Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 08/22/1994 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 1994 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Donald R. Uram, Planner; Linda Bahley, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Katherine Kardell. Absent were Ken Clinton, Doug Sandstad, and Lisa-Marie Gualtieri; all other members present. H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Bauer, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0-0. III. MINUTES MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to approve the Minutes of August 8, 1994 as published. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Kardell abstaining. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAYS AMENDMENT Staff suggested that this item be continued to the meeting on September 12, 1994 due to the length of tonight's Agenda. MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Wissner to continue discussion of the Outdoor Sales and Displays Amendment to the meeting on September 12, 1994. Motion carried 5-0-0. B. HARTFORD PLACE by Ryan Companies. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 5 acres, from Office to Medium Density Residential on 43.20 acres and from Office to Low Density Residential on 13.69 acres, PUD Concept Review on 110 acres, PUD District Review on 88 acres, Preliminary Plat of 88 acres into 7 commercial lots, 250 townhouse lots, 24 single family lots and 3 outlots, Rezoning from Office to R1-13.5 on 13.69 acres, Rezoning from Office to RM-6.5 on 35.20 acres, Rezoning from Office to C-Regional Service on 5 acres, and Site Plan Review on 88 acres. Location: Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Center Drive. Franzen stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting the Commissioners went over each of the seven sites and gave direction on sites #3, #4, #5 and #6 for plan revisions. Bill McHale, representing Ryan Companies, stated there are three changes resulting from the feedback from the neighbors, Staff and the Commission from the last meeting. He said on site #3, the property between Gelco and NCS, they respect the Commission's direction that it should remain office, and asked that the Planning Commission send that recommendation to the City Council. He stated on site #4, a berm was extended along the east side of the property. They have increased the scenic easement from 50 feet to 60 feet. With a front yard setback waiver on several lots, they have increased the setback from 80 feet to 100 feet. He stated that on sites #5 and A, at the request of the neighbors, they have placed single story townhouses along the common property line. They have also extended the berm along the eastern end of the pond adjacent to Carriage Court. Franzen stated that Staff was supportive of the plan changes for areas A, #5, and A. Staff's recommendation would be to recommend that the Commission continue discussion on this item until the September 12th meeting so they can follow up with the remaining details on the project such as architecture, grading, drainage, landscaping, sidewalks, trails and traffic. Foote expressed concern for a road stub connected to Fieldcrest. He asked whether it was going to be left as is or if it was going to be fixed. Franzen replied that it was planned as an extension of Center Way to Rolling Hills Road. He stated that since this road will not be extended, the City would consider vacating that road. The land could revert back to the adjoining property owners. He added that the City must retain a draining utility easement for the existing watermain and proposed sidewalk. Lisa Helt, 10600 Northmark Drive, stated that she was not satisfied with the • sight line changes made with regards to the Nedegaard site. Kardell stated that the proponent has requested this be published for Council on September 20th. In the event the Commissioners all not in a position to make a recommendation on the meeting of the 12th, that the proponent would be responsible for new notices of a public hearing at City Council on a later date. MOTION 1: Schlampp moved, seconded by Wissner to move to continue the Public Hearing for Hartford Place to September 12, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting and direct Staff to publish this item for the September 20th City Council meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0. C. SUPER VALU CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS ADDITION by Super Valu Corporation. Request for PUD Concept Review on 135.4 acres. Location: North of Valley View Lane, between Highway 212 and I-494 Mules Lynberg, designer for Super Valu, stated that they were asking the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the concept plan for the balance of the corporate home office located off Valley View Road. They do not have the capacity in their existing building to accommodate their needs. He stated they would like to be in the position to have the option on the existing site to expand the facility. He said they have been good citizens and corporate members of Eden Prairie's business community. He stated that as they took this plan and developed it, they tried to be sensitive to the residents of Bryant Lake. He said it's impossible to develop the property at density at reasonable without having some impact on site features. He stated they have no timetable for the development of the property. They are asking the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the concept and they will then move forward as their needs develop. Lynberg reviewed the project with the Commissioners using visual aids. He stated that there was 5,500 feet of lake shoreline as part of this property. The site had a fair amount of undevelopable areas. There was a significant wetland area connected to Bryant Lake on the northwest corner. The significant features of the site were two wooded hills adjacent