Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 12/09/1985 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, December 9, 1985 7:30 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA II. MEMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS *(7:35) A. FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER, by Oakwood Builders. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 2.29 acres for construction of a 10,000 square foot office/warehouse. Location: South of Pioneer Trail , east of Highway #169. A continued public hearing. *(8:00) B. DOUGLAS CORPORATION, by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 68 acres for construction of 320,000 square feet of office/warehouse. Location: West of Highway #169, south of new Anderson Lakes Parkway. A continued public hearing. *(8:45) C. PRAIRIE VIEW, by Weis Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on approximately 16 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of approximately 16 acres into two lots for construction of 114,371 square foot regional center. Location: Northeast quadrant of Highway #5 and Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing. *(9:30) D. EDEN LAKE NORTH, by Commercial Excavating, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 19.2 acres and Preliminary Plat of 32.65 acres into 40 single family lots. Location: Southwest quadrant of Preserve Boulevard and Franlo Road. A public hearing. *(10:00) E. AMOCO OIL COMPANY, by Amoco Oil Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 17.28 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on 1.4 acres and Preliminary Plat of 6.79 acres into two lots for construction of a self-service gas station, convenience store, and car wash. Location: Southeast quadrant of Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. A public hearing. Agenda Monday, December 9, 1985 Page Two *(10:30) F. TRACKLINE II OFFICE/WAREHOUSE, by Undestad Investments. Request for Zoning District Amendment on 3.79 acres for construction of a 46,200 square foot office/warehouse. Location: West of Carlson Drive, North of Edenvale Boulevard. A public meeting. *(10:45) G. NORMANDALE TENNIS CLUB, by Arteka, Inc. Request for Site Plan Review for a tennis club. Location: Southeast quadrant of Baker Road and West 62nd Street. A public meeting. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. PLANNER'S REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT *NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED ABOVE ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER, OR LATER, THAN LISTED. .... . ..... ........ ........... ....... . .. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, December 9, 1985 School Board Meeting Room 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Christine Dodge, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett MEMBERS ABSENT: Julianne Bye, Stan Johannes, Dennis Marhula STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to approve the agenda as printed. Motion carried--4-0-0 II. MEMBERS REPORTS None. III. MINUTES MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Chairman Schuck, to approve the minutes of the November 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting with the following addition: Page 4, paragraph 2, at the end of the paragraph the following sentence, "He added that since the site was close to Flying Cloud Airport, close to the Vocational-Technical school for use of students and training facilities, and since additional open space would be dedicated to the City, that the site had potential for being a good office/warehouse site." Motion carried--4-0-0 IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER, by Oakwood Builders. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 2.29 acres for construction of a 10,000 square foot office/warehouse. Location: South of Pioneer Trail, east of Highway #169. A continued public meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 2 December 9, 1985 This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of November 12, 1985, in order to allow proponent to work with the adjacent residential neighbor, Mr. Schaitberger, to mitigate transition issues between the two uses. The proponents had submitted revised plans, responsive to the requested changes by the Planning Commission at their previous meeting. Planner Enger reported that Staff had been in contact with both Mr. Schaitberger and his attorney. He noted that it was apparently Mr. Schaitberger's desire to have his property purchased by either the developer, or the City. Planner Enger stated that the City had handled this type of transitional problem in the Major Center Area, and even in this immediate area, with the Peterson residence, east of Flying Cloud Oil Co., Mr. Schaitberger's industrial use, by allowing interim use of the "residential" property as a business. This would allow an existing residential owner the flexibility of selling either as a single family residence, or as a business. Planner Enger stated that this idea had been discussed with Mr. Schaitberger. It was Staff's opinion that an interim use for Mr. Schaitberger seemed to be the reasonable, consistent course for the City to offer at this time. Planner Enger added that, per Mr. Schaitberger's request, his property would also be included in the list of sites to be considered for a fire station in this area of the City. • Mr. Jack Haverly, proponent, reviewed the revised plans with the Commission, noting the sight lines to Mr. Schaitberger's property based on the revised landscape plan. Chairman Schuck acknowledged receipt of a letter from Lee Ann Kuske, and Susan M. Lossing, both living on Yorkshire Lane, indicating their concerns about additional businesses being located in their neighborhood. Chairman Schuck asked that the letter be made a permanent part of the file on this project. Mr. Haverly stated that, at the previous Planning Commission meeting, there had been discussion regarding the orientation of the structure and what the best orientation would be for purposes of screening Mr. Schaitberger's property from this use. He noted that it would be better from the businesses' point of view to be oriented towards Highway #169, especially since the screening which had been added to the plan mitigated the visual problems which existed previously. He stated that changing the orientation of the building towards County Road A, in addition to the landscaping changes, would not be necessary to accomplish the screening requested. Mr. Harold Schaitberger, 12880 Pioneer Trail, stated that he had been in contact with property owners to the east and west of him regarding sale of his property; however, neither party expressed interest in purchasing his property at this time. He stated that he had spoken with representatives of the City and had requested that the City purchase his property for a fire station, or through the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for future development of this area. Mr. Schaitberger stated that he wanted a definite answer from the City as to the final use of his property. He stated that he did not feel designation of the property for an interim use was appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes 3 December 9, 1985 Mr. Russell Michel, 9607 Yorkshire Lane, stated that there were over 25 children living in the single family area to the north of this site. He expressed concern for their safety considering the increased amount of traffic from additional businesses in this area. Mr. Larry Kuske, 9517 Yorkshire Lane, stated that he felt the interests of the neighborhood would better be served by designation of this property as single family residential , rather than industrial , or commercial. He stated that he, too, was concerned about the potential for increased traffic in this area, if additional businesses were allowed to develop. Mr. Clay Gunnarson, 17001 Valley Road, owner of the property proposed for development, stated that the property had been designated for Industrial use since he had purchased it in 1979. He added that he felt the traffic situation had improved substantially in this area since the road improvements made to Pioneer Trail and County Road #1 were completed in 1982. Mr. Gunnarson stated that he had been trying to have the property developed for some time, but, until this time, had not been able to meet all of the City's criteria for development, which had been established by Council resolution. He stated that, now that he had complied with the requirements, he felt he had a right to have the property developed. Regarding the concerns mentioned about increased traffic, Mr. Haverly noted that none of the uses proposed for the structure were of a manufacturing • nature. He stated that the uses would be the type requiring small office space and a larger amount of storage, thereby generating a small amount of traffic when compared to manufacturing uses, which were more employee intensive. Chairman Schuck asked when the property had been designated as Industrial in the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. Planner Enger responded that it had been accomplished prior to 1980. He noted that the designation of the Yorkshire Lane property as Residential had taken place after the designation of the surrounding property as Industrial . Hallett stated that he felt the alternative of designating the Schaitberger property as an interim use was a good one, as it would increase the flexibility of the Schaitbergers in the sale of the property. He asked about the process necessary to do so. Planner Enger noted that it would be similar to a rezoning procedure. Gartner questioned whether Mr. Schaitberger's situation had been caused by the realignment of County Road #1 and Pioneer Trail in 1982. She asked if the County had been contacted regarding this proposal . Planner Enger stated that the County had been contacted regarding the proposal . Mr. Schaitberger reiterated that he felt an interim use for his property was unacceptable. He stated that he felt the City should buy his property, as had been done in other situations in the Major Center Area of the community. Gartner asked if the City had made such purchases of property within the Major Center Area. Planner Enger stated that the only situation wherein the City had made such purchases was for road right-of-way. No such purchased were made for redevelopment. Instead, the method of interim use was Planning Commission Minutes 4 December 9, 1985 • employed in the Major Center Area for such properties. Hallett stated that, based on that information, he felt the Commission should forward the proposal to the City Council for their action. He stated that he felt the proponents had made a good faith effort to comply with the City's requirements and to mitigate the concerns of the adjacent residential neighbor. Gartner stated that she felt the revised screening now proposed by the developer did a good job of mitigating the problems with the residential neighbor of the project. Hallett stated that he concurred. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Oakwood Builders for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park for 2.29 acres for construction of a 10,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse, based on revised plans dated December 5, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 8, 1985. Further, it is recommended that the City Council consider any available options to aid Mr. Schaitberger with respect to final use of his property. Motion carried--4-0-0 • B. DOUGLAS CORPORATION, by Opus Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 68 acres for construction of 320,000 square feet of office/warehouse. Location: West of Highway #169, south of new Anderson Lakes Parkway. A continued public hearing. Staff reported that this item was continued from the November 25, 1985, meeting to allow Staff to gather additional data regarding the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan and the impact of the proposed land use change upon the overall land use balance within the community. Staff reviewed the data gathered regarding the proposed PUD Concept Plan, listing items of concern involving any future site plan detail for the project, as had been requested by the Commission. Planner Enger reviewed the findings of a memorandum dealing with the impact of the proposed land use change on the overall land use balance within the City and other impacts, such as traffic, of such a change to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated that the project had been reviewed with the Community Services Department and the Assessing Department with respect to questions raised at the previous meeting. The Community Services Department had reported that the City did not have any need for. the proposed open space, or the proposed ball fields, in the plan. Facilities serving these purposes had been designated elsewhere in the community. Regarding total assessed value and, therefore, financial benefit to the community, the Assessing Department had evaluated the difference between the designated Comprehensive Guide Plan uses and the proposed use of the property. It was reported by the Assessing Department that the assessed valuation of the designated Comprehensive Guide Plan uses would be approximately $18,000,000.00, while the assessed valuation of a facility as proposed by Planning Commission Minutes 5 December 9, 1985 the proponent would be approximately $6,000,000.00, including consideration of fiscal disparities, or one-third that of the designated Comprehensive Guide Plan uses. Mr. Arlyn Grussing, representing proponent, stated that the proponents felt they would be creating a better situation for the community by their plan, versus the land uses designated by the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated that there would be less traffic generated from the site, there would be a good "marriage" between the proposed industrial facility and the Vocational- Technical School in terms of training and employment, and the open space would be available. Mr. Grussing stated that there would be a total of approximately 30 acres of residential use removed from the Comprehensive Guide Plan by their plan. Regarding the open space, Mr. Grussing stated that the proponents did not see the need for scenic easements over the open space area, whereby they would be required to give up all rights to the property. He added that they did not feel that the property should be dedicated to the City, either, if there was no credit toward Cash Park Fees given for the dedication. With respect to the 15-20 acres shown for use as ball fields, adjacent to the Vocational-Technical School , Mr. Grussing stated that proponents still wished to maintain this area for the possibility of another structure, should it be needed by the proponent in the future. He stated that • proponents would be willing to commit to not selling it to another party for a different use. Mr. Grussing added that the proponents felt the most significant issue was that of land use. He stated that, prior to dealing with any of the site plan issues, the proponents felt the matter of land use needed to be resolved. He stated that the proponents were willing to work out the site plan issues with the Staff at a later time, after resolution of the land use. Planner Enger stated that there were still significant questions to be answered regarding exactly what the proponents were requesting. He stated that approximately one year ago, proponents were not certain how the all property would be used. Currently, proponents were indicating that they were unable to make any commitments about the open space to the west or the south and that their potential expansion plans were also uncertain and may affect open space. Planner Enger noted that with a similar project, the City and another proponent had worked out land use issues prior to commitment by the City as to land use. He stated that a list of criteria had been established by joint effort and then followed by the proponent. Planner Enger stated that Staff was uncomfortable with the fact that the proponents for the project would not commit to the conditions of the Staff Report, most of which were Code requirements. Mr. Grussing stated that- the proponents were willing to commit to the plans they had shown the Commission. He stated that the proponents needed additional time to review the conditions of the Staff Report. He stated that the proponents would comply with all Code requirements in their site plan. Planning Commission Minutes 6 December 9, 1985 Mr. Greg Nook, Opus Corporation, representing proponents, stated that he had reviewed all of the points of the Staff Report dealing with the site plan and felt that these were all items which could be complied with by the proponents. Planner Enger stated that all of the points of the Staff Report had been raised at the previous Commission meeting on this project, therefore, there should be no new information for proponents regarding the site plan. He reiterated concern that the proponents commit to meeting these requirements prior to action on the land use for the property. Hallett stated that he did not necessarily agree that 1,300 units of multiple family residential was the best use of this property. He pointed out that the current Comprehensive Guide Plan designations for the property were the result of a compromise situation of approximately one year ago. He questioned how much of an