Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 02/20/1990 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 7 : 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and Douglas Tenpas CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE: OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Councilmember Anderson absent. I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Agenda as r published and amended. s ADDITIONS:. F Add Item X.A. 1, Information Request. Motion carried unanimously. II . MINUTES A. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, January 16. 1990 MOTION: � Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, January 16, 1990 as published and amended. Page 11, correct the printing error. Motion carried 3-0-1 . Harris abstained. III . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List City Council Minutes 2 February 20, 1990 B. Award Bid for Staring Lake Park Amphitheater Sound System C. Receive Recommendation from Historical & Cultural Commission regarding Graffiti Bridge D. Final Plat A)proval of Bell Oaks Third Addition located north of Riverview Road and east of Homeward Hills Road (Resolution No. 90-37) E. Final Plat Approval of Wyndham Nob 3rd Addition located south of Townline Road and east of Dell Road (Resolution No. 90-38) F. Receive Feasibility Study fcr SummitjMeadowvalefRed Oak Drive Neighborhood Sanity Sewer._ Watermain and Street Improvements and Set Public Hearing. I.C. 52-166 (Resolution No. 90-39) G. PUBLIC STORAGE by Public Storage, Inc. Request for Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office on 1. 09 acres and from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 1. 09 acres and from Low Density Residential to Industrial on 3. 10 acres, Zoning District Amendment from Rural to Office on 1. 09 acres, and from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 1. 09 acres and from Rural to I- 2 on 3 . 10 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 5. 28 acres into 3 lots and road right-of-way, Site Plan Review on 5 . 28 acres for construction of 74, 137 square feet of office, commercial, and industrial land uses. Location: West of County Road 18, south of the Preserve Village Mall. (Resolution No. 90-41 - Denial of Request) H. Riley LakQ Park Acquisition I. Approval of Amended arbitrage Agreement o ervPlage Apartments d `i MOTION: i Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve Items A through I on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. FARBER ADDITION by Roger Farber. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 3 . 7 acres with variances for road frontage to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Preliminary Plat of 7 . 6 acres into 3 single family lots, and one outlot. Location: 6525 Rowland Road (Ordinance No. 2-90 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-17 - Preliminary Plat) Continued from January 16, 1990 City Council Minutes 3 February 20, 1990 Jullie reported that this item was continued to consider an appeal for the Board of Appeals and Adjustments decision regarding front footage variances for 2 lots. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments denied the request with a 3-3 vote. The Planning Commission and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission both recommended approval of the project. Tenpas asked if the Planning Commission was aware of the variance requirement. Enger replied that the Planning Commission did not offer a specific recommendation to approve the variances; however, if the Planning Commission had had reservations regarding this issue it would have been mentioned in the motions and the minutes. Peterson noted that the Council should first consider the Board of Appeals and Adjustments decision before making the motions regarding the proposal . Harris asked if it would have been possible to replat this differently with only 1 driveway. Enger replied that it would be possible to have 1 necklot with frontage on Rowland Road and the 2nd lots would not have any frontage on Rowland Road. He added that another alternative would be for 2 lots with 20 feet of frontage on Rowland Road with a shared driveway. Cardarelle stated that to redesign the driveway would be difficult because of the grades and additional tree loss would result. There were no further comments from the audience. MOJI ON: Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to overturn the Board of Appeals decision and approve the variances. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the public hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 2-90 for Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 90-19 approving the Preliminary Plat and direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. B. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, PHASE II by International School of Minnesota, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment City Council Minutes 4 February 20, 1990 with the Public Zoning District on approximately 38 acres, Site Plan Review on approximately 33 acres for construction of a 27, 640 square foot addition. Location: South of Crosstown #62, north of Bryant Lake, west of Nine Mile Creek. (Ordinance No. 4-90 - Zoning District Amendment) Continued from February 6, Council meeting Jullie reported that the proponent had requested a continuance to the March 13, 1990 City Council meeting. MOTION Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to continue this item to the March 13 , 1990 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. C. EDEN SERVICE CENTER by Rosewood Construction for Aspen Park Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Community Commercial on 1 . 5 acres; Planned Emit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 37 acres for consideration of a 3, 300 square foot Auto Service Center. Location:. Northwest corner of Fuller Road (extended) and Highway 5 Jullie reported that this item was continued from the February 6, 1990 Council meeting. Peter Hilger, representing the proponent, presented the plans for a 3300 square foot auto service center as a neighborhood commercial center. The potential tenants wished to locate in this area of the city. Hilger stated that the parcel was located on the southeast corner of the Gonyea PUD. A large portion of the property was wetland. Fuller Road had recently been extended. Approximately 70% of the property was undevelopable because of the wetlands, an NSP easement, and poor soil conditions. Hilger believed that the auto service center would enhance the Prairie Lawn & Garden Store and other businesses in the area. Hilger also believed that the balance of office and commercial development proposed in the original PUD would be created with the approval of this proposal . He noted that the proponent was only requesting a concept approval at this time and would return through the development process with additional detailing. The building would be constructed of brick and extensive landscaping would be proposed. Hilger believed that this site had excellent commercial value and was far enough away form other auto service centers. Enger reported that this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January 8, 1990 meeting and recommended denial of the proposal with a 4-0-1 vote based on the rationale that this proposal did not represent the highest and best use of the land. Enger noted that if the Council City Council Minutes 5 February 20, 1990 approved a Comprehensive Guide Plan change a further review by the Metropolitan Council would be required. He added that if the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation were changed and this plan did not proceed, another type of commercial business could develop on this parcel . Dan McGraw, 16044 Sheldon Avenue, was concerned about the wildlife and wetland preservation. MacRae concurred with the Planning Commission that this was riot the best use of the land. Tenpas asked McGraw what he would prefer to see developed on this parcel. MacRae replied that a single-story office building would fit much better with the existing neighborhood. Gary Goeman, . 16008 Sheldon Avenue, concurred with MacRae regarding the concern for wildlife in the area. Goeman was also concerned about the potential change in the integrity of the neighborhood. Goeman stated that he understood that progress was inevitable; however, he believed that there were other properties within the city currently zoned for commercial use which would be more appropriate for this type of development. Goeman preferred to see a single-level office building; he believed that it would not be as disruptive to the neighborhood. Harris stated that the property did have several constraints; however, without further detail she believed that there were more appropriate sites within the city for i this type of development. Peterson concurred with the Planning Commission that this proposal did not represent the highest and best use of the land. t Pidcock stated that there were other auto service centers within a reasonable distance and did not believe this to be an appropriate location for this type of business. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION• Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and direct Staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial with Findings. Motion carried unanimously. D. ALPINE CENTER by Lariat Companies. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on approximately 18 acres, Zoning District Change from office to C-Reg-Ser and Site Plan Review on 3 . 56 acres for construction of a 29, 551 square-foot retail center. City Council Minutes 6 February 20, 1990 Location: Northeast corner of Prairie Center Drive and Commonwealth Drive. (Ordinance No. 47-89-PUD-10-89 - PUD District Review and Zoning) Richard Woldorsky, representing the proponent, stated that both the Alpine Center and Chi-Chi's would be controlled by the Lariat Companies. The proposal was for an upscale retail development with a unique and distinct character. The 3 . 5 acres would be developed as retail and restaurant use with a floor area ratio of . 2 . An agreement had not been reached at this time between the property owner to the north and the proponent regarding a means to adjust the grade between the properties . At this time a retaining wall was proposed. The 192 parking spaces provided was based on a seating capacity of 150 seats; however, the proponent would like an additional request for an outdoor patio with 26 seats. Tim Wydel , architect for the proponent, presented that plans for the Alpine Center. A tree-lined street edge was proposed. The architecture would be a prairie style. Wydel believed that the covered walkway would add character to the facility. The landscaping proposed was generous and historical lighting fixtures would be used throughout. A hedge would be planted on top of the berm for additional screening. The exterior would be a burgundy brick. The building would be a one-story design, varying in height from 18 to 20 feet. Wydel noted that several annual plantings would be placed throughout the center. The outdoor patio would seat 26 in the beginning and the seating would be increased as proof-of-parking was approved. The patio would be surrounded by a low- structured wall with heavy plantings. Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed this item on November 24, 1989 and approved the project with a 6-0-0 vote; however, because of significant changes an additional review was heard at the February 12, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. A 5-foot to 18-foot retaining wall would be needed between this building and the property to the north. Enger noted that another issue which was discussed extensively was the parking requirements. Enger believed that the City's parking requirements were very lenient at this time. He added that this restaurant as well as Chi-Chi 's, which was proposed in the same area, would both have parking problems. Enger noted that parking at Applebee's was a good example of what to expect for this restaurant, there was an overflow parking situation at this time. Enger stated that at Ciatti's the required parking area was filled to capacity most of the time and parking was occurring outside of the paved area at this time. Enger stated that the Planning Commission was reluctant to approve the plan with the additional patio because of the City Council Minutes 7 February 20, 1990 potential parking problems and added that the 26 outdoor seats was a compromise reached by the Planning Commission. Enger, said that the proponent was still trying to obtain additional proof-of-parking; however, he believed that even with the additional parking, co-operative parking would be necessary. Enger pointed out that as all of the land in this area was not developed yet, there would be further parking issues. Staff recommended that the parking be monitored very closely. Enger believed that there would be a parking problem and recommended that a contingency plan be taken into consideration now. Enger stated that other issues to consider were that the service drive as proposed would require a semi-truck to back out onto Prairie Center Drive and the retaining wall was not the best possible solution for the change in grade between the properties. Enger believed that the proponent should continue to work on an agreement with the property owner to the north regarding the grading. Enger recommended that the entrance to the service area be signed such that semi-trucks would not use this area. Julie Skarda, representing the Lariat Companies, stated that the patio was recommended for a maximum of 56 seats. The proponent had tried to negotiate the proof-of-parking for approximately 8 months to no avail . The proponent would construct the patio in full but would only provide seating for 26 until the proof-of-parking was provided. Harris asked if enough parking space would be provided to accommodate both this restaurant and Chi-Chi 's. Skarda replied that at this time the proponent was not willing to commit other property for parking requirements. Harris then asked if the parking congestion would lessen as more eating establishments were available in the city. Enger replied that he believed there would be parking problem. } He added that the patio was still scaled at 3500 square 3 feet and the City would have very little control of how many seats were provided at any given time. Peterson asked if Commonwealth Drive was posted for no parking on the street. Dietz replied that the signs should be posted concurrent with this development; at this time only one side of Commonwealth Drive is posted for no parking. Peterson stated that there would probably be cross-parking with or without permission. Pidcock stated that• the patio would only be used during the summer months. Skarda added that the owner of the restaurant had indicated from past experience that the patio would only be used approximately 91 days out of the year. Peterson stated that the restaurants would have the same peak hours which could cause a problem. f City Council Minutes 8 February 20, 1990 Tenpas asked if the City could provide any assistance to the proponent in acquiring the necessary proof-of-parking. Tenpas believed the parking issue to be a safety concern. Pauly replied that the City could not do anything to force the property owner to allow the proof-of-parking short of acquiring the land. Tenpas then asked how this development would affect the remainder of the downtown area. Enger replied that Flaherty owned much of the property in this area; however, a power retail center was in the concept stages for the Bermel property. .There were- no further comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 47-89- PUD-10-89 for PUD District Review and Zoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION• Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and Council conditions that the entrance to the service area be signed or redesigned. Motion- carried unanimously. E. CHI-CHI'S RESTAURANT by Consul Restaurant Corporation. } Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment and Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 18 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 3 . 99 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3 . 99 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 7, 390 square-foot restaurant. Location: Southwest corner of Middleset Road and Crystal View Road. (Resolution No. 90-46 - PUD Concept Amendment; Ordinance No. 12-90-PUD-6-90 - PUD District and Zoning Amendment; Resolution No. 90-47 - Preliminary Plat) Bill Etter, representing the proponent, stated that Chi- Chits was rated the #1 family restaurant in the Twin Cities and worked to be a good community neighbor. Lee Madden, architect for the proponent, presented the plans for the 7400 square-foot restaurant with a seating capacity of 320. A common setback had been worked out with the Lariat Companies for Commonwealth Road. The landscaping plan had been revised and improved since the Planning Commission meeting. The parking issue was a concern, with 119 parking spaces being provided. A cross easement parking agreement with Lariat Center was being negotiated. Madden noted that the peak of business for Chi-Chi 's was Friday and Saturday evenings. i City Council Minutes 9 February 20, 1990 Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed this item at its January 22, 1990 meeting and recommended approval on a 4-0-0 vote, subject to the recommendations outlined in the January 19, 1990 Staff Report. Enger presented samples of the exterior building material, which would be compatible with the other buildings in the area. A landscape irrigation system would be installed. Enger noted that, as with the previous proposal , parking problems were anticipated. Harris asked if the trash area would be enclosed. Madden replied that the trash container area would be enclosed. Pidcock asked if there would be access to the trash area from the interior of the building. Madden replied yes. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-46 for PUD Concept Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve lst Reading of Ordinance No. 12-90-PUD-6-90 for PUD District and Zoning Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION• j Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 90-47 approving the Preliminary Plat and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried s unanimously. F. BLUFFS EAST 7TH ADDITION by Hustad Development. Request � for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low-Density Residential. to Medium-Density Residential on 1.7 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment and Planned Unit Development District Review on 186 acres with waivers, Site Plan Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6. 5 on 7 .6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 12. 15 acres into 25 multi-family lots, 3 outlots and road right- of-way. Location: Northwest corner of County Road 18 and Bluff Road. (Resolution No. 90-42 - Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 90-43 - PUD Concept Amendment; Ordinance No. 10-90-PUD-5-90 - PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-44 - Preliminary Plat) i i j City Council Minutes 10 February 20, 1990 ( Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been mailed to 86 surrounding property owners and published in the February 7, 1990 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Wallace Hustad presented the plans for the 7 . 5-acre site. He noted that 50 acres of open space had been provided throughout the Creek Knolls project, which represented 28% of the PUD. The overall density for the PUD was 1.7 units per acre. The PUD consisted of 192 single-family homes and this proposal would add 25 twinhome units to the 26 units which currently existed. Hustad stated that the development of Highway 18 had influenced the change in this proposed site. He added that the City had requested an additional 60 feet for right-of-way and the County had requested 30 feet for right-of-way on the eastern border. Hustad stated that he was requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to accommodate the development of the twinhome units. Hustad believed that this would provide a transition from the more expensive home and the single- family units. He added that this proposal would be compatible with the area to the north of the pond. The intent of these units was to provide an alternative life- style for Eden Prairie residents . Hustad believed that the previously approved twinhome units had enhanced the market value of the single-family units. The lots would average 10, 200 square feet per twinhome site. The density would be 3. 3 units per acre. The main issue raised by the Planning Commission was transition to the property south of Bluff Road. Hustad stated that the plans had been revised to internalize the streets, which meant that no direct access to Bluff Road would be provided. The twinhome units had been repositioned and heavy landscaping provided to the west to provide a better transition to the single-family units. Three-unit buildings would be constructed along the northern section of the: parcel, adjacent to the pond. Steve Schweiters, builder, presented the plans for the exterior design. The brick and trim colors would be different for each building. The square footage of these units would be smaller than the original 26 units. Tenpas asked the price range for these units. Schweiters replied the price would range between $200, 000 and $225, 000 . Hustad stated that these units would be marketed for empty-nesters and would not be rented units. i Enger reported that this item had been reviewed at the November 21, 1989 and January 22, 1990 Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project at the January 22, 1990 meeting with a 4-0-0 vote. The recommendation of the Planning Commission was x City Council Minutes 11 February 20, 1990 5= z that the landscaping along Bluff Road and the western boundary be revised prior to the Councils review. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission approved the plan unanimously. a Peterson asked if any discussion took place at the k Planning Commission regarding the cul-de-sac. Enger replied that the recommendation for the cul-de-sac came from Staff after the proposal had been denied in October 1989. The recommendation resulted from the concern regarding driveways onto Bluff Road and the twinhome units facing the single-family homes to the south and, therefore, the recommendation made to internalize the street. Enger stated that the length of the cul-de-sac resulted from the number of units proposed. Peterson asked if a loop road had been considered coining back onto Bluff Road. Enger replied this was not considered. Scott Gensmer, 9599 Bluff Road, stated that on October 23, 1989 the Planning Commission recommended denial of a previously proposed Hustad project on a 6-0-0 vote because of a poor transition and because compelling reasons for a Comprehensive Guide Plan change had not been provided. Gensmer believed that nothing had changed since that time. He added that since 1986 the neighborhood had voiced its opposition to the density of the PUD. Gensmer believed that the only reason for the request was market demand and economics. Gensmer noted some of the key items from the Planning Commission minutes of October 23 , 1989 and asked that the Council review what had been presented carefully before reaching a decision. Gensmer believed that the transition should be based on the homes to the south of Bluff Road. Barry Bain, 9845 Bluff Road, stated that he was also concerned about an adequate transition. The original plan had been for 28 to 29 single-family units. The plan as it now stands would provide the highest density for the , entire project, which was directly across the road from single-family residents which were located on 6 to 8 acres of property or more. Bain stated that he would like to the single-family units originally proposed and on the 1/3- acre lots which had been agreed to. Bain believed that a single-family proposal would help hold the value of the existing homes. Earl Houghton, 9795 Bluff Road, concurred with Gensmer and the other neighbors regarding the density of the project. Houghton stated that he would prefer the single-family units on 1/3 acre lots as originally agreed to. Jeff Norgren, 9745 Bluff Road, stated opposition to 'the proposal because of the lack of transition and the City Council Minutes 12 February 20, 1990 increase in traffic which would threaten the safety of the children in the existing neighborhood. Julie Norgren, 9745 Bluff Road, believed that the existing residents concerns should be taken into consideration and did not believe that the berm was adequate screening. Delores Williams, 9599 Bluff Road, presented the Council with a map made by a professional Forester in 1968 when 4000 seedlings were planted on their property under a forest management plan to preserve wildlife, maintain soil conditions, and watershed area. Williams believed that the proposal being presented by the proponent would not be consistent with the existing neighborhood. She further believed that the transition concern should be for the existing residents and not the area to the west and the north. Martin Diestler, 9905 Bluff Road, stated opposition to the project. He noted that the Council had heard opposition from every resident on Bluff Road adjacent to this project. Diane Luke, 10450 Whitetail Crossing, stated that she had seen many changes in this area. The twinhomes currently existing were beautifully designed and she believed would fill a need in the community. Luke believed that the 26 existing units blended nicely with the neighborhood and because of the proposed homeowners association would be properly maintained. Luke believed that the berming proposed would provide adequate screening for the Bluff Road residents. Pidcock asked Luke where she lived in relation to this project. Luke replied approximately 1/2-mile away. Gensmer noted that the Lukes had an equity interest in this project. i Mrs. Carriers, 10407 Fawns Way, stated that she had purchased on the existing twinhome units and believed the ' quality of construction to be excellent. She noted that this proposal would directly impact the area in which she lived; however, she would prefer to see twinhome development, which would leave more area for planting material. Beth Simenstad, 10396 Bluff Road, stated that she lived in the Creek Knolls subdivision and believed the twinhomes to be a positive addition to the neighborhood. She noted that if single-family units were to be developed, a minimum of 4 to 5 driveways would access onto Bluff Road, which would be a hazard. Simenstad noted that the only property directly across from this project would be the City Council Minutes 13 February 20, 1990 Gensmer property, which could not see the project because of the trees and the location of their home. Wayne Brown, 10200 Wild Duck Pass, stated that he was an equity partner in this project and believed that the revised plan was a better plan than that originally proposed and was sensitive to what was happening in the area. Dean Luke, 10450 Whitetail Crossing, stated that he too was an equity partner in the project. Luke believed that it would be more prudent to build what would sell. He believed that the twinhome units would mean less traffic for the area. Terri Jenstad, marketer for the project, stated that these would not be rental units. She added that the twinhomes would in fact enhance the neighborhood. Prentice Hill, ERA marketer for the project, stated that these type of homes were typically sold to empty-nesters and because of the homeowners association would be a quieter neighborhood than single-family. Williams believed that single-family homes could be developed nicely in this area. She added that this area would be the entrance to the Creek Knolls addition. Williams did not believe that the presence of a homeowners association should be taken into consideration. Hustad stated that he had not promised to develop single- family homes in the area. He added that he was pleased to have Steve Schweiters as the builder of these units because of the high quality. Pidcock stated that she was familiar with the quality of the Schweiters units ; however, she did not believe that was relevant to the issue. Harris asked what was the average cost of a unit in Creek Knolls subdivision. Hustad replied that the single-family units ranged from $250, 000 to $750, 000 and the double b units approximately $265, 000. Harris then asked what the price range would be for the homes to the north. Hustad replied that he did not know at this time because only 7 acres was developable out of 14 acres. Hustad added that the higher density projects were to the north. Harris . stated that it appeared that the cost of these units would not be markedly different from the existing homes. Harris asked why 3-unit homes were necessary. Hustad replied that because of the value of the land in Eden Prairie it was difficult to reduce the price of the homes without increasing the density. City Council Minutes 14 February 20, 1990 ( Pidcock asked Hustad if he would allow rentals in this project. Hustad replied no. Peterson asked Hustad to clarify the statement that these lots would be larger than R1-9 . 5 zoning. Hustad replied that the original proposal called for 20 units. The twinhomes would not have as much structure on the lots as with 13 . 5 lots and added that because of the additional right-of-way requirements it would be difficult to achieve R1-13 . 5 zoning. Pidcock asked if there were any trees on these lots. Hustad replied very few trees existed presently and added that the twinhome units would preserve more trees than a single-family development because of the reduction in grading required. Tenpas asked how many driveways wou'.d be needed if this were developed as single-family. Hustad replied 4 to 5 driveways. Enger stated that the Planning Commission did not like the plan with 26 units with the lack in transition to the south and no compelling reasons being provided for a Comprehensive Guide Plan change at the meeting in October, it recommended denial of the project. The plan was ( reworked by the proponent and the Planning Commission was persuaded that the revised plan was better. Enger noted that Staff had recommended a further reduction in the number of units . Peterson asked what the visual impact would be from the south and the entry from Highway 18 . Enger replied that the triplexes would not be visible from Highway 18 on Bluff Road; however, the back of the units could be seen on Bluff Road. Two of the units were corner units and would not look uniform. Enger stated that because of the dense forest coverage across the road, the units would not be visible at this time; however, if the Gensmer property was subdivided and developed the views would change significantly. Peterson asked if all of the units would have brick fronts. Schweiters replied that the units would be stucco with brick fronts, and no wood would be uzod for exterior material . Peterson asked why the cul-de-sac was not challenged because of its length and what alternatives could be utilized. Mary McCawley, the proponent's engineer for this project, replied that because of the grade changes ,r from an engineering standpoint another road system design would not be possible. City Council Minutes 15 February 20, 1990 Tenpas asked the Gensmers for clarification on their concerns: were the issues visual or financial. Williams replied that there were too many units developed in the amount of space provided. Gensmer replied that the issues were both visual and financial. He added that he was requesting that an adequate transition be provided. Williams added that she did not understand why it was being presented that if single-family units were developed that they would require driveways on Bluff Road. Harris believed that the development was attractive and an adequate transition had been provided. Harris added that she was concerned about the density and the long cul-de- sac. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-42 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. p a Peterson stated that he was concerned about the transition rr because of the questions raised by the neighbors. l Peterson stated that he would not be persuaded to vote for or against this issue based on economic issues. Peterson believed that because of the substantial plantings, the berming being provided, the drop in elevation of the property, and the absence of additional driveways on Bluff Road gave the project merit. He added that he was concerned about the density of the project and could support the project more favorably if the triple units were reduced to double units. Hustad stated that the numher of units was an economic issue. The proposal had already been reduced by 1 unit and if further reductions were required the project would not be done. Hustad added that he believed this proposal to be in the best interest of Creek Knolls as a whole. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 90-43 for PUD Concept Amendment and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 10-90-PUD-5-90 for PUD District and Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 16 February 20, 1990 MOTION' Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 90-44 approving the Preliminary Plat and direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. G. PHILLIPS 66 by Phillips 66 Company. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the C-Hwy Zoning District on 1.22 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat of 1. 22 acres into 1 lot for construction of a convenience gas station. Location: Northeast corner of Highway #169 and West 78 th Street. (Ordinance No. 11-90 - Zoning District Amendment; Resolution No. 90-45 - Preliminary Plat) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was mailed to 20 surrounding property owners and published in the February 7, 1990 issue of the Eden Prairie News. John Bacus, representing the proponent, presented that plans for a state-of-the-art gas station, car wash, and convenience store. He provided the Council with pictures of existing facilities. The landscaping would be extensive, with a 4-foot-high landscaped berm along Highway 169 . Bacus stated that all Staff recommendations had been incorporated into the plan with the exception of enclosing the canopy support columns with same stone_ material as the exterior of the building. He added that hundreds of stations had been constructed throughout the country and the proponent had yet to be required to enclose the columns. Bacus believed that the columns as designed were a better architectural blend than covering them with the stone material . Bacus stated that he understood the precedent-setting issue; however, he believed the present design to architecturally sound and that a greater importance should be given to the integrated design. Enger reported that this item had been reviewed at the January 22 , 1990 Planning Commission meeting and was recommended for approval on a 4-0-0 vote. Pidcock asked what precautions would be taken to assure the safety of the gasoline tanks so that a leak would not occur and pollute the area. Al Mitel , a representative from Phillips 66, replied that EPA regulations required g that an air test be performed and Phillips 66 performs additional test on all the lines, etc. Mitel noted that Phillips 66 was responsible for the tanks when they were installed in the ground. City Council Minutes 17 February 20, 1990 MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue the meeting until 11: 30 PM. Motion carried unanimously. Jack Grier, 9848 Crestwood Terrace and owner of the Flying Red Horse Mobil Station, stated that he was concerned about the traffic flow on this corner and the potential for accidents. He added that he was particularly concerned about making a right turn onto 78th Street because of the lack of sight distance. He noted that across the street where his business was located the businesses were connected by a common drive. Grier stated that during- the time the traffic survey was conducted no cars entered or exited the site; however, the nature of the site would change once the station was developed. Dietz stated that the BRW traffic study believed that the fewer accesses onto Highway 169 the better. The BRW study stated that this road design should work. Pidcock stated that it was difficult to merge onto Highway 169 at this location. Peterson asked if MnDOT had seen the plan. Dietz replied that it would be necessary for MnDOT to see the plans in order to obtain the necessary permits. Enger stated that it was because of Staff's concern about traffic that the study was requested. Tenpas asked if a traffic signal was planned at the Hardee's location. Dietz replied that some time in the future it could be possible. Tenpas then asked if signs had ever been posted to restrict turns. Dietz replied not in the commercial area. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION• g a a Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the public p hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 11-90 for Zoning District Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 90-45 approving the Preliminary Plat and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS City Council Minutes 18 February 20, 1990 MOTION• Tenpas moved, seconded by Harris to approve Payment of Claims No. 57490 through No. 57781. ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, Harris, Pidcock, Tenpas, and Peterson all voting '•AYE" . VI . ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. RAVEN WOOD 3RD AQDITION by The Cambridge Group. Preliminary Plat of 2 .7 acres into 2 lots. Location: East of Edenvale Boulevard, south of Hipp's Cedar Point 1st Addition. (Resolution No. 90-48 - Preliminary Plat) Jullie reported that notice of this item had been sent to 102 surrounding property owners and published in the February 7 , 1990 issue of the Eden Prairie News. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No. 90-48 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried unanimously. VII . PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS VIII . REPORTS OF ADVIS ORY I,,;bRY COMMISSIONS IX. APPOINTMENTS A. Appointment 'v b rs tg the Landfill Adv ' s Committee (Continued from February 6, 1990 Council meeting) This item was continued until after March 26, 1990. X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS" BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Re2orts of Coungilmembers 1. Informatign Request Pidcock requested that Staff provide the Council with a periodic report on case ; of pending litigation or settelement. Harris requested an update on all legal issues. B. Report of City Manager A 1. EM21oyee Vacation Accrual City Council Minutes 19 February 20, 1990 Harris believed that the City Manager's proposal was a reasonable way to handle the issue. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to proceed as presented in the memorandum. Motion carried x unanimously. 2 . Community Survey Peterson asked if the Chamber of Commerce was paying for its cluster of questions. Juliie replied yes. Peterson believed that the survey would serve the community well. Dawson noted that the survey would be done in the latter part of April . MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to recommend that the services of Decision Resources, Limited be obtained to conduct a survey of the residence and businesses at a cost not to exceed $15,000. Motion carried unanimously. C. Report of City Attorney D. R&ggrt of Director of Planning E. Director of Parks. Recreation NatUral Resources F. Report of Director of Public Woks G. Report of Finance Director XI . NEW BugI T 'SS XII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11: 20 PM.