to Bryant Lake. Franzen stated that there were a number of shoreland variances and PUD waivers identified as part of this project, which cannot be acted on until a specific zoning request has been filed. The purpose of identifying the variances was to help assess the development potential of the property and to give Super Valu some indication of whether they can be supported. He stated that the Staff Reports primary emphasis was on shoreland regulation impacts. There are shoreland variances identified that cannot be acted on until a rezoning is requested. He said direction provided to the developer by City Staff prior to submittal of this project was to stay within the traffic projections . of the Northeast Eden Prairie Traffic Study; total building square footage should be less than what the ordinance would allow in order to preserve the site's natural character; tree loss should be less than 40 percent and there should be no wetland fill. The pretreatment of storm water to NURP standards; and are to consider fewer but taller buildings and structured parking to minimize the site coverage. He added that Staff felt this was a low intensity use which preserves site features, and was consistent with the traffic projections for the property. For these reasons the Staff recommended approval according to the conditions of the Staff Report. Schlampp suggested the planting of vegetation now so it will be fully grown and will help with screening buildings in the future. Lynberg displayed a 3-D model of the proposed plan and explained the features. Donald Sorensen, 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated that details of this proposal were not known until the meeting last Tuesday. They did not receive notice of this meeting tonight. He said that since they didn't live within 500 feet of the project they were not provided notice of the public hearing. Therefore, some of them know of this project from the newspaper. As a result of this he was • unprepared and unable to give a view. He suggested that the Planning Commission give some time to consider what appropriate notice areas are rather than 500 feet when a building 120 feet tall would affect people more than 500 feet away. He expressed concern with regard to the visibility of the building, the preservation of the wildlife and the tree situation. He suggested that the whole tree loss situation needed to be revisited and corrected so they know what trees are that are going to be lost. He stated that the slope situation causes many developmental problems. He said that Super Valu was not keeping the promises made by them during the whole planning process as far as what they would and would not do. Dorothy Larson, 7011 Willow Creek Road, showed a photograph to the Planning Commission depicting the view from her deck which faces Super Valu. She expressed concern about the lighting conditions of Super Valu that would affect her home. Dick Wiltz, 7141 Willow Creek Road, stated that he agreed with the issues expressed by Donald Sorensen. He expressed concern about the traffic patterns on the road around there which are already severe. He stated that if they are granted concept approval and then they decided to move to another community, the new developer might not be as sensitive. He said this was opening a pandora's box to future people that don't know anything about being • good corporate citizens. He expressed concern about the visibility of the • existing building in the wintertime. He was not, however, against this development taking place, but he would like to see these problems solved. Bob Fransen, 6851 Beach Road, asked if there has been any environmental study made of this site. Kardell replied there would have to be one before the developer could actually build. Fransen expressed concern that Super Valu will be given the opportunity to build what they want and when they want it. He said a blank check should not be given to them to build what they feel like in 5 or 10 years from now. He stated that in 10 years circumstances may change entirely. He said it's critical that the environmental aspects be watched carefully and variances should not be granted. He said there was a much better plan for this site, one that could protect the view. It should not be given out as a blank check. Karen Duncan, 11228 Willowood, stated that she had no objection to the proposed expansion to the present building of two stories, no objection to the other two buildings, but has a strong objection to the eight story building and two level parking ramp. She expressed concern about the lights from that building being left on all night and the impact it will have on her home. She said there are no trees that can block that view. They are paying high taxes . for living in an area that was convenient to all locations and they have a feeling of living in the country which is why they purchased their 13 acres of woodland property for privacy. She also expressed concern for the decrease in property values. Jim Perkins, 7012 Willow Creek Road, stated they have leaves about five months and open views when they look at Super Valu for seven months. He expressed concern about the screening of this site. Barbara Kaerwer, 12800 Gerard Drive, stated that she did not live on the lake but across from the freeway where there was going to be a wildlife refuge in the future. She suggested putting the building down into the earth. There was not a water table problem so there could be less height and it would be less offensive. She also suggested additional berming to be done. She expressed concern about the aesthetics of the site. Peter Beck, Attorneys representing Karen and James Duncan, stated that the Duncans property line immediately abutted the wetland property and their house overlooked the existing parking lot and corner of the existing building. He said they were about 50 to 75 feet north, roughly about 15 feet higher in elevation than the sight line study. Their first concern was the removal of the landscaping from the front of their house. The second concern was the parking • ramp structure that would be bigger, higher, and closer to them than the existing parking lot which they can already see. He said it didn't appear that there was enough horizontal distance in that area to achieve enough screening through berming and landscaping to screen the structure 10 to 14 feet in the air. He stated that this building would be visible in the entirety from the front of their house. They were not concerned with the square footage because it can be put on this property way back off to the lake on the existing road. They suggested a two-story building with underground parking. He stated that it may be more difficult and more expensive, but in their view it's important to protect their property values. He and the Duncan's invited the Planning Commission to come and take a look at their home because it may help them understand the dilemma they are facing. Stuart Nolan, 7020 Willow Creek Road, stated that they would probably not see the proposed building from their side of the lake, but they fully sympathized with their neighbors on the southern side that would be affected. He stated that Super Valu had done a wonderful job to develop property so far. He said there had to be a balance with the concerns of the people that live in and along that lake that will be affected by their proposals. He expressed concern about added traffic at the northern side of the lake, added noise and the added activities that parks will bring. Wissner stated that she had not heard anyone object to Super Valu's expansion. She said when she saw the plans and went over to the property she had a hard • time accepting the tall building. She said this was definitely a continuance to allow time for a plan to develop which has less visual impact on the lake. Foote stated that he agreed with Wissner that it has to be continued. He did not support the 8 story office because it was too high. He said the tree loss was excessive. He felt the developer and the neighbors can work these issue out together. Schlampp stated that he did not support the 8 story building that there were other ways to handle that particular view. He suggested conifers that would remain green all year as opposed to only five months of the year. He stated that he was in agreement with Wissner as to the continuance of this project. Bauer stated that he was not prepared to move on this proposal. He believed the Commission had to give some guidance to the developer and the neighbors as to where their thought process was so they can come back in two weeks and show where they are leading and helping facilitate some applicable resolution. He said that until the presentation from the audience he was ready to support the plan in it's entirety even though he found an 8 story building offensive. He said Mr. Sorensen raised an issue on the 1978 agreement that he was not aware of and until he saw that agreement he would not be prepared to act. He stated that other than that 8-story building the rest of the proposal was very • well put together and well screened, and that to him was the only building that needed attention. Kardell stated that she went out to the site and found it very difficult to visualize but by seeing the materials that were brought this evening, she found it to be very helpful in getting a sense of what it may look like. She was supportive of more buildings with a lower height if the developer was able to achieve their square footage needs. She said the existing site plan needs additional work. She stated that some of the Commissioners have worked in with residents in the neighborhood and found them to be extremely reasonable and a very good group to work with. She encouraged the developer to work together with these residents. Mr. Ryan, developer, stated they did not anticipate approval tonight and are very happy to have this continued. He stated that they worked with the City Staff under the ordinance that you have to notify everybody within 500 feet. Super Valu held a neighborhood meeting in advance of this meeting, and they notified people beyond the 500 foot range. He said he felt they could all work together and satisfy everyone. He did not believe that Super Valu ever misled the Council. He said they did not violate the terms of the 1978 agreement. Kardell stated that the Commission will go back and look at the records of the 1978 project for the next meeting. • MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Foote to continue until September 26th. Motion carried 5-0-0. D. RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION by Hustad Homes and Robert and James Brown. Request for PUD Concept Review on 39.45 acres, PUD District Review on 12.85 acres in the R1-22 Zoning District and Preliminary Plat of 12.85 acres into 12 single family lots. Location: Riverview Road East. Schlampp stated that he would step down because of conflict of interest as a result of being a neighbor. Franzen stated that in 1991, the proponent submitted a request for subdivision of 65 acres into 33 lots. The 65 acres included 39.5 acres of developable property and approximately 25.5 acres of flood plain. This proposal was approved by the Planning Commission and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. The project did not meet the mandatory category of 250 units, or the discretionary category of 40 units, however, the project did involve a shoreland area (land below the 100 year flood plain) and therefore an EAW could be petitioned. The City requested that the proponents prepare an EAW. . In November, 1992, the proponent submitted a revised development plan for this property which included 19 lots on the upper portion of the property. That proposal included a cul-de-sac with an outlot that could serve as a potential location for future road access to the lower portion of the property. That proposal did not trigger any EAW categories. The preliminary plat and rezoning of 23.85 acres into 19 lots was approved by the City Council. Beth Simonstad, representing the developer, reviewed their plans with the Planning Commission. She stated they were requesting approval of 12.5 acres into 12 single family lots. She stated they have some landscaping and some minor work to finish on the first phase of the project and were very pleased with it. They want to make sure they can get a public road down to the lower part of this property. They were trying to keep the tree loss at a minimum so a private drive is requested. They will have preserved the slopes and oak tree by a conservancy easement. She stated that they wanted to make sure that what they did was going to allow that property to develop consistent with minimal disturbance of tree covering. Peter Pope, 10541 E. Riverview Drive, expressed concern about the negative impact this plan would have on property values. He was concerned about the environmental issue regarding the bluff. He asked that in conclusion, that the City Council not compromise on the boundaries that have been set. Laura & Kevin Blummel, 10540 W. Riverview Drive, stated that their • concerns are not necessarily the same as to the other people speaking tonight. They were questioning the amount of meetings that will be needed to solve these problems. They expressed concern for all the people that were not notified. They were concerned about the traffic at the intersection because of the dangers of little children around. They are concerned about the decision made two years ago to have the trail access on the east side and didn't know why it's being changed now. They want to know who owns Valley View Road. They expressed concern about the wildlife refuge boundaries by dedicating this property to the City. They want to know the status of the bluff ordinance and if an environmental assessment of land to be gifted has been down, and how access to MWCC easement is provided. He stated that the trail easement was 150 feet starting from the base of the river parallel with the river. Access to MWCC is down the public road across the NURP pond easements. Laura Blummel stated they wanted to preserve their property in the natural state. They didn't want a trail to be made for people to leave garbage behind. She stated the City was not planning for equal protection for the other lot owners. Richard Condon, 10561 E. Riverview Drive, stated that he built his house 25 • years ago and was part of Riverview Heights in it's infancy. He said he • owned all the property from Highway 18 to 169. He said they originally planned for their house to look down the river and there were limitations regarding the heights. He said the Planning Commission and the Council should consider height limitation for these new homes as to how high they can go. He expressed concern for the displacement of the homes so it didn't destroy the homes that were there already. Dennis Chase, 10531 E. Riverview Drive, expressed concern about the short notice given of the meeting. He expressed concern about the environment preservation as a result of this plan. He was concerned about what the building limitations were in terms of building. He expressed concern about the new houses blocking his view of the river which would have him looking at a house wall. He was also concerned about the property values decreasing. He was asking for more time so he could investigate this situation further. Ed Schlampp, 10901 Riverview Drive, stated that he wanted to clear up some things that were not correct. He reviewed the 100 year event storm and explained that the way the drainage was handled in sensitive areas. He stated that his land borders directly on the Brown's property. He said he watched Phase I go up which was built correctly and now Phase II was being done the same way. Peter Pope, stated that he was disappointed that Mr. Schlampp was going to express and support his influence on this plan. Dennis Chase, stated that Mr. Schlampp's home was in no conflict with this plan because he did not have to look over the roofs on this site. He was far enough away where he was not affected. He stated that it was improper for him to comment on the plan. Franzen stated that with regards to the views to the lots lower than the Chase property and the Condon property, Staff had a concept plan that showed where the houses were going to be located, and that a conservancy easement would restrict homes from being built higher on the slopes blocking their views. Bauer stated that he voted to approve this in 1991 and 1992. Foote stated that he didn't have that information because he had not been on the Commission too long. He asked what is the status of the bluff ordinance. Franzen explained the City Council direction to form a Bluff Committee to analyze how best the bluff could be preserved. A citizen, Staff, Council committee was formed and studied alternatives for bluff use. The committee developed a consensus statement which was forwarded to the City Council. This statement said existing ordinances should provide adequate and reasonable protection of the bluff. The Council accepted the consensus but did not direct further study. He stated that this project was being consistent with all city code ordinances and policies. Wissner stated she was on the previous Commission. She said she supported the project before and feels this phase is consistent with the 1st phase. Wissner expressed concern for someone who had been there and all of a sudden having a wall for a view. She said that the issue was addressed and it would not occur so she felt better about that. Kardell stated that she supported the project. MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Foote to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 2: Bauer moved, seconded by Foote to move to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Homes and Robert and James Brown for PUD Concept Review, based on plans dated August 19, 1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 19, 1994. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 3: Bauer moved, seconded by Foote to move to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Homes and Robert and James • Brown for PUD District Review based on plans dated August 19, 1994, and subject to the recommendation of the Staff Report dated August 19, 1994. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 4: Bauer moved, seconded by Foote to move to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Homes and Robert and James Brown for Preliminary Plat based on plans dated August 19, 1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 19, 1994. Motion carried 4-0-0. E. EDEN PRAIRIE METRO MINI-STORAGE by Property Resources Corporation. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the I-2 Park District on 4.1 acres and Site Plan Review in the I-2 Park District on 4.1 acres. Location: 6851 Flying Cloud Drive. Gregg Hallemcamp, KKE Architects, reviewed his project using visual aids with the Planning Commission. He stated that the owner purchased the property on Flying Cloud Drive with a vacant building. The owner was planning on moving his corporate office in there and turning the development into a mini-storage facility. He stated that the owner did a similar plan in Bloomington. He showed the Planning Commission photographs of that facility which shows the design they plan to use. He stated they want to keep the dock is and were requesting a variance. There was eight foot fencing along the front • of the entrance way. They were seeking a distance of 19 feet and the setback is 40 feet. He said they felt it would be acceptable to keep it as is. Kardell asked why there was a need for eight foot fencing when the other mini-storage areas in the City have been okay with a six foot fence. Hallemcamp replied it was for security purposes. Their alternative was a six foot fence with three strands of barbed wire. Rather than that, they would prefer to do an eight foot fence. He stated that they had the property owner to the south come in and discuss the drainage situation with the NURP pond overflowing. Schneider stated that Staff recommended the approval of this property subject to some revisions of the grading plan and subject to tree replacement. He said Staff did not have a problem approving the three variances that were for landscaping and screening. John Weedum, owner of the building immediately to the south, expressed concern about the drainage onto his property as a result of sharing a common driveway. He believed that the City Engineering Department should address the drainage in the whole area because it was creating a large area that was turning into a wetland. • Bauer stated he was in favor of the plan. He expressed concern about the draining problem and would like to see a little more detail on the screening of the loading dock. Wissner expressed concern about the draining issue. Franzen replied that this was common when you are dealing with older areas. Wissner stated that she supported the project and if it looked like the one in Bloomington it will be a great improvement. Foote stated that he supported the project and agrees with Bauer and Wissner. He said he liked the eight foot fence versus the six foot with barbwire. Bauer suggested that if the Commission approved the plan they should pass on to the Council and the Board of Appeals with an eight foot amendment. Schlampp stated that a wetland didn't absorb anything if it's a true wetland because it had a clay base. He said this was going to be an improvement because they were getting a NURP pond which would contain a sediment. Kardell stated she supports the project. She expressed concern about the eight foot fence, but if the other Commissioners supported it she had no problem • with it. She said this plan would be a big improvement on this site. She said she concurred with everyone else regarding the drainage as an area issue. MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Wissner to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 2: Bauer moved, seconded by Wissner to move to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Property Resources Corporation for Zoning District Amendment in the I-2 Park District, based on plans dated August 19, 1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 19, 1994, further subject to our recommendation that the normal fencing be 8 foot tall. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 3: Bauer moved, seconded by Wissner to move to recommend to the CIty Council approval of the request of Property Resources Corporation for Site Plan Review based on plans dated August 19, 1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 19, 1994. Motion carried 5-0-0. F. BUCA RESTAURANT by Parasole Restaurant Holdings, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the C-Com Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 1.25 acres for a 4,200 square foot restaurant addition. Location: Highway 5 and Mitchell Road. • Dale Wenkus, Wold Architects, stated that their proposal was a complete remodelling of Mexican Village plus the addition of approximately 4,000 square feet. He reviewed the plan with the Planning Commission using visual aids. They were adding enough parking spaces to meet the Code and, therefore, were not requesting any variances. He said everything falls in the ordinance for the exterior material. He handed out samples of the dark color brick that was to be used. The primary building materials include cream- colored glazed face brick and stucco. He said the mechanical equipment and the enclosed dumpsters would be screened by a stucco wall. He stated that there would be an 80 square foot free-standing sign at the front entrance. The neon lit sign will simulate a bottle pouring wine into a glass, but the neon will not blink or appear to move. Bauer asked when they estimated opening up the restaurant. Wenkus replied that they were hoping to open in the middle of the Spring next year in March. He said they wanted to get in the ground before the frost. Wenkus stated they were keeping the shell of the Mexican Village and were stripping away all the bad material on the outside. Wissner asked if there was going to be an outside eating area. Wenkus stated there would not be. i • Bauer asked if McDonalds was going to go up on that corner. Schneider replied yes. Schneider stated this was a remodel of the now vacant Mexican Village. They were adding 4200 square feet from the building, back a distance from the Mexican Village. He said this would require additional caliper inches of trees on the site per Code. He stated there was enough vegetation on the site so they were not adding additional trees for the screening. The project met Code and no variances were requested. Staff recommended approval. MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Bauer to move to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Parasole Restaurant Holdings, Inc. for Site Plan Review based on plans dated August 19, 1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 19, 1994. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 3: Wissner moved, seconded by Bauer to move to recommend to the CIty Council approval of the request of Parasole Restaurant Holdings, Inc. for Site Plan Review based on plans dated August 19, 1994, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 19, 1994. Motion carried • 5-0-0. G. MCDONALDS PLAYLAND ADDITION by McDonalds. Request for PUD Concept Amendment and PUD District Review on 1.5 acres, Site Plan Review and Zoning District Amendment on 1.5 acres for a playland addition. Location: Prairie Center Drive and Highway 169. Franzen stated that Jerry Roper, of McDonalds, recently contacted staff and indicated that McDonalds wanted to proceed with the original square glass. enclosure of the play structure. Bauer stated that beauty was in the eye of the beholder, but the City should be consistent with Burger King on 4 and 5. He felt they should move it on and let Council decide. He recommended denial of this project. Foote stated that he agreed with Bauer to move to recommend denial of this project. MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Foote to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 2: Bauer moved, seconded by Wissner, to move to deny the request of McDonalds Restaurant for PUD Concept Amendment, PUD District Review on 1.5 acres, Site Plan Review and Zoning District Amendment on 1.5 acres for McDonalds Playland Addition located at Prairie Center Drive and Highway 169. Motion carried 5-0-0. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS None. VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None. VH. NEW BUSINESS The following is a preview of the September 12th meeting: 1. Hartford (2 to 3 hours) 2. Bearpath 4th Addition (1 hour) 3. Outdoor Sales and Display (1 to 1 1/2 hours) 4. Doolittles Air Cafe (30 minutes) • 5. Westgate Substation (15 minutes) 6. Shady Oak Ridge 4th Addition (15 minutes) He said either Bearpath 4th or could Outdoor Sales and Display can be pushed back to the 26th. VUL PLANNERS' REPORTS None. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Foote to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 22, 1994 7:00 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri STAFF MEMBER: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA M. MINUTES IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAYS AMENDMENT B. HARTFORD PLACE by Ryan Companies. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Regional Commercial on 5 acres, from Office to Medium Density Residential on 43.20 acres and from Office to Low Density Residential on 13.69 acres,PUD Concept Review on 110 • acres,PUD District Review on 88 acres,Preliminary Plat of 88 acres into 7 commercial lots, 250 townhouse lots, 24 single family lots and 3 outlots, Rezoning from Office to R1-13.5 on 13.69 acres, Rezoning from Office to RM-6.5 on 35.20 acres, Rezoning from Office to C-Regional Service on 5 acres, and Site Plan Review on 88 acres. Location: Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Center Drive. C. SUPER VALU CORPORATE BEADOUARTERS ADDITION by Super Valu Corporation. Request for PUD Concept Review on 135.4 acres.Location: North of Valley View Lane,between Highway 212 and I-494 D. RIVERVIEW BEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION by Hustad Homes and Robert and James Brown. Request for PUD Concept Review on 39.45 acres and PUD District Review on 12.85 acres in the R1-22 Zoning District and Preliminary Plat of 12.85 acres into 12 single family lots. Location: Riverview Road East E. EDEN PRAIRIE METRO MINI-STORAGE by Property Resources Corporation. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the I-2 Park District on 4.1 acres and Site Plan Review in the I-2 Park District on 4.1 acres. Location: 6851 Flying Cloud Drive F. BUCA RESTAURANT by Parasole Restaurant Holdings, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the C-Com Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 1.25 acres for a 4,200 square foot restaurant addition. Location: Highway 5 and Mitchell Road G. MCDONALDS PLAYLAND ADDITION by McDonalds. Request for PUD Concept Amendment and PUD District Review on 1.5 acres, Site Plan Review and Zoning District Amendment on 1.5 acres for a playland addition. Location: Prairie Center Drive and Highway 169. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VM. PLANNERS' REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT