardless if the project was approved or not. Gray said that to provide a reasonable level of service for exiting traffic from this project, the developers would be installing a signal at Lone Oak Road and Mitchell Road. Nelson asked Mr. Devolas how large the restaurant would be in this area. Mr. Devolas said it would be approximately 3,000 square feet. Nelson asked Kipp if there was adequate parking to accommodate a restaurant on this site. Kipp stated that the plan does meet the code for parking. Stoelting asked Mr. Devolas to illustrate where the sidewalks would be located and point out how a pedestrian could walk around safely with traffic flow. Mr. Devolas utilized the overhead projector to point out the sidewalk structure in regards to traffic and pedestrian safety. Stoelting asked if any of the Commission Members had any problems with the waivers associated with the project. The Commission Members agreed that there were no problems or concerns with the waivers. Koenig asked Fox if the City was comfortable with the wetland area being protected within this development. Fox stated that the tree loss is associated with the building pads and that there would be no tree loss down the slopes adjacent to the wetlands. He pointed out that the developer would be clearing up the buckhom and the buffer area and that the mitigation replacement trees could go back in this area. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Stoltz, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the Guide Plan Change from Regional Commercial to Community Commercial on 5.27 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.27 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review on 5.27 acres; Zoning District Change from Commercial Regional Service to Community Commercial on 5.27 acres; Site Plan Review on 5.27 acres; Preliminary Plat of 5.27 acres into 3 lots and road right-of-way,based on plans stamped dated January 17, 2006, and the staff report dated January 20, 2006. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 9 VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS IX. NEW BUSINESS X. PLANNERS' REPORTS Kipp stated that there will be three items on the agenda for the February 13, 2006, meeting. The items will be the Horizon Place resubmittal; a new daycare called the Primerose School of Eden Prairie, and the addition of a clubhouse at Eden Place Apartments. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Koenig, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.