HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 05/14/1987 APPROVED MINUTES
THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1987
7:30 PM, LUNCH ROOM,
7600 EXECUTIVE Drive
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Hanley Anderson,
Roger Sandvick, William Arockiasamy,
Lyn Dean, Steve Longman,and Dwight Harvey
BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Steve Durham and
Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede
ROLL CALL: Sandvick and Dean were absent.
I. MINUTES
A. Minutes of January 8, 1987.
MOTION: Approval of the minutes for the January 8, 1987 meeting was
continued as there was not a quorum present from that meeting.
B. Minutes of March 23, 1987.
MOTION: Harvey moved, seconded by Arockiasamy, to approve the minutes
of March 23, 1987. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Minutes of April 9, 1987.
MOTION: Harvey moved, seconded by Krueger to approve the minutes of
April 9, 1987. Motion carried unanimously.
LL. VARIANCES
A. Request #87-17, submitted by Ashland Oil , Inc. for property located at
t6425 West 78th Street Eden Prairie Minnesota. The re uest is for a
variance from Cit Code, Cha ter 11 Section 11 .03 to permit a drive-
wa zero feet from the north lot line and 5' from the south lot line.
Cit Code re uires a drivewa to be a minimum of 10' from a side lot
line .
This request was continued from the April 9, 1987 meeting.
Dan Tyson, attorney with Gustafson and Tyson, presented the request
to the Board.
Tyson said that Ashland Oil had met with the Planning Department and
the residents of Terrey Pine Court.
Tyson restated the facts leading up to Superamerica's request for
the variance:
The following is a list in chronological order of actions taken
by the City upon which Superamerica has relied, causing the
creation of its hardship:
January 19, 1978 Eden Prairie makes note in a Staff Report
to the Planning Commission of the need for
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - May 14, 1987
a median on County Road 4, at the same time recognizing that median
• will deny Superamerica full access to the public roads (Exhibit A).
May 8, '1980 Chris Enger, Planning Director, states in a Staff Report that a
"convenience food store on the south side of the intersection
(Highway 5 and County Road 4) may actually limit the number of
cars having to cross the intersection from south of TH 5 to pur-
chase quick stop foods." (Exhibit B)
March 23, 1980 In an internal memorandum of Ashland Oil , it is stated that there
is no question that the location of the site will be severely damaged.
if the center line°is constructed at County Road 4 and some alter-
native is not developed to facilitate westbound traffic on Highway
5. Westbound traffic in this case is the going home traffic and
would be totally eliminated. Northbound traffic on County Road 4
would likewise be eliminated. The location would be severely
damaged if our far curb cut on Highway 5 was eliminated. The elim-
ination of this curb cut would justify partial condemnation. However,
if the curb cut is eliminated, and the centerline divider is con-
structed at County Road 4, total condemnation would more be in order.
It is anticipated that at that time an alternative to total
elimination would have to be provided.
June 19, 1981 Howard Dahlgren Associates, in a report submitted to the Planning
Staff, emphasizes Superamerica 's need for full access and the hard-
ship which absence of full access would cause: "Without approval ,
the access to Superamerica will suffer to the point that in the
• highly competitive, convenience oriented gasoline sales business,
Superamerica will be unable to continue. (Exhibit C)
Jan. 4 , 1982 Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner, recommends in a Staff Report that
Outlot A be platted as part of Mitchell Lake Estates 2nd Addition
"to insure access in the future for the Superamerica station. "
(Exhibit D)
Jan. 11 , 1982 The Planning Commission unanimously carried a motion to recommend
to the City Council approval of the Mitchell Lake Estates 2nd
Addition plat including the deed to the City of Outlot A for the
purpose Iof later providing connection of Superamerica to Terrey
Pine Court. (Exhibit E)
Jan. 25, 1987 The Planning Commission notes its intent that Superamerica have
access onto Terrey Pine Drive and that Outlot A be deeded to the
City for that purpose. (Exhibit F)
Feb. 2, 1982 The City Council unanimously carried a motion adopting Resolution
82-86 approving the plat with the deed of Outlot A to the City to
insure Superamerica's later access to Terrey :Pine Court. (Exhibit G)
Mar. 16, 1982 The Developer's Agreement is executed which explicitly provides
for a driveway to Terrey Pine Court: "Owner shall not grade, nor
cause to occur any construction upon Outlot A, nor allow others to
• so grade or cause construction, except driveway to Lot 2. " (Exhibit H)
A representative from the Chiropractic Clinic discussed that fact at
the April 19, 1987 meeting.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - May 14, 1987
• July 27, 1982 The City accepts the deed to Outlot A. (Exhibit I)
Nov. 18, 1983 ) The Minnesota Department of Transportation, in a letter to Chris
Enger, Director of Planning, requires that the plans for the
Superamerica expansion reflect a connection to the cul-de-sac
(Terrey Pine Court). (Exhibit J) At the time that Superamerica's
application was being considered, the Minnesota Department of
Transportation was considering the realignment of Highway 5.
In connection with the approval of the Highway 5 entrance, the
Minnesota Department of Transportation felt it necessary that
Superamerica connect to the "back door" at Terrey Pine Court.
They made that part of their recommendation and approval process.
May 3, 1984 The Minnesota Department of Transportation, in a letter to Gregory
D. Gustafson, counsel for Superamerica, again requires that it is
"important for the site to have access to Terrey Pine Court. "
(Exhibit K) The plans were developed and devised with an outlot
on Terrey Pine Court through this rear door. It was not only
requested by Superamerica, but also required by the City that the
opening be part of Superamerica's plan for redevelopment.
September 21, 1984 Michael D. Franzen, Senior "'Planner, states in- a
Staff Report that the property was platted with
access onto Terrey Pine Court by SuperAmerica in
• mind. "[Tlhe COR Property to the West, (sic) was
platted with a cul-de-sac which touches the south-
west corner of this site. SuperAmerica will have
an access from that cul-de-sac." (Exhibit L)
September 24, 1984 Planning Commission unanimously carries motion for
rezoning and replatting of SuperAmerica site and
expresses its concern that SuperAmerica have access
to Terrey Pine Court. "Acting Chairman Torjesen
asked if access to the cul-de-sac had been shown in
the original SuperAmerica plan. Planner Enger
responded that it had been shown." (Exhibit M)
Septeober 25, 1984 In a letter to Chris Enger, Eden Prairie Director
of Planning, James M. Wold, Chief of Planning and
Programming for the Hennepin County Department of
Transportation, notes that an approved Hennepin
County entrance permit is required prior to
revising an existing access." No mention is made
of any r othe required
q permits. (Exhibit N)
I
•
Board of Appeals and Adjusments. - 4 - May 14, 1987
• October 16, 1984 The City Council carried a - motion approving
rezoning and replatting of the SuperAmerica site.
The minutes reflect Council members' concerns that
SuperAmerica have full access to public roads.
"Redpath inquired about access to this site.
Enger stated that the only full access would be
via Terrey Pine Drive . .. Gerald Anderson, 16506
• Terry (sic) Pine Drive, said he was concerned
about the median and the increased amount of traf-
fic which might be put unto Terrey Pine. Enger
explained the road system which will be used and
the traffic patterns; he noted the road system
which will be used and the traffic patterns; he
noted the road system was planned with this deve-
lopment in mind. Enger said signs could be put up
which would indicate 'children at play' and there
• would be directional signs. Director of the Public
Works Dietz concurred."
(emphasis supplied).
(Exhibit 0)
November 6, 1984 In a letter to SuperAmerica, the Minnesota Depart-
ment of Transportation restated "the conclusions
reached at a meeting held November 5, 1984 to dis-
cuss present and future access for the SuperAmerica
station." Various items are discussed in this
letter but not access onto Terrey Pine Court. A
site plan is attached to the letter which includes
an access from SuperAmerica onto Terrey Pine Court.
(Exhibit P)
November 6, 1984 Eden Prairie Resolution 84-291 approves SuperAmerica's
plan for expansion (Exhibit Q)
January 31, 1985 Building permit for SuperAmerica's expansion
including construction of driveway onto Terrey Pine
Court is approved and construction commences. In
excess of $588,000 is spent in construction costs
alone. (Exhibit R)
February 27, 1985 In his Engineering Report on the Final Plat, David
L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician, states:
"Permits covering access to the property have been
obtained by the developer from MN DOT and Henn/DOT.
An access to Terrey Pine Court will also be
installed by the developer in conformance with City
standards." The report mentions nothing to indicate
that such an access, as shown on the plat, would
not meet such standards. The report recommends
. final approval of the plat. (Exhibit S)
March 5, 1985 Eden Prairie Resolution 85-71 approves the final
plat. (Exhibit T)
Board of Appeals and Adjusmtents - 5 - May 14, 1987
• June, 1985 Gene Schurman visits construction site and dis—
cusses with Roman Mueller, Regional Engineer of
SuperAmerica, the particulars of the driveway
opening and requests a sketch which is produced by
SuperAmerica. The City advises (for the first time)
that the opening is too narrow and will require an
• easement over adjacent property.