impact there would be by changing the land use designations for this area of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Hallett stated that he was not comfortable about the tentative nature of the open space at the south end of the property, adjacent to the Vocational-Technical School . He stated that he would prefer this to be definite in terms of use. Hallett stated that he was less concerned about what activities were taking place within the structures than he was about the outside appearance of the structure and whether it fit into the community. • Hallett asked Staff to explain the increase in traffic discussed in the Staff Report. Planner Enger explained that additional traffic would be introduced into the community from people not living in the community, but working in the community and having to commute to work. If housing were provided in the community for people also working in the community, there would be less traffic impact on the major thoroughfares connecting Eden Prairie to other communities. Planner Enger stated that about the same volume of traffic would be generated by both land uses, if developed completely. Hallett asked Staff how many apartment units were needed in Eden Prairie. Planner Enger responded that studies done during development of the Comprehensive Guide Plan and updated since that time, indicated that approximately one percent of the total land area of the community needed to be reserved for High Density Residential use. By comparison, he noted that approximately 35% of the total land area of the community had been reserved for Low Density Residential use, or single family homes. Planner Enger noted that the City had reviewed proposals on almost all of the land which had been designated for High Density Residential use. The property upon which this proposal was shown was one of the last pieces. Therefore, the City was not looking at a trend toward High Density Residential land use for the future. He added that other remaining property designated for High Density Residential land use was not in as close proximity to services as this property, which made it an important site, also. Hallett stated that the property had not been designated as High Density Residential until approximately one year ago. He asked if the City had suddenly determined that there was additional need for High Density Planning Commission Minutes 7 December 9, 1985 Residential land within the community. Planner Enger stated that the City had converted many acres of land designated as High Density Residential to other uses over the past several years. Staff had determined that over 200 acres had been converted in this manner. Therefore, the property for the Douglas proposal was not adding to the inventory of High Density Residential land within the community, but replacing some of the land which no longer had this designation. Hallett stated that he still felt the Douglas proposal could have merit in this location. Mr. Todd Walker, 8926 Pine Bluff Court, stated that he had attended the original hearings on this property, which had taken place approximately one year ago. He stated that he also had attended the meeting held by the developer regarding the current proposal and had been completely against it initially, as it appeared that the developer was returning to the completely industrial type of project which the City had denied at that time. Mr. Walker stated that, after talking with the developer, assurances had been given regarding protection of the open space area shown on the west side as a buffer to the existing residential area, screening of mechanical equipment from the existing residential area, berming and landscaping, no glare from the site, etc. He stated that, without these items, the proposal was difficult to accept at all . Mr. Walker noted that there were 25-30 children living on his block and that he was concerned about traffic, too. He stated • that the children did not always play on their own street and that he was especially concerned about increased traffic on Research Road due to this type of development. Mr. Walker stated that he felt tight conditions should be agreed to ahead of time by the developer, guaranteeing development as discussed with the neighbors. Mr. Walker questioned what would happen if the economy suddenly became bad for this business, and what would become of the buildings proposed. He stated that this was all the more reason for having tight conditions up front in a development like this. Gartner stated that, at the time the previous developer had requested a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change about one year ago, one of the considerations for her vote was that the existing residents were in favor of being adjacent to residential uses. She added that there were also other considerations, and that she did not consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan as a small matter. Chairman Schuck stated that he felt articulation of the proposal and conditions of its development were important. He stated that he felt this was a rather significant decision that the Commission was being asked to make and that they needed as much information and assurance as possible to make an intelligent decision. He added that he felt the decisions the City made on this proposal would impact Eden Prairie for a long time to come. Chairman Schuck stated that it was his opinion that the City could likely control a High Density Residential use much more than an Industrial use in any case. He added that he was uncomfortable with the unknowns of this development proposal . Planning Commission Minutes 8 December 9, 1985 Hallett stated that he felt any controls needed to be in place early in the project development. Chairman Schuck concurred. Mr. Bob Worthington, Opus Corporation, representing proponent, stated that, if the issue was one of control over the development, Opus would be willing to commit to the controls requested by the City. He stated that they were already willing to commit to the conditions listed in the site plan review Staff Report, and that there may be suggestions for other items, as well . Mr. Worthington stated that the proponents had approached the City with a request for Planned Unit Development Concept in order to determine whether they were headed in the right direction with the development of the property, or not. He pointed out that each successive step would require substantial investment of the developer and the City in time and planning and engineering review. Chairman Schuck stated that there were many long range implications of this proposal, if approved. He stated that he felt the City must act on behalf of the existing residential neighborhood, not just on behalf of the developer, in a situation like this. Dodge stated that she was not convinced that the City had too much High Density Residential land. She stated that she felt it was important that people who worked in Eden Prairie could live in Eden Prairie. • Chairman Schuck stated that the City had to be careful not to respond to the market when making decisions such as this. He stated that it was Staff's responsibility to keep the Commission abreast of the overall picture. In this case, Staff had raised several questions which impacted the overall picture of the City's development. Chairman Schuck stated that he did not take such recommendations lightly. Dodge stated that she felt this was a good location for High Density Residential use and that she felt it was better to keep such uses in closer proximity to each other. Commission, Staff, and proponent discussed the next step for this project. It was suggested that Staff and proponents review additional site plan issues and that proponent return to the Commission for additional review. Planner Enger stated that Staff did not feel that any persuasive reasoning had been off erred to change the land use for this facility and that they would be looking at this in any future submissions from the proponent. He added that Staff would be open to incorporation of any additional conditions, or assurances, that the developer would have to offer, as well . Ch airman'Schuck stated that he felt the City must receive something special from this development, if it were to be approved. He reiterated concern that this was a major decision to be made by the City. He pointed out that once this property was taken out of circulation as High Density Residential , there was no turning back. Therefore, the City needed to be certain of any • such decision. Hallett stated that, as proposed, he was not in favor of the development. He expressed concern about the site plan issues raised in the Staff Report. He also stated that he felt the proponents could make some changes in the Planning Commission Minutes 9 December 9, 1985 i plan, which may improve the request. Mr. Worthington stated that the proponent felt that there were other things they could do with the development to illustrate the special qualities of this site for the use proposed. He asked the Commission for a continuance at this time. MOTION: Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner, that this item be continued to the meeting of January 13, 1986, with direction to the proponent to reconsider the points regarding the site plan, the comments of the Commission from the meeting of November 25, 1985, and this meeting, the concerns of the Commission regarding the park and open space areas, and benefits to the City, in general, if the plan were to be implemented. Motion carried--3-1-0 (Dodge voted against) Dodge stated that she was not convinced that removing the property from the High Density Residential designation of the Comprehensive Guide Plan was appropriate, nor did she feel that proponents would be able to provide significant information to the contrary. C. PRAIRIE VIEW, by Weis Companies. Request for Zoning District Change • from Rural to C-Regional Service on approximately 16 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of approximately 16 acres into two lots for construction of 114,371 square foot regional center. Location: Northeast quadrant of Highway #5 and Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing. Mr. Don Brauer, representing proponents, reviewed the site characteristics and development plan features with the Commission. He discussed revisions to the traffic patterns on the site, which were implemented to eliminate some anticipated traffic congestion in this area. Mr. Brauer reviewed the architectural alternatives available for adding interest to the structures. He also reviewed the requested variances for parking setback and signage. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report of December 6, 1985. He explained Staff's concern regarding the requested variance for parking setback from the front yard setback. There may be need for additional right-of-way in this area, also. It was Staff's opinion that there was adequate room on the property and that the requested variance was not necessary. Planner Franzen stated that proponents were requesting a variance to allow a 600 sq. ft. sign, exceeding the 350 sq. ft. Code maximum. Staff indicated that there were no other such signs in Eden Prairie. Planner Enger stated that one of the items that the Staff had recommended for the development was a covered walkway for the entire project. He noted that in many instances where strip shopping centers had been built without a covered walkway, the developers returned to do so at some point in the future. Planner Enger also stated that Staff was concerned about the east, or back, side of the structure in terms of architectural treatment. Planning Commission Minutes 10 December 9, 1985 Gartner asked about the tenants for this center. Mr. Mark Rooney, representing proponents, stated that Perkins, Bonanza Family Restaurants, a drug store, a dry cleaner, a photo processor, and a hair cutter had all discussed leases with the proponents. Hallett stated that he agreed with Staff's recommendations as to the changes necessary to the site plan as outlined in the Staff Report of December 6, 1985. Gartner expressed concern about another shopping center, or mall, being built in the community, when several were already suffering from high vacancy rates. Dodge concurred. Mr. Curt Johnson, representing proponents, stated that proponents had constructed a very similar mall recently in another Twin Cities Area suburb. He stated that, due to the anchor tenant, this mall was already 90% pre- leased. Gartner asked how this site could support a Perkins restaurant, when another site within the Major Center Area of the community had already been abandoned by Perkins as a viable site for development. Mr. Bill Madden, Director of Real Estate for Perkins, stated that the site referred to was one being pursued by a franchisee, not by a corporate store. At a corporate • level, Mr. Madden reported that the other site had been turned down. Ms. Vicki Koenig, 7239 Topview Lane, stated that her main concern was landscaping and screening from the residential neighborhood to the north. She asked if it would be possible to maintain any of the existing trees on the site. Ms. Koenig stated that she worked at Eden Prairie Center and was concerned, also, about the vacancy rate in the retail locations in Eden Prairie. Dodge stated that she felt there was a need for the Rainbow Foods store within Eden Prairie; however, she was unsure about the needs for the other types of tenants listed. Hallett asked about the trees to be saved. Mr. Walter Carpentar, owner of the property, stated that there were three oaks, which may be worth saving on the property. Chairman Schuck stated that he, too, was concerned about the transition between this site and the adjacent residential site to the north. MOTION• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to continue this item to the January 13, 1986, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponent opportunity to revise the plans responsive to the concerns listed in the Staff Report of December 6, 1985, and the concerns raised by the Commission at the December 9, 1985, meeting. Motion carried--4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes 11 December 9, 1985 D. EDEN LAKE NORTH, by Commercial Excavating, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 19.2 acres and Preliminary Plat of 32.65 acres into 40 single family lots. Location: Southwest quadrant of Preserve Boulevard and Franlo Road. A public hearing. Mr. Dick Putnam, Tandem Corporation, representing proponent, reviewed the site characteristics and features with the Commission. He stated that the site had not been developed, partially due to poor soils across the majority of the parcel . The proponents were in a good position at this time to make corrections to those soils, thereby making the site more suitable for development. Planner Enger reviewed the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report dated December 6, 1985. He noted that the body of water at the south end of the property, known as Lake Eden, made the property subject to the Shoreland Management sections of the City Code. The lots in this location would need to be platted at the Normal Ordinary High Water Mark, not into the lake. The City was also asking that the property below the Normal Ordinary High Water Mark be dedicated to the City to become part of the park adjacent to the property to the south. Hallett asked where the closest sidewalk was located. Mr. Putnam responded that it was located to the east, along . Preserve Boulevard. Hallett • suggested that there also be a sidewalk, or trail, located along Grier Lane. He noted that there would be a school built in this vicinity and that the children living in this area would not be within bussing distance. Therefore, sidewalks, or trails, should be provided for their safety. Mr. Putnam responded that proponents felt this would make sense, if the sidewalk, or trail , were also connected to Franlo Road, providing pedestrian access to Eden Prairie Center and the Hennepin County Library to the north. The Commission discussed the location of the sidewalks, or trails, with proponent. It was determined that these should be located along the south and west sides of Grier Lane, with the intention of connecting to pedestrian access along Franlo Road in the future. Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the' audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION 2• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Commercial Excavating, Inc., for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 19.2 acres to be known as Eden Lake North, based on plans dated November 18, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 6, 1985, with the addition following condition: Sidewalks, or trails, shall be located along the south and west Planning Commission Minutes 12 December 9, 1985 i sides of Grier Lane to the property border. Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Commercial Excavating, Inc., for Preliminary Plat of 32.65 acres into 40 single family lots to be known as Eden Lake North, based on plans dated November 18, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 6, 1985, with the addition of the following condition: Sidewalks, or trails, shall be located along the south and west sides of Grier Lane to the property border. Motion carried--4-0-0 E. AMOCO OIL COMPANY, by Amoco Oil Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 17.28 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on 1.4 acres and Preliminary Plat of 6.79 acres into two lots for construction of a self-service gas station, convenience store, and car wash. Location: Southeast quadrant of Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. A public hearing. • Mr. Jim Phillippi , representing proponent, reviewed the site plan features and site characteristics with the Commission. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report regarding the project. One of the main concerns of Staff was the visibility of this site from adjacent surrounding properties and from greater distances. Another concern was that of glare from site lighting. Also, it was noted in review of the property that this project was part of a previously approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) . That PUD called for a development framework manual at the time of development of the next site. Therefore, it would be required as part of the development of this property. Regarding glare from the site lighting, Planner Franzen stated that Staff had reviewed the lighting in comparison to other sites in the City. It was found that the majority of those sites using similar lighting to that proposed for this site were sites adjacent to other commercial, or industrial, uses. This site was adjacent to single family residential development. There had been problems in other parts of the community when commercial uses abutted single family developments with this type of lighting. Mr. Phillippi stated that proponents were concerned that the property owners, not the developers of this site, be responsible for the design framework manual required as part of the previously approved PUD. He stated that he would be in contact with them immediately. Mr. Phillippi also expressed concern for Staff recommendation regarding the height of the canopy on the property. He noted that the elevation of the property dropped ten feet between the location of the canopy and Highway #169. Planner Enger stated that the concern of Staff was that this was an entrance to a residential neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes 13 December 9, 1985 Mr. Harlan MacGregor, Amoco Oil, asked for more specific details regarding Staff's requirements for the lighting standards. Staff explained the type of lighting standards used in situations like this to minimize glare. Mr. MacGregor stated that he felt this was a realistic request and that proponents would comply. Gartner noted that there was another Amoco Oil station located in close proximity to this one along Highway #169. She asked proponents how many stations the City could support. Mr. MacGregor stated that, based on their marketing research, the City was ready for this one. Chairman Schuck asked for questions and comments from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City • Council approval of the request of Amoco Oil Company for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 17.28 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on 1.4 acres for a self-service gas station, convenience store, and car wash, based on plans dated November 18, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 6, 1985. Motion carried--4-0-0 MOTION 3• Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Amoco Oil Company for Preliminary Plat of 6.79 acres into two lots for construction of a self-service gas station, convenience store, and car wash, based on plans dated November 18, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report- dated December 6, 1985. Motion carried--4-0-0 F. TRACKLINE II OFFICE/WAREHOUSE, by Undestad Investments. Request for Zoning District Amendment on 3.79 acres for construction of a 46,200 square foot office/warehouse. Location: West of Carlson Drive, North of Edenvale Boulevard. A public meeting. Mr. Glen Porter, representing proponent, reviewed the site plan for the proposed development. He also reviewed the landscaping and architectural plans for the project. • Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of December 6, 1985. He noted that the proposed development was in general compliance with the I-2 Park requirements in the City Code. He stated that work still needed to be done regarding screening of parking and Planning Commission Minutes 14 December 9, 1985 screening of mechanical equipment. The issue of major concern for Staff was the screening of the adjacent single family neighborhood to the south. Planner Franzen stated that, according to the original plan, screening was to be maintained for the single family neighborhood. Currently, there was a fence which had been damaged, as well as erosion of slopes in the same area. As part of the approval, Staff felt the developer should restore these items in accordance with the original plan. Planner Franzen reviewed a letter from the proponent which indicated that this would be done. Also, the restoration would be bonded for through the landscape bond required for the development. Mr. Marshall Schwartz, 6530 Leesborough Avenue, owner of one of the homes adjacent to this development, stated that the erosion over the past year was significant. He expressed concern that this be corrected before the problem became worse. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Norm Undestad for Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 Park District for a 46,200 sq. ft. office/warehouse, based on plans dated November 18, 1985, subject to the • recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 6, 1985, including requirement that the fencing and erosion at the property line between the proposed development and the existing single family neighborhood be corrected as part of this project and that bonding for these corrections be included in the landscape bond for the development. Motion carried--4-0-0 G. NORMANDALE TENNIS CLUB, by Arteka, Inc. Request for Site Plan Review for a tennis club. Location: Southeast quadrant of Baker Road and West 62nd Street. A public meeting. Mr. Peter Beck, representing proponents, stated that the proponents were before the Commission pursuant to an agreement made with the surrounding residents and the City Council regarding development of this property. Mr. Beck reviewed the development plans with the Commission. He noted that, where possible, trees would be saved. Mr. Beck stated that, with respect to the landscaping plan for the property, proponents were asking for some flexibility to the Code requirement that they replace 924 caliper inches of trees on the site. Regarding exterior lighting, Mr. Beck stated that proponents were willing to commit to no exterior lighting for the outside tennis courts. Planner Uram stated that it was difficult to determine, based on the grading plan, where proponents were planning to save trees on the property. He noted that there were concerns regarding the parking spaces provided, as well . Planner Uram stated that Staff had reviewed the parking for other such uses in other communities and had found that parking spaces were provided at a ratio of 1.83 to 2.15 per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, Planning Commission Minutes 15 December 9, 1985 i with an average of 1.93 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. He stated that the parking ratio for this site fell within this range. Planner Uram stated that Staff felt the developer should be held to a provision whereby additional parking spaces would be constructed, if it was found that there was a shortage of parking spaces on the property. Planner Uram stated that it was unclear, based on the information provided, whether the mechanical equipment would be screened. He stated that better detail was necessary in this regard and that proponents would be expected to meet Code requirements. Staff was also recommending a noise study be done due to the proposed elimination of the knoll adjacent to I-494 and the possibility of greater noise impact upon the St. John's Woods neighborhood from the freeway by removal of the knoll . Chairman Schuck expressed concern regarding preservation of the trees on the property. He stated that he felt as many trees as possible should be saved. Planner Enger stated that it was expected that the oak trees would be removed based upon the grading proposed. He added that Staff felt it was reasonable to be flexible in terms of tree replacement, whereby if the proponents did not remove a tree, then it would not have to be replaced. • Hallett asked how long the City held bonding on trees that were not to be removed from a site. Planner Enger responed that the bonding was generally for one year; however, the City could provide for an inspection at the time of completion of the construction on the site and require additional time on the bonding, if it were determined necessary after that inspection. Hallett asked what would happen, if the City found that noise was a problem after the fact, after construction had taken place. Planner Enger stated that this could be determined before construction took place by having a noise evaluation done in advance. Hallett asked if it was possible that the building would provide a better noise barrier from the I-494 traffic noise than the knoll . Planner Enger stated that this was possible. Mr. Beck stated that he felt the noise situation was one which should be dealt with, but that he did not feel it was the responsibility of the proponents to screen the noise from I-494. He stated that the residents of St. John's Woods were in favor of this project partially because the use was one that would produce significantly less noise than a commercial development. Planner Enger stated that the City believed it was the responsibility of the developer to conduct the noise evaluation. Mr. Alan Kimpel , architect for proponents, stated that it would be necessary to obtain the permission of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) to remove the knoll since the knoll was located within MNDOT right- of-way. He added that the knoll also was located within the easement for the NSP powerline. Gartner asked about the materials to be used for the retaining proposed 9 wall . Mr. Kimpel responded that it would be constructed of poured concrete. Chairman Schuck asked why a landscaped berm was not being used instead. Mr. Kimpel stated that he felt berm required to effectuate the same amount of Planning Commission Minutes 16 December 9, 1985 screening would be too steep to support plant materials. Hallett stated that he felt a berm would better mitigate the massive appearance of the structure. Gartner stated that she did not necessarily object to the use of a retaining wall , but suggested that it be constructed of a material other than poured concrete. Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Arteka, Inc., for site plan review for a tennis club, based on plans dated December 6, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 6, 1985, with the added stipulations that the proponents agree to eliminate any outside lighting of the exterior tennis courts; that proponents conduct a noise evaluation of the property to determine the impact of removal of the knoll, prior to final Council approval ; that proponents provide for mechanical screening and bonding for the value of the work in accordance with City Code requirements; and that proponents post a bond guaranteeing the life of the existing trees shown to be saved on the site plan, which bond may be renewed at the City's request pending inspection to determine to whether the existing trees have suffered construction damage and require replacement per City Code. Motion carried--4-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 12:35 a.m.