June, 1985 As requested by Eden Prairie, SuperAmerica commences
negotiations with its neighbor, Eden Prairie Family
Physicians for the grant of an easement. No agree—
ment between SuperAmerica and Eden Prairie Family
Physicians is reached.
August, 1986 Negotiations with SuperAmerica's other neighbor,
Prairie Village Chiropractic Clinic, result in the
grant of an easement in favor of SuperAmerica.
August 6, 1986 on August 6, 1986, Mr. Gene Schurman, Dr. John
Allenburg, and Daniel R. Tyson met at the site to
review the proposed easement which met with the
City Engineer's approval. SuperAmerica is advised
to pick up all necessary permits the next day.
SuperAmerica applies for the application permit, is
advised that it is to contact the Planning
Department.
September 26, 1986 Steve Durham, Assistant Planner, informs
SuperAmerica by letter that it needs a variance
before a driveway to Terrey Pine Court can be
installed. (Exhibit U)
Tyson spoke of the test which the Board must apply in determining whether to grant
a variance request:
In deciding whether to grant a variance under the Code, the Board must
focus on two tests. The first is the undue hardship the property owner would
suffer because of circumstances unique to the owner's property. The Board, in
determining undue hardship, must consider three factors: a) whether the owner
could put his property to a reasonable use if the variance were denied; b)
whether the owner's hardship is due to unique circumstances which the owner did
not create; and c) whether the essential character of the locality would be
• altered if the variance is granted. The Eden Prairie City Code section which
i
sets out the standard to be used in variance application determinations reads
as follows:
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - May 14, 1987
,Variance from the literal provisions of this chapter may be grant-
ed in instances where the strict enforcement of those provisions
would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the
individual property under consideration and said variances may be
granted only when it is determined that such action will be in
keeping with the spirit, and intent of this Chapter."
I
Source: Eden Prairie City Code, Section 11.76, Subd. 6 (emphasis
supplied). (This provision is essentially identical to the Minnesota Statutes
do the subject of variances).
In determining whether the property owner suffers on undue hardship, the
Eden Prairie City Code requires focus on the following:
"The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if
used under conditions allowed by official controls, the plight
of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his pro-
perty, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of the loca-
lity. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an
undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under
the terms of this Chapter."
• Source: Eden Prairie City Code Section 11.76, subd. 1 (emphasis supplied).
(This provision is essentially identical to the Minnesota Statutes which define
undue hardship).
To highlight these provisions, members of the Board must determine whether
a hardship exists for SuperAmerica, the property owner. The City Code mentions
nothing of balancing hardship so the question is not whether someone else suf-
fers any degree of hardship; the question is solely one of whether SuperAmerica
suffers undue hardship. In determining whether SuperAmerica suffers undue
i
hardship, the Board must focus on reasonable use, uniqueness of property due not
to the owner's actions, and whether the essential character of the locality
• would be altered if a variance were granted.
Of course, SuperAmerica is sensitive to the concerns of its neighbors, as
is the Board; however, the vocal opinions of SuperAmerica's neighbors must be
kept in proper perspective. The Board's attention must be directed to the
merits of SuperAmerica's application, rather than the number for or against, how
loudly one expresses his or her opinion, or the heat of debate.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - May 14, 1987
• "It is improper for a board of adjustments to place weight
upon the number of protestors rather than on the merits of an
application. The strenuous objections of residents is not a
legitimate basis for the denial of a variance."
Source: The 1980 Minnesota Supreme Court decision of: Luger v. City of
Burnsville, 295 N.W.2d 609, 615.
In determining whether to grant the variance request, the Board must direct
its attention to the merits of the variance application and focus on the
hardship suffered by Superamerica.
In connection with the specific tests of hardship, Superamerica submits the
following:
FIRST, the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if this
driveway is not completed. The projections for this site entail the sale of
gasoline products and merchandise from its convenience store to its customers
• and residents of the City of Eden Prairie. Superamerica projected a fourteen
(14%) percent margin. The lifeblood of the store is the traffic which is
directly proportional to the ability of its customers to access the store. This
business is an extremely access sensitive business. There are only two openings
available to Superamerica. One of those will be effectively closed when the
median strip on Highway 4 is improved. The traffic study of Barton-Aschmann and
Associates submitted in connection with this variance application indicates a
thirty-nine (39%) percent overall loss in business. This will reduce the margin
from fourteen (14%) percent to 4.6%. This will result in a drastic curtailment
of the operations and more than likely a closure of the store entirely. This will
mean a loss of jobs for Eden Prairie residents employed there. There will also be
loss of a valuable tax base.
Superamerica has invested $870,000.00 in this site based upon the projection of at
• least this fourteen (14%) percent margin. There is no reasonable use by
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 8 - May 14, 1987
• Superamerica of the property without these necessary access openings. The
driveway opening was and continues to be a pivotal part of the Superamerica
development on this site. If there were ever any indication that this opening
were not possible, Superamerica would not have rebuilt the store and invested
three quarters of a million dollars in new improvements in the site.
Krueger stated that he would like to hear from the residents.
Tyson introduced Edward J. Hasek, senior planner at Dahlgren, Shardlow and
Uban. Hasek spoke on the character of the locality. The intent is to
concentrate traffic at the intersection. There is a small neighborhood
within a neighborhood on the corner dictated by Mitchell Lakes. Commercial
development in the corner is separated from Low Density Residential in an open
space by Medium Density Residential . There is a traffic load from the highest
uses being borne on the major arterial roadways in the area. It is not an
uncommon situation.
Tyson stated that the Board is compelled to approve the variance because:
1 ) The test of the ordinance has been met for the variance.
2) The test has been met for the estoppel argument.
3) The failure to grant the easement will result in a condemnation of
the site. The tests are much the same as for promisory estoppel .
• Superamerica must demonstrate it has been deprived of governmental
interactions of all the reasonable uses of the land.
Tyson said that the meeting with the neighbors was positive. There were
suggestions for sidewalks and signage and voluntarily eliminating truck and
traffic through the opening. Superamerica hopes to work together with the
neighbors to a common end, namely elimination of the.medi.an strip. Obtaining
stop lights at the intersection was another item discussed at the meeting.
Ann Spletzer, 16794 Terrey Pine Drive, read a statement that the neighbors
of Terrey Pine Court had compiled, (Exhibit V)
•
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 9 - May 14, 1987
Krueger inquired if anyone had spoken to a representative from the State
• regarding the median strip. Durham said no, he anticipated that it would
be put in.
Diana Massie, city attorney, said that we are facing two issues: if the
variance should be granted and whether the theory of estoppel should be
applied to prevent the City from denying the ordinance. The answer to
these two issues depends on factual findings. A two step process must
be used: Apply the test laid out in the City Code and make factual
information whether the variance should be granted. The test for estoppel
must be applied and factual determination made.
Longman inquired if estoppel is determined in a court of law. Massie replied
that there are factual findings that would support or go against estoppel .
Longman said we should be worried about the application of the City Code
for variances. If someone is unhappy he can go through the court system
and satisfy the estoppel issue.
George Hoff, attorney representing Dr. Alston Lundgren, 7800 Eden Prairie
Road, stated that a letter was submitted. (Exhibit W)., Hoff said that residents
have provided evidence on children, traffic and children walking to school .
Hoff felt Tyson wanted the locality to be different than what it was. Once
the "back door" is cut out, locality broadens .
Hoff said that there will still be a profit margin. There is not a denial
• of the total use of the property. Superamerica failed on both tests: locality
and hardship.
Hoff commented on the estoppel question. One case involving the Minnesota
Supreme Court concerned a man by the name of Jasaka, from St. Paul . A
building permit was obtained and Jasaka got 90% of the way through before
being told to remove a radio tower because it did not conform. The Supreme
Court upheld the ruling. Possibly, in 1984, there was discussion of
Superamerica's particular driveway easement which did not conform.
Hoff said that another case, in 1975, involved a man named Hawkinson. The
property was dug for a motel and lodge and the zoning ordinance was changed.
Hawkinson was told that his property could be put to other uses.
Hoff suggested that estoppel shouldn't be considered in the case of Superamerica.
Estoppel deals with the decision on a particular issue, i .e. the building
permit, i.e. the building permits for motels and lodges, etc.
Hoff said that there has been no decision on the variance so it is questionable
whether or not the estoppel issue should be considered. Hoff said that the City
Code should be applied with a denial of the variance.
Kreuger stated that the City had led Superamerica, through the years, to
believe that they could have the driveway access. Superamerica went through
the process. Everything was approved and built and now they are stuck.
Krueger was in favor of the variance.
• Harvey concurred with Krueger's statements. There is a long history of implied
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 10 - May 14, 1987
promise on the part of the City to allow access to the Superamerica site
from Terrey Pine Court.
Harvey said that one of the primary concerns of the last meeting was the
safety issue. Additional risk was created by no sidewalks in the area.
Superamerica responded by providing a sidewalk from the station to Eden
Prairie Road, which is the bus stop. A greater traffic safety hazard for
the neighborhood arises from any development that arises west on Highway 5,
as opposed to the traffic which would come out of the Superamerica access.
Harvey said that another issue that was raised was the ability of people
to enter Eden Prairie Road going north off of Terrey Pine Drive, based on
the film that was shown. Harvey said Durham had indicated that the acutal
divider :to be placed on Eden Prairie Road would be a three :land divider.
There will be a protected left turn. The reason the traffic stacks so
badly now is there are only two lanes. One lane allows you to go west
or north. A new situation would allow three lanes , two lanes going north,
and one lane going west. With that kind of improvement, the stacking
problem might not continue.
Arockiasamy had mixed feelings. He felt that Superamerica is entitled to
something. There is hardship to an extent. There is also hardship for
people going north and west and also for the residents . If one goes strictly
by the hardship of the applicant, there might not be adequate intent.
• Arockiasamy said that concerning safety, if the driveway is denied and the
median is constructed, traffic might try to make a U turn.
Arockiasamy did not feel that the problem would be solved by granting or
denying the variance. There is some other solution for both parties.
Longman said that Superamerica had concern for the neighborhood. They
were fair and reasonable and have tried to satisfy homes abutting their
property.
Longman stated that no question on the zoning or planning on the part of
the City should have a bearing on the decision.
Longman said that if the variance were granted, he would like to see
Superamerica, the neighborhood, and the City proceed to not have the median
strip put in.
Longman would vote yes if sidewalks and signs were incorporated into the
variance.
Anderson wondered about eliminating the median.
Krueger asked how David Koski , senior engineer for Barton-Aschman Association,
felt about the median. Koski said that the County would resist very strongly,
based on past experience. Koski stated that the City of Eden Prairie,
• Superamerica, and the residents would have to be united in approaching the
County and the State. A study would probably have to be made that would
indicate that there is not much impact on traffic operations and safety.
Krueger asked if the entire median would have to be removed. Koski said yes,
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 11 - May 14, 1987
the driveway only leaves 100' or less of median.
Krueger inquired when the median would be built. Durham said the median
would be built in the summer of 1988.
Arockiasamy asked the residents what the major problem was regarding the
variance. Spletzer said that general feeling was that they don't feel
things have been taken far enough. Problems are the enforcement of additional
traffic signs, change in the speed limits, etc. There are not enough
guarantees. The residents would like to get rid of the median.
Harvey would like to see some screening of the house that is immediately
to the west of Terrey Pine Court on the corner. Something should be done
with the two homes immediately south of where Terrey Pine Court enters
Terrey Pine Drive. Possibly evergreens would provide protection.
Brad Bilich, 16798 Terrey Pine Drive , stated that by opening the access ,
the traffic can not be handled.
Hoff noted that the residents don't have the burden. Superamerica has the
burden. If the variance is granted, one is saying that they are not altering
the locality. If the variance is denied, an appeal can be made to the City
Council .
Arockiasamy asked how much traffic would be added from the west side. Durham
said that it is guided for Low Density Residential use.
• MOTION: Harvey made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-17
submitted by Ashland Oil Company, with the following findings:
1 ) Operation of the Superamerica station with limited ingress and
egress through right in/right out access is unreasonable and
unsafe. A right in/right out system will force customers travel-
ing westbound on Highway 5 to turn around at a point past the
station and travel east to the entrance. Customers traveling
north on County Road 4 will have to turn around at a point past
the station and proceed south to the entrance. Customers leaving
the right out on Highway 5 must turn around at a point past the
station if they want to go west. Customers leaving the right out
on County Road 4 must turn around at''a point past the station if
they wish to go north.
2)` In addition to being unreasonable and creating traffic hazards,
forcing the Superamerica station to operate with limited ingress
and egress will cause it economic hardship.
3) Ashland Oil 's plight is due to unique circumstances caused by
development of the intersection by the State Highway Department,
not created by Ashland Oil .
• 4) Allowing the driveway access will not alter the essential character
of the area which is located next to a busy intersection. Terrey
Pine Court already serves exclusively commercial properties.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 12 - May 14, 1987
5) Because the property can not be put to reasonable use if the var-
iance is denied; because denial of the variance will cause Ashland
Oil economic hardship; because Ashland Oil 's plight is due to
unique circumstances not caused by it; and because allowing the
driveway access will not alter the essential character of the area,
strict enforcement of City Code Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, will
cause undue hardship to Ashland Oil .
6) When Ashland Oil remodeled and expanded the Superamerica station
in 1984, it incurred extensive expenses. The expansion was under-
taken in reliance upon the City's approval of the plat map showing
driveway access to Terrey Pine Court.
7) If the variance is granted, four residences will be affected, as
compared to major traffic circulation routes which will affect
the City as a whole if the variance is denied.
8) Granting the variance will promote a safe, effective traffic
circulation system.
9) Granting the variance will protect the value of the property owned
by Ashland Oil .
CONDITIONS: j
• 1 ) Superamerica install a sidewalk at its own expense as indicated on
the map that was submitted and attached as part of Final Order #87-17.
2) Superamerica provide the signs at its own expense as indicated on the
map that was submitted and attached as part of Final Order #87-17.
3) Superamerica provide screening .of the home in the northwest corner
and the two homes immediately due south of Terrey Pine Court.which
are acceptable to the homeowners.
4) All conditions as set forth in the Gustafson and Tyson's letter dated
May 9, 1987 to Ann Spletzer be made part of Final Order #87-17.(Exhibitx )
5) This variance request must be utilized within one year.
Motion carried 3-1-1 . Arockiasamy abstained. Anderson voted nay.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 13 - May 14, 1987
B. Request #87-205 submitted by Don and Rita Anderson and J.J. Nyham er for
• property located at 7447 Eden Prairie Road,.Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The
request is for variances from City Code, Chapter 11 . Subdivision 11 .03 Sub-
division 2, B, 1T To permit platting of a lot 1 .28 acres in the C-Com District
TCity Code requires a 5 acres minimum lot size, 2 To permit platting of a
lot with a width of 266 feet(City Code requires a lot width of 300 feet),
3 To permit plattinq of a lot with a depth of 200 feet (City Code requires
a lot depth of 300 feet) , 4 Subdivision 3 J. 2 to permit outside housing
the principle use (City Code maximum outside display area is 10% of the
round floor area of the building housing display area use 5 Subdivision
3 K, to permit 75% of exterior building material to be castle block and glass
(City Code re uires 75% exterior building material to be brick stone or
glass), 6 City Code Chapter 12, Subdivision 12, A to permit platting of
proposed Lot 2 Jarrett Estates without frontage on a .publicly dedicated
street (City ode requires all lots to have frontage on a publicly dedicated
street).
This variance request will be continued until June 11 , 1987. The City Council
will review the proposal at its May 19, 1987 meeting.
C. Request #87-21 , submitted by the City of Eden Prairie for property located at
11800 Technology_ Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance
from City Code, Cha ter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2, B2 to emit a front
and setback of 40' for the proposed fire station ex ansion (City Code requires
50 in the Rural Zonin District.
• Ron Johnson, fire chief, reviewed the request with the Board. The proposed
fire station will include an apparatus bay and a watchroom. They both encroach
on the setback.
The required front yard setback is in keeping with front yard setbacks of the
surrounding Commercial/Office neighborhood.
Although a building addition could be added and meet Code, literal conformance
to the Code would defeat the purpose of the building addition, which is improved
fire protection services.
The expansion will keep the design of Station 2, 3, and 4 relatively consistent.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Krueger made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-21 ,
submitted by the City of Eden Prairie, with the following findings:
1 ) The request is reasonable.
2) It will add to the safety and welfare of all residents of Eden Prairie.
3) This variance request must be utilized within one year.
Harvey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
•
Board of Appeals and Adjustments 14 - May 14, 1987
D. Request #87-22, submitted by R.M. Feerick Associates for pro ert
• located East of Alpine Trail , South of Chicago, Milwaukee, St Paul
& Paciifc Railroad. The request is for a variance from City Code,
Chapter 11 , Section 11.03, Subdivision 3, B, to permit platting of
Proposed Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 , Alpine Estates 2nd Addition with a
lot depth less than 150' abutting a railroad (City Code requires a
minimum lot depth of 150 for lots abutting a railroad.
Al Herlitz, representing R.M. Feerick, presented the request to the
Board.
The roadway has been relocated to the north to more closely follow the
natural contours of the site and to reduce the overall amount of grading.
Durham said that the amount of fill to the site is reduced by following
the natural contour of the grade.
Longman asked what kind of trees were being saved. Herlitz said that
they were having a tree survey done. They are asking for 246 replacement
trees.
Durham stated that a lot abutting a railroad track needs to be 150' deep.
Krueger asked what the average width of the lot was. Durham said that it
was about 112' in that area.
• There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-22,
submitted by R.M. Feerick, with the following findings:
1 ) This variance request must be utilized within one year.
Arockiasamy seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0-1 . Harvey abstained.
E. Variance Request #87-23, submitted by Brown Land Company for property located
south of Bennett Place and west of Jackson Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11 Section 11 .03,
Subdivision 2,' B to Permit a front and setback of 25 feet Cit Code
requires 30' in the R1-13.5 Zoning District.
Wayne Brown, proponent, reviewed the request with the Board. The City
required a 50' right-of-way after a 60' right-of-way had already been
platted. Builders are ready to start home construction and replatting
would take 60-90 days. A lesser setback would look the same as if the
right-of-way was platted 50'. A lesser setback would allow larger back-
yards for homes on the north side of the street where the slope is the
greatest.
Krueger asked how long it would take to replat. Brown said approximately
60 days.
• Krueger inquired about the timetable. Larry Anderson, builder with A Plus,
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 15 May 14, 1987
said that they hoped to start construction June 15, 1987. There is a very
steep hill in the back.
A grading plan was displayed.
Harvey asked if the building pads would be moved up 51 . Brown said yes.
Longman inquired what the vegetation would be on the hill. Brown said
that it would be Bluestem grass. There is fiber blanket on it now.
Arockiasamy asked if the road width would be 28' throughout. Brown said
yes, he would like all of the lots to match.
Longman stated that he had seen homes within a 25' setback because of a
steep hill in back, and it had little or no impact on the site.
Harvey did not feel that it was a hardship. The lots are selling platted
the way they area
Larry Anderson said that some of the builders wanted to°individually apply
for a variance.
Brown said that there was a time factor involved.
Durham said that 5' is not going to make a visual impact. A precedent
could be set.
Durham noted that on Lot 6, Block 4, a home with a 30' setback is under
construction already.
Brown wondered if a precedent would be set.
There were no comments from the audience.
Harvey asked if the Board could set the rear building pad so that it is
5' closer to the street.
Krueger said that it could be stated that all homes are built with a 25'
setback.
MOTION: Arockiasamy made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-23,
submitted by Brown Land Company with the following findings:
1 ) The house pads haven 't been moved.
2) Replatting will cause time delays.
Longman seconded the motion.
Anderson added: The setback requested is typical, as the street was
constructed.
Motion carried 3-1-1 . Harvey voted nay. Krueger abstained.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 16 - May 14, 1987
F. Request #87-24, submitted by Virginia Gunnarson for property located at
17001 Valley Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance
from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2, B, to permit
division of 10.15 acre parcel into a .95 acre parcel and 9.2 acre parcel
City Code requires a 10 acre minimum lot size in the Rural Zoning District) .
Virginia Gunnarson, 17001 Valley Road, presented the request to the Board.
In 1978, 10 acres were purchased and a home was constructed.
Gunnarson would like to divide approximately one acre, with the home, away
from the 10 acre parcel .
Krueger inquired about the variance for side lot lines. Durham said that if
the Board approves the lot split, the existing home will not meet the Rural
Zoning District setbacks. This could present a problem with a mortgage
company should the one acre parcel be sold.
Harvey asked if all of the drainfields for the septic system would stay on
the acreage. Gunnarson said that they would remain.
Arockiasamy inquired about alternatives. Durham said that the proponent
would have to purchase additional property to add to the .95 acres to meet
the sideyard setbacks.
MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-24,
submitted by Virginia Gunnarson, with the following findings:
. 1 ) The request will not be inharmonious with surrounding properties
and will not jeopardize public health or safety. The property is
located in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area.
2) The Board findings be filed at Hennepin County outlining the approval
conditions of:
a) No additional divisions or house construction will be applied
for until utilities are available and appropriate zoning and
platting approvals received.
b) An administrative division, or other division process be applied
for and approved within one year.
c) Variances for side lot lines are required for the existing
structure.
3) This variance request must be utilized within one year.
Harvey seconddd the motion. Motion carried 4-0-1 . Krueger abstained.
G. Request #87-25, submitted by Touch of Class Interiors, Ltd. for property
located at 10280 County Road #18, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is
for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, K,
to permit 100% wood and glass as an exterior building material (City Code
requires 75% brick, stone, or glass as an exterior material -,and from
Variance Request Final Order #86-10, which allowed 60% acceptable masonry
and 40% wood exterior building material .
Board of Appeals and Adjustments
- 17 - May 14, 1987
Kate Halverson, proponents presented
forthe
60%request
acceptable the
ma�onry and 40%ar . In June
of
1986, the Board approved
• wood/glass exterior building material .
Halverson stated that the site location is unique. The building is on a
wooded lot consisting of evergreens and oaks.
Halverson listed items that had been worked on throughout the site:
1) Ten feet was removed off an existing structure to meet setback
regulations ($1500) .
2) Blacktop was installed and the driveway expanded ($1500) .
3) Curbing was installed ($1800) .
4) Improvements for interiors were made, including handicapped
facilities ($65,000) .
5) Six years ago, during Phase I, $60,000 was spent on the structure
and premises.
Halverson noted unique circumstances for the variance:
1 ) The existing structure is all masonry constructed. Wood exterior
siding was added later.
2) Because of the setting and environment, they were advised to go
• natural with cedar siding. There are some fine examples in Eden
Prairie where cedar siding has been used on office buildings.
3) As long as the site is occupied by Touch of Class, they are
'dedicated to enhancing the site location.
4) The masonry siding will detract and not add anything to the present
,setting.
5) $12,000-$15,000 in additional cost will be difficult.
Krueger asked if the request for l00% wood was mainly financial . Halverson
said that it was partly financial , but masonry would not add anything.
Krueger said that to let a commerical building go l00% wood
is not a builod
ding;
percentage. Halverson stated that they are not a typical
they are unique.
Longman asked why masonry couldn't be integrated into the structure. Halverson
said that they didn't feel that it would look any better. They are getting
nothing in return.
Harvey noted that Halverson may not always
inb there.
The
Code
is desiid gned to
see that things are conformed to the
at
it was zoned for Office District.
Craig Halverson wondered if there could be a condition on the variance
Board of Appeals and Adjustments
- 18 - May 14, 1987
regarding wood siding. Durham said that there must be some sort of guarantee.
• Craig Halverson said that it was never designed as masonry.
Longman felt that masonry would add to the building. He would not vote for
100% wood.
Halverson stated if that was the feeling of the Board, they would like to
be granted an extention as it would be difficult financially for them.
Durham said that it would have to be published for an extension.
Anderson stated that he would consider changing the percentage of the masonry.
Durham. said that glass is an exceptable material , so it could be used in the
60% masonry.
Longman said that the choices were:
1 ) Act on the request and appeal it to the City Council .
2) Withdraw and ask for a one year extension to comply with the
ordinance.
Halverson agreed to go with the extension and withdraw the request.
H. Request #87-26, submitted by Trammell Crow• Company f ropertof rn �n+v Road #1 , w y located north
nnett Place, South of O1 is Drive,
Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Eden Prairie,
11 .03, Subdivion 2, B, to ermit a tion
front and setback of 25hf Pet-rfor� rocosed
Lots 1-5. Biock 3, and Lots 1-4, Block 2, Welter's Pur ator Acres 2nd Addition
Cit Code requires 30' in the R1-13 5`Zoning District y
Jim Ostenson, real estate developer, submitted the request to the Board.
Site plans were displayed.
Ostenson said that a variance for 9 lots was requested, but they felt that
they could get by on 8 lots.
Ostenson said that the property was purchased from Ray Welter in February
of 1987. The City wanted the pond for part of the City's overall storm water
system. As a condition of the final plat,easements were granted.
Ostenson said that there is a scenic easement on the other side of the
property that runs along Purgatory Creek which establishes areas that
cannot be built into. There is also a hill in the back of the yards which
cannot be graded.
Ostenson stated that they have ended up with 30-351wide house pads in these areas,
City Staff encouraged them to go with the steeper slopes as much as possible
in the back yards. This would save tree cover and not encroach into the
pond. The minimum amount of grading would not get into the scenic easement
and the tree cover.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments _ 19 _
May 14, 1987
Ostenson had concern over integrity in the neighborhood. It is in the Olympic
Hills area, which includes expensive homes.
Ostenson stated that they would like as much design flexibility as possible.
On a 30' pad, basically all you can do is line up the garage and have a flat
facade. The road is curved and the 5' front yard setback would not be
perceived. The variance is based on topography and lines.
Ostenson said that they are not asking for density. The lots are wide enough,
but the problem is one of depth.
Longman said that he is for the variance, as it protects the back. He is not
afraid of a precedent being set. The integrity of the site is preserved.
Harvey disagreed. He stated that the Code is specific as RM 13.5 that it be
a 30' setback. It was not caused by a change in the right-of-way. It could
set a precedent.
Ostenson stated that the boundary of the size of the easement was not set
until the closing date. There would be few situations where a precedent setting
would occur.
Ostenson said that they originally asked for a cul-de-sac and the problem
would not have occurred. However, the City Council felt that the road
should be extended.
• Ostenson stated that there are two ponds on the property controlled by the
DNR. Property owners are not notified that their property is part of Public
Waters.
There were no comments from the audience.
Arockiasamy inquired about a blanket variance. Ostenson said that there will
be uniformity in applying for the request now. The alternative would be to
sell the lots and have each owner come in and get a variance.
Longman felt that it was a unique situation to the property.
Ostenson said that the City did a Purgatory Creek Study. It included: The
Transitional Area, the Conservancy Area and the 100 Years Flood Plain. The
100 Years Flood Plain plan was dedicated to the City. The Conservancy Area
cannot be encroached into.
Harvey wondered when the pond lines were actually set, how much of the
original platted lots waa taken.
Harvey asked if the street moved. Ostenson said that the street did move
from the original plat.
MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-26,
submitted by Trammell Crow Company with the following findings:
• 1 ) The restriction is due to the encroachment of the public land.
2) This variance request must be utilized within one year.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 20 - May 14, 1987
Longman seconded the request. Motion carried 4-0-1 . Harvey voted nay.
I. Request #87-27, submitted by Shea Architects, Inc. for property located at
the Southeast corner of the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Franlo
Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code,
Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2, B, to permit construction of a
grocery store and drugstore with a Floor Area Ratio of .21 (City Code max-
imum Floor Area Ratio, in the C-Reg Ser Zoning District is .20).
This variance request has been withdrawn.
III. OLD BUSINESS
None
IV. NEW BUSINESS
None
V. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Arockiasamy moved, seconded by Krueger, to adjourn the meeting at
10:40 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
•
i
c5ytft E 1T ..
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chris Enger
DATE: Jan. 18, 1978
PROJECT: Superamerica
REQUEST: Rezoning from PS to Commercial Highway for 1.31 acres
in the SW quadrant of 4/5
BACKGROUND
In March of 1967, SunRay DX was granted a special use permit to construct
a service station. "Mr. Griffin of the DX people stated that this would
be strictly a service station with no additional sales gimmicks other than
the petroleum products which a service station normally sells". (March
21, 1967 Planning Commission Minutes). As part of this special use
permit. the following item was included pertaining to land use:
• k. A motor fuel station is a
lace where gasoline, kerosene
P
or any other motor fuel or lubricating oil or grease for
operating motor vehicles if offered for sale to the
public and deliveries are made directly into motor vehicles.
The leasing or selling or parking of vehicles, trailers,
or any other goods located outside of a building is not a
part of a motor fuel station operation.
It was clear to the owners, and clear to the City of Eden Prairie, that a
convenience store was not anticipated as part of the service station
operation.
Commercial Highway Zoning Purpose,
Subd. 7. 1.4 a,b,c
Permitted Uses: C-Hwy uses are limited to sales and service operations
directly related to highway or freeway uses, tourists
and travellers.
Subd. 7.5 Minimum zone area 5 acres
Approval of Superamerica as proposed would require the following variances:
i. C-Hwy zone minimum size 5 acres.
• 2. Side yard & front yard setback variance.
3. Sign variance.
4. Planned Study zone minimum size 25 acres.
Staff r Superamerica -2- Jan. 19 1978
St Report- p
Superamerica purchased the existing station under.the existing land use
restrictions.
A 24 hour operation may be needed in the City, but addition of this
feature at this location will add to the congest on at the 4/5 intersection.
Excess congestion at the intersection may precipitate a median south of
5 on Co. Rd. 4. This would limit traffic into Superamerica to east
f bound traffic on 5 and southbound traffic on 4. Outgoing traffic would
be limited to proceeding south on 4 and east on 5.
One stop shopping at Prairie Village Mall is now available. The two primary
issues are basically: 1. traffic and congestion , and 2. additional
commercial land use.
We believe that the access question can only adquately be addressed through
connection of Superamerica with a frontage road.
- The Planning Staff recommends that the Superamerica station proposal
be approved, only if the southwest quadrant of the 4/5 intersection be
changed in land use designation to commercial !and that Superamerica to ke
access from a frontage road which has its access moved back similar to
County and State requirements for COR Investment.
If the decision to .retain the land use designation of mixed residential,
as suggested in the 4/5 Study is made, Superamerica should remain as a
service station only.
CE:Jmtl
•
~ T/ 1 7
i
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chris Enger, Planning Director
DATE: May 89 1980
PROJECT: Superamerica Rezoning at Co.Rd.4/TH5
APPLICANT: Superamerica
REQUEST: Rezoning from Plan Study District to Highway Commercial
for 1.3 acres to permit construction of a new service
station and convenience food store.
LOCATION: In the Southwest corner of TH 5/Co.Rd.4
BACKGROUND '
In March of 1967 Sun Ray DX was granted a special use permit to construct
a service station in the southwest corner of TH 5 and Co.Rd. 4. The zoning
of the property at that time was "General Multiple Dwelling-Limited Commercial".
• With the. passage of Ordinance 135, in 1969, the property was transferred to
the Highway-Commercial Zone and subsequently placed in the Plan Study District.
In 1974 the property was purchased by Q Petroleum.
In July of 1977 Superamerica purchased the property. Superamerica
applied for rezoning in December of 1977 to allow a 800 sq.ft. expansion
of the existing building for a convenience food store. The Planning Commission
recommended denial of the request on Jan. 28, 1978 04ft a `5-1 `vote. The
primary, concerns were traffic congestion and the additional commercialization
of the 4/5 intersection.
• C.O.R. also submitted a proposal to the City in 1977 , but CDR and Superamerica
were unable to work together to design a joint plan. COR at that time proposed
4 commercial lots adjacent to TH 5 and were denied. Neither CDR or
Superamerica pursued their requests before the .City Council.
Since that time, there has been positive progress toward an overall
traffic and land use plan for the Co.Rd. 4/TH 5 intersection. CDR revised
their plan twice and it now is made up of mixed land uses of duplexes,
elderly housing, and office. COR has constructed an .access road 475 feet
south of the centerline of TH 5 on Co. Rd. 4.
Across Co.Rd. 4, Stewart Sandwiches has constructed the second phase of an
• industrial expansion and connected a service road out to Co.Rd. 4, opposite
the CDR access. These two roads should preclude any additional direct
access to Co.Rd. 4 or TH 5 near the intersection.
The Gonyea PUD, recently approved, is also of mixed land uses occurring
in the northeast corner of the intersection.
J
Staff Report-Superamerica -2- May 801 1980
The Council expressed concern about the close proximity of the south
access to Co.Rd. 4 to the TH 5 intersection. The staff is continuing
to work with Hennepin County, Gonyea, and Prairie Village Mall to
design an improvement which would place the full access point at the
Shopping Center's northern entrance.
In addition, Superamerica and CDR have now worked out a joint plan which will enable
shared right-in/right-out access, occurring within the CO° property,
The threat of thei entire intersection area being built as commerical '
is considerably less because of all these proposals. The.1mixed Und -Ores
currently planned in the northeast, northwest, southwest, and souteast quadrants
of the intersection are consistent with the recommendations of the 4/$ Study.
Superamerica's current request for construction of a new building would
add a land use which would be complimentary to COR's residential areas,
and most beneficial to the elderly housing project proposed. The proposal is
to close Superamerica's two existing entrances occurring on TH 5 and create a
common right-in/right-out with CDR on the property line. The access to Co.Rd.4
-would be moved further south to allow more distance from the intersection.
Sidewalks would be added for pedestrian convenience and a pad for a bus
shelter would be made available on the property's west boundary adjacent
to the service road.
At this time a convenience food store on the south side of the
intersection may actuallylimit the number of cars having to cross the'
intersection from south of TH 5 to purchase quick stop items. And the new
proposal would allow the opportunity to add screening and landscpaing' to
'upgrade the station appearance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
+ The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request for rezoning from
Plan Study to Highway .Commercial( C-Hwy) subject to the following items:
1. Cross easement agreements with COR for new access must be obtained.
2. New access to TH 5 will require an entrance permit from MnDOT;and
access to Co.Rd. 4 will require an access permit from Hennepin Count.
Highway Department.
3. A pad must be made available for a bus shelter-on the western island
bdj4*eSJ to the service road. Electrical service should also be easily
avai a e.
• 4. A revised landscaping plan must be submitted prior to building permit
issuance which effectively screens the parking and gas island area
from public roads and residential areas.
5. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way will probably be required by
Hennepin County.
SUPPLEMENTAL SORMISSION DATA
• KARL PETERSON - APPLICANT
June 19, 1981
INTRODUCTION
The subject property for this application is a 4.21 acre parcel 1
as Mitchell Lake Estates, Lot 12, Block 2. The subject egallc described
the
Southwest quadrant of the Trunk Highway 5/County Road 4 intersectionlift Etden1Prairie.
The applicant at this time requests the consideration of this office development
. proposal as an amendment to a Planned Unit Development. Future requests
request is granted, will include re-zoningDistrict, if this
to the Office
necessary plattingce Zoning DiDistrict, and other
requirements. The following is a summary of the development
factors which pertain to this request.
ANALYSIS
Topography
. The property has been subject to rou h
q grading as .part of the Mitchell Lake Estates
Plat. The southern and western boundaries have a berm about 10 feet high, which
separates the parcel from nine (9) duplex lots, which abut the boundaries. The
remainder- of the property is generally flat and drains north to T.H.S.
• vegetation
The subject property has no existing overstory trees and future plans will include
a comprehensive landscape plan to coordinate the future development.
Utilities
Water service to the property is presently located at the property line :in
the N.W
corner, and located into the property 150 feet north of Terry Pines Drive. Future•
plans will complete this loop.
Sanitary sewer is also located in the Northwest corner of the property. ', No detailed
plans for proposed utilities have been included in this submission. Future submission-
will provide layouts easements, as may be required by the City's engineering department_.
Zoning
Presently the property is zoned Rural, and identified on the comprehensive plan as
Multiple Residential. Former plans, prepared by Bruce Knutson Architect$ for C.O.R.
Investments, included Concept approval for a three-story Office Building ',with 25,000
square feet, and a proposed Senior Citizen housing project. C.O.R. Investment has
been unable to market this proposal, and has since secured a Purchase Agreement with
Mr. Karl Peterson. Mr. Peterson is the applicant of this proposal. The 'fee owner
is Ms. Mable Morgan. The proposed zoning is for OFFICE.
.S.D. - Mr. Karl pets, ;on
June 19, 1981 �' r
Pag e 2 l
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
• The Vicinity
The intersection of T.H. 5 and Co. Rd. 4 has Mall and been nthe l ed as a
Gonyes Proper ty, and/
community service area. The Prairie Village
the existing SuperAmerica Station all service neighborhood/community commercial
needs. This is in direct contrast to the major center area, which services attar e
region greater in size than the entire city of Eden Prairie. Theing and purpose ne uses.
proposal is to complement the 4/5 interhis
section sing and proposed traffic concerns,
Specific considerations have been given to existing erAmeica Service
adjacent residential land use, re°4itali ation of th n9 Tupry Pine Drive and
station, and future development of the commercial property
County Road 4.
Existing .Pr2p2sa1 Site Access
intensities of development around
Present access conditions have resulted in varying quadrant is the most intense, the
the intersection. The Mall, le is the next most intense, the S.W. quadrant is
Gonyes Property in the N.E. quadrantthe subject property we con-
third, and the S.E. quadrant -•s fourth. In evaluating we were
ducted a study of the entir ,...corner os the intersection.
the existing *f cilities.
contracted by SuperAmerica to plan a propos Of existing SuperAmerica curb cuts
. At that time we observed the close proximity �i1e met with Bruce Knutson,
to the intersection. In preparing plans for SuperAmerica,
w oint access
at that time planning consultant for C.O.R. Investment�t a inrivolved ',could not nego
Consequently, -
plan for the entire corner. During this period the the concept plan
• tiate together to reach a fair and desirable plan. Co full
submitted by C.O.R. .Investment did not take the full problem into consideration.
roved
ubsequent to their concept approval, C.O.R. Investment realized that
y the
athe
lanning would be required to die P
plan-was not marketable, and that reren Associates was contracted by
, C.O.R, to faci-
property. At that time Howard Dahlg joint proposal while employed by
militate the re-planning, having already prepared a J tee to bring tte parties togethe
SuperAmerica. Howard Dahlgren Associates then attempted this situation is as follows:
to discuss their common access problems. A summary
Hennepin County presently has plans for a median to be constructed from the
1. P SuperAmerica would then lose its full
intersection south to Terry Pine Drive. SuPe northbound CO. Rd• traffic,
access to Co. Rd. 4, without means of access by k to Terry Pine
• and access + egress for westbound T.H. 5 traffic. Access bad
was definitely needed for this very access sensitive business.
2. SuperAmerica's present curb cuts are
very
cutsclose
moved further earwaytornclosed,
city as well as MN DOT desired the curb
but neither was willing to purchase these rights.
located at its
Investment had a right in direct access from H�ST•H. 5-
3. C.O.R. direct egress
Northwest corner. They did not have any
parcel to Teary Pine Drive,
ectioO.R. had a 50-foot strip which connected the
�.• to bear
which in turn connected to the full accible, since CORnwas unwilling is R
Connection by SA to COR was then imPOs s well as construction of a public str
,the full brunt of R.O.W. dedication, as
fully satisfied.
4 '$he situation was at a stalemate,
- Mr. Karl Pete,on
19, 1981
4e 3
Existing Proposal Site Access (Cont.)
The solution was evolved through a process of intense negotiation, whih has started
and stopped over the last eight months. The resulting solution is that proposed.
In this solution C.O.R. would give up its existing N.W. curb cut, and SA would agree
to close its two T.H. 5 curb cuts, as well as move its T.H. 4 curb cut; as far south
as their ownership would permit. Therefore, a three-for-one swap. qhe subject prop-
erty t#ben d cat+t�oaw t.4 i�gh#a 4 Y "ry-lam
" . 11 44w;ortic e0wo -and ti-
'for '9ttYi'i Ce)►sbf`� fbst' "This construction, as proposed, calls
ci*Ate in a petition
for a right turn lane on T.H. 5, entering the new street and continuing to Terry. Pine
Drive. When SA was ready to refurbish its site plan, their curb cuts ion T.H. 5
would be voluntarily removed, and a new right cut constructed in their,, place at the
public street. This solution provides the necessary access to both parcels, and
greatly improves the conflicts along T.H. 5. The costs are equitably distributed and
additional access is provided to the property south of SA, and east of the subject
property. The direct access from T.H. 5 is fully eliminated, and replaced with a pub-
lic street with adequate stacking room, and safer access. We believe 'this sets the
foundation for Mr. Peterson's proposed community office prbject. Upon approval of
this plan and subsequent a provals, a 100% petition for the road construction will
follow. t "' to 'SA sill snlfer fib theC. that in the high-
]#A.competitive; convenience-oriented gasoline sales business, SA operaltions will be
Aable to continue.
Proposed Land Use
A community of neighborhood businesses is generally operated by the small business
• man. These businesses demand less square feet of building and parking areas, and
are usually dependent upon lease arrangements for their operations. This is the case
in the Mall to the North, and in many communities where we as planning consultants
work on a daily basis. These businessmen, when successful, desire the financial
advantages of owning a building and a lot. This desire was observed in C.O.R. Invest-
ment's marketing of their property. The request for OFFICE zoning would allow such
small, successful businessmen to purchase small lots, and develop new',owner-occupied
facilities.
This desire is prevalent in many cities, and has resulted in much of the strip com-
mercial, observed in the inner suburban communities. There have been'problems with
this approach, in that the chaos and clutter become unsightly. The approach of this
project has been to plan the property with end-uses in mind, and provide the frame-
work to allow all of the desires without the strip development which usually follows.
The proposed concept proposes the construction of four (4) structures' on 4 platted
lots. The external and internal building setbacks are met, or exceedjed. The parking
areas and drives are allowed to be more flexible. The access is restricted to one (1)
entry at the proposed public street. This gives the development a greater sense of
identity and order. Three-fourths of the building mass is set 50 feet back from the
T.H. 5 ROW, attempting to minimize intrusion on duplexes to the South'. The remaining
25% are two (2) small single-story offices, which are less of an intrusion than the
formerly proposed multi-story residential units.
Parking lots North and South of a proposed 35-foot wide private drive provide two
• opportunities for a turn-around. Parking along the drive is restricted to 8 1/2t
of the total parking required, and themselves act as overflow parking'„ since they:
are the greatest distance from their respective structures. Lot #4 shares a common
parking lot with Lot V. This allows greater efficiency, not afforded when each
7
I
' STAFF REPORT
•
TO: Planning Commission
-- FROM: Jean Johnson,- Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: January 4, 1982
PROJECT: MITCHELL LAKE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION(prev. COR)
LOCATION: SW corner of TH 5/Co. Rd. 4, behind Super-
america Gas Station
APPLICANT: Karl Peterson
FEE OWNER: Mabel Moran
REQUEST: 1. PUD Concept
2. Rezoning from Plan Study to Office
3. Preliminary plat approval
BACKGROUND
The 1979 PUD for this site included 64 units of elderly housing and a
25,000 sq. ft. office. The Developer's Agreement for this PUD was never
• signed. In 1981 a new application for just office rezoning was
submitted and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. The
office request was withdrawn by the proponent to allow additional time to
resolve access design. Now, this new request is for office rezoning and.
a new access plan.
The name for the site has been changed from CDR to Mitchell Lake Estates
2nd Addition which is in sequence to the adjoining duplex development which
is final platted as Mitchell Lake Estates.
The, present plan changes the PUD designation of the elderly housing on a portion
of the site to Office. Federal approval of an elderly project is no longer
likely because of Federal Budget Cuts. The elderly units from this site
can be transferred to the Gonyea site or another site in the City which will
have a better chance-of approval and the proposed 1 and 2 story offices will
have less of a visual impact than a 4 story apartment on the adjacent duplex
development.
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Required: Proposed:
Min. lot size 20,000 sq. ft. 20,000-105,000 sq. ft.
Min. width 100' min. depth 100' 1251+
• Setbacks 35' , 20:50,20' All conform
Max FAR 300 1 story, 50% mult. All conform
5 pkg. spaces/1000 GFA Lots 1 and 2 exceed require-
ment by 1 space. Lot 3 is
short 1 space.
C
Staff Report-Mitchell Lake Estates 2nd page 2
• Unless the 1 parking space can be designed into the site plan of Lot 3,
one of the following will have to occur: the building will have toibe
reduced in size; a variance requested and approved; or the lot size in-
creased to accommodate placement of needed parking.
This plan, unlike some previous COR plans, provides all lots with access
to a public street - a short cul-de-sac street off of Terrey Pine Drive.
Outlot A, proposed to be owned in conjunction with Lot 2, should be
platted as part of the plat to insure access in the future for the Super-
america Station.
SITE PLAN
The 3 office lots are surrounded by roads and different land uses so
screening is important. The submitted berm landscape plan concentrates
on the area between the offices and duplexes. In this area a 10' high
berm exists and upon this berm, plantings of 6' high evergreens and
approximately 7' high deciduous trees are proposed. This berm constructed
a few years ago,was never landscaped as per the signed agreement. Per-
mission from some private duplex lot owners will now be necessary to
install plant material upon their lots.
The area between the offices and TH 5 'is not bermed and landscaped accord-
ing to the submitted berm landscape plan, although some plantings are
shown on the site plan. Staff would suggest low berms and plantings be
• used at the parking areas to obtain the necessary screening.
The landscaping plan will be thoroughly reviewed by staff prior to building
permit issuance.
(NOTE: all full size evergreens and deciduous trees shown on the cross
section do not exist on the site todate but reflect mature. height (20+
years) of the submitted plant material )
Sight line A is from the duplexes on Terrey Pine Drive north over Lot 3
parking and Lot 2 single story office building to Highway 5. The berm
and future 6-7' plant material will screen parking from the backyard and
first story sight lines.
Sight line B is from the duplexes on Terrey Pine Drive north over Lot 1
parking and to the 2 story office on Lot 1. Again, the berm and proposed
plantings will screen backyard and first floor views of the parking areas,
but second floor views will be into and over the two story office.
Sight line C is from the duplexes on Terrey Pine Drive east over parking
and the 2 story office to the Superamerica lot. The parking areas will
be screened by the berm and plantings but 2nd story duplex views will be
at the 2nd story office roof.
In any area where 6' evergreens are depicted in single rows. the staff would
• recommend that 7' high evergreens be mixed with the 6' trees.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE)
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of
the City of Eden Prairie, 14innesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have care-
fully compared the attached Minutes of a meeting
if the Planning Concnission of said City held on the date thereof indicated
• with the original minutes thereof on file in my office and that the same
is a full, true and correct transcript January 11, 1982
WITNESS my hand officially and the official seal of the City
this 5th day of May 19 87 .
SEAL $1y" Clerk
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 11, 1982
The Planner stated that the parking lot lighting be no higher than 20' with
cut-off luminars; it should be added to the staff report.
Marhula stated he had concerns about the dead end parking lot and asked what the
status for the large building was. Johnson stated the floor area ratios are
grossly under-used and stated he felt circulation was worked out well.
Hallett stated that he wanted the City to have control over Outlot A.
Torjesen stated he felt that this was a significant Guide Plan change. The Planner
stated that he talked with the Metropolitan Council planner regarding that and was
told that this proposal is not at the level that the Metropolitan Council would like
to look at.
Torjesen stated he had reservations about giving up elderly for offices. The Planner
stated that there is a private group trying to get funding for elderly and stated
that there are still 2 sites available for elderly.
Torjesen asked if each building should have the required amount of parking. The
Planner replied yes, but stated that he has made a detailed study of the parking
lot for the veterinary clinic across from Eden Prairie Center and found 4-5 cars
parked at one time.
Torjesen asked if the trees shown on the plan are at 2/3 growth. The Planner replied
• yes.
Torjesen inquired if the duplex property owners are willing to let the proponent
put trees on their property.
Sutliff asked if there is a time limit for the proponent replacing dead trees. The
Planner stated yes; 1 calendar year. If the proponent does not replace it, the City
has a bond which can be cashed to replace the tree.
Kurt Olson, 16618 Terrey Pine Drive, stated he felt that the trees would not survive
on top of the hill and stated that his neighbor planted shrubs there and they did not
survive. The Planner stated that planting of trees will require proper planting and
tender loving care over the 1st year. He stated that from a functional standpoint,
a berm other than trees would be better, but if plant material could be established
it still would be best. .
Andy Ekedahl , 16559 Terrey Pine Drive asked if parking will overflow onto Terrey
Pine Drive. Bearman replied no. The Planner also replied no.
Walter Dobinson Jr. , 16475 Terrey Pine Drive stated he was concerned with the
amount of traffic to be generated, and was opposed to the street location and
asked the number of trips/day traffic expected. The Planner replied 800 trips
per day.
• MOTION 1
Hallett moved to close the public hearing on the Mitchell Lake Estates 2nd Addition.
Torjesen seconded, motion carried 7-0.
� r
F _ approved
Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 11, 1982
MOTION 2
Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the revised COR PUD
and rezoning from Planned Study to Office as per the plans dated 12/14/81 and the
staff report dated 1/4/82 adding that Outlot A be deeded to the City; that the
parking lot lighting be no higher than 20' with cut-off luminars; and that approval
be subject to site plan and building plan review by the Planning Commission if
there are major changes to the plan. Sutliff seconded.
DISCUSSION
Bearman asked that Outlot A be deeded to the City as public ownership with review
by the Planning Commission when and if Superamerica wants to be connected to the
cul-de-sac and road. Torjesen and Sutliff agreed.
Gartner asked if Superamerica was sold and the 'new owner wanted the site to be
an office, if they would have to come before the Planning Commission. The Planner
replied yes that they would need rezoning.
Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION 3
Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the revised COR PUD
and preliminary plat as per the plans dated 12/14/81 and the staff report dated
• 1/4/82 with the same additions as in motion 2. Retterath seconded, motion
carried 7-0.
D. REVIEW OF CITY TRAIL MAP
The Planner stated that this map is an update of trail systems already constructed
and the ones shown in the Guide Plan Update. He stated that this is a concept map.
Sutliff stated that he was concerned with the infringement of trails on private
property and asked that that be looked at.
Gartner asked where the money came for the construction of trails. The Planner
replied from C.D.B.G. , MnDOT bikeway funds, and cash park fee for some of them.
Hallett asked what the next priority for the trail is. The Planner replied Duck
Lake Trail and West Co. Rd. 1.
Hallett stated that he felt that the people not using the trails provided should
be warned by public safety and if that does not work, citations should Fe given.
MOTION
Gartner moved to recommend approval of the City Trail Map to the City Council .
Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0.
E. VACATION OF WEST 72ND STREET
• Brief discussion was held.
MOTION
Retterath moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the vacation through
the Round Lake Park site. Gartner seconded, motion carried 7-0.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE)
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of
the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have care-
fully compared the attached Minutes of a meeting
if the Planning Commission of said City held on the date thereof indicated
with the original minutes thereof on file in my office and that the same
• is a full, true and correct transcript January 25, 1987
TAUTNESS my hand officially and the official seal of the City
this 5th day of May 1987 _
SEAL City Clerk
•
1 .approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 25, 1982
C. MITCHELL LAKE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, by Karl Peterson. Request
to revise the COR PUD, preliminary plat 3 lots on approximately
4.21 acres and rezone from Planned Study to Office, for construc-
tion of 3 office buildings with variances. Located in the south-
west quadrant of TH 5 and Co. Rd. 4 west of Superamerica Gas
Station. A public hearing.
The Planner stated that this parcel is annrnvpd tndate for 48 apartment units.
It was then revised to include approximately 25,000 sq. ft. of office space on
the northern portion of the site and 64 units of elderly housing on the southern
portion which was approved by the City Council and given first reading. However,
_2nd reading was never given because the owner never signed the developer's agree-
ment. Karl Peterson has a contract-for-deed or purchase agreement for this site
and is proposing to develop it as low-density office which would have the same
amount of traffic as the approved plan. -He -stated that Superamerica has had some
problems obtaining access from the public road planned in the area. Superamerica
is now not interested in accessing onto the road. lie then reviewed the current
proposal and stated that Lee Johnson was present to give a presentation.
Johnson stated that access has been placed at the west end directly across the
access for the bank as a right-in/right-out only. He stated that all 3 lots will
have access to the cul-de-sac road. Parking for the entire site is 1 over the
required amount but when it is broken down per building, the site is short 1 space.
He stated that Dr. Bonnett currently has a veterinary clinic across from Eden
• Prairie Center and has at the most, 3-4 cars parked at a time. He stated that
individual landscaping around the buildings would occur at time of building permit
issuance.
The Planner stated that he was concerned with the access and stated that the
original intent was to access from Terrey Pine Drive, or Superamerica. He stated
that Terrey Pine Drive is expected to continue west to other property. He stated
that he wants all land-locked parcels un-land-locked which is the reason for
recommending that the small portion of the land be deeded to the City as Outlot A.
He felt the site plan is more suitable for the site than previously requested.
The buildings will b g e small offices and stated all mechanical equipment must be
screened. Co. Rd. 4 is expected to be upgraded with a median to be constructed.
He also reviewed the staff report dated 1/4/82.
Retterath asked if Outlot A is deeded as public ownership, if Superamerica would
have to go through any chapels to get connection. The Planner replied no.
Sutliff asked if the -mechanical equipment is to be screened according to Ordinance
requirements. The Planner replied yes.
Torjesgn stated that if Outlot A is deeded to the City, he felt that the City
should be able to determine when Superamerica will connect to it. Bearman stated
a possibility would be deed it to the City that no rights be given, so Superamerica
would have to return to the City for connection.
Marhula stated that the City should have control over Outlot A rather than the
proponent. He then asked if there are occupants for the buildings. Johnson
replied that Dr. Bonnett purchased his lot contingent upon rezoning and is not
sure what his time table is. He stated that both office buildings will be con-
structed and Mr. Peterson will be a tenant in one.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE)
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting
Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY
that I have carefully compared the attached Minutes
of a meeting of the City Council of said City held
on the date thereof indicated with the original minutes thereof
on file in my office and that the same is a full , true and correct
• transcript February 2, 1982
WITNESS my hand officially and the official seal of the City
this 5th day of May 1987 ,
(SEAL) Deputy Clerk
•
'City Council Minutes l -2- C iary 2, 1982
• MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Penzel , to approve the minutes of the
Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, January 26, 1982, as amended
and published. Motion carried with Bentley and Tangen abstaining.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
Clerk's License List
B. Final plat approval for Eden Prairie Center 3rd Addition (Bank site at north-
east corner of TH 169/Schooner Blvd.) (Resolution No. 82-31)
C. Resolution for March 16, 1982 Liquor Referendum (Resolution No. 82-33)
NOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve items A - C on the
Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. GBLIC HEARINGS
A. +1itchell`*Iltakes Estates 2nd Addition by Karl Peterson. Request to revise the
COR-_.PUD, ezone from Planned Study to Office, and preliminary plat 3 lots on
approximately 4.21 acres, for construction of 3 office buildings. Located in
the southwest quadrant of TH 5 and Co. Rd. 4 behind Superamerica Gas Station
(Resolution No. 82-25 - PUD; Ordinance No. 82-03 - Rezoning; and Resolution
No. 82-26 - Preliminary Plat)
Lee Johnson, representing the developer, addressed the proposal and reviewed
• past proposals for this site. Johnson said Peterson is anxious to begin
the project as he has outgrown his present location.
Planning Director Enger noted the Planning Commission had reviewed this
proposal at its meeting on January 11, 1982. At that time the Planning Commis-
sion voted to approve the proposal subject to Staff recommendations contained
in the January 4, 1982, Staff Report and with the following additions: Outlot
"A" should be deeded to the City; parking lot lighting should be no higher thar
20' with cut-off luminars; and that approval be subject to site plan and buildl
plan review by the Planning Commission if there are major changes to the plan.
The Planning Commission expressed concern about Outlot "A" regarding access by
Superamerica.
Bentley asked the width of the cul-de-sac road. Enger said it would be
approximately 28' wide with a 50' right-of-way. Bentley asked what percentage
of the most northerly building would be used by the printing facility. Johnsor
said about one third. Bentley inquired as to the zoning at Dr. Bonnett's pre-
sent Veterinary Clinic. Enger said it is either Regional Service or Office --
in this case the zones over-lap that category.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and
to adopt Resolution 82-25, approving the Mitchell Lake Estates Second Addition
Planned Unit Development and Amending the Guide Plan. Motion carried unanimou
•
r nci l Minutes -3- �— nary 2, 1982
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to give 1st [leading to
• Ordinance 82-03, rezoning from Planned Study to Office. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution 82-26,
approving the preliminary plat of Mitchell Lake Estates 2nd Addition subject
to the recommendations contained in the January 4, 1982. Staff Report and
Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct Staff to draft a
Developer's Agreement including the recommendations of the Staff and Planning
Commission. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Public Hearing on ro Posed improvements on Mitchell Road and Technology Drive,
I.C. 52-010 (Resolution No. 82-32, ordering improvements
City Manager Jullie noted the dates of the published notices regarding this
Public Hearing and stated notices had been sent to all the owners of record
which would be included in the assessment area.
Director of Public Works Dietz spoke to the proposal . The area included was
divided into five segments for purposes of discussion. These were: "A" -
Wallace Road on the west to the east property line of SGL; "B" - the east
property line of SGL to Mitchell Road; "C" - Mitchell Road east to Purgatory
Creek; "D" - Purgatory Creek east to Schooner Boulevard; and "E" - Mitchell
Road from Highway 5 south to Scenic Heights. This project was started by a
• petition regarding the feasibility of a cul-de-saced road from Mitchell Road
west to the western property line of CPT. At about the same time a petition
was received from MTS asking the City to look at the feasibility of extending
the roadway from Miitcheli Road to Schooner Boulevard. Also at this time the
City was considering expansion of facilities on Mitchell Road and it was de-
termined this could be included in the project. Costs for the various segments
are estimated to be: "A" - $438,000; "B" - $335,000; "C" - $802,000; "D" -
$894,000; and "E" - $694,000; for a grand total of $3,200,000. The assessments
would be spread out over a 17 year period. Dietz noted that segment "D" has
some major soil problems. It would be, according to the feasibilty report,
advantageous not to construct that segment at this time thereby allowing some
soil consolidation time which would hold down costs. Dietz said the Council
might wish to discuss the method of assessing segment "A." If changes are
made in the method of assessing "A" then the Public Hearing on that portion
would have to be continued to a later date.
Bentley asked about the intersection of Technology Drive and Schooner Boulevard
Dietz said it is shown to be a 90 degree intersection.
Tangen inquired as to whether or not signals are planned at the intersection
of TH 5 and Wallace Road. Dietz said a consultant had investigated that possi-
bility but the State feels the signals are not warranted at this time. Also,
channelization would have to be done in conjunction with a signalization pro-
ject. Costs prohibit that at this time.
•
Office . . ,
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of 1982
by and between KARL F. PETERSON, referred to as "Owner" and the CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City",
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Owner has applied to City to rezone from Plan Study to
Office approximately 4.21 acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of
Minnesota, more fully described as Block 2, Lot 12, Mitchell Lake Estates
and hereafter referred to as "the property", and
WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property for construction thereon
of 3 office buildings.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No.
• 82-03, and Resolution No. 82-25 (PUD) and Res. 82-26 (plat) , Owner covenants
and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said
property as follows:
1. Owner shall plat and develop the property in conformance
with the material dated 12/14/81 reviewed and approved
by the City Council on 2/2/82 and attached hereto as
Exhibit A, subject to such changes and modifications as
provided herein. Owner shall not develop, construct upon
or maintain the property in any other respect or manner
than provided herein.
2. Owner covenants and agrees to the performance and obser-
vance by Owner at such times and in such manner *as pro-
vided therein of all of the terms , covenants , agreements,
and conditions set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto
and made a part hereof..
•
Developer's Agreer L-Mitchell Lake Est. 2nd page 2
. 3. Owner shall convey to the City, by Warranty Deed, that part of
the property outlined in red and shown as Outlot A on Exhibit A.
Such conveyance shall be made immediately subsequent to the filing
of the plat and prior to issuance of any building permits. Owner
shall not grade nor cause to occur any construction upon Outlot A
nor allow others to so grade or cause construction. Execar brsv�&:At •_. fC
7o Lo r z. ,
4. Owner shall , prior to issuance of any building permits, submit to
the City for review a detailed landscaping plan and obtain the
City's approval thereof. Such plan shall include but not be
limited to the following:
a. Screening 'of the office parking from the duplex back-
yards and first story sight lines.
b. Evergreens, 6 and 7 feet in height atop the berm. Prior
to installation of plant material on part of the berm
which is located on the existing duplex lots, Owner shall
receive written permission from the owner(s).
C. Screening of all sides of the roof-top mechanical equip-
ment according to the specifications of the Building
Inspector.
5. Owner shall , prior to final plat approval , submit to City and the
• State and County Highway Departments for review a detailed storm
water plan and obtain approval thereof.
6. Owner shall not cause to be constructed nor allow others to cause
to be constructed any outdoor structures used for lighting purposes
which is higher than 20 feet. All outdoor structures used for
lighting purposes shall be equipped with cut-off luminars.
7. In the event Owner wishes to modify the approved plan, Exhibit A,
Owner shall submit to City a detailed plan depicting desired
changes and obtain City's approval thereof.
Mitchell Lake Estat s 2nd Office
page 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these
presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
CITY OF EDE PRAIRIE
by olf alhg Pe zel , Mayor
by Carl J.-Jigpe, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /(o day of
!`c.c� 1982 by Wolfgang H. Penzel , the Mayor and Carl J.
Jullie, the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal cor-
poration, on behalf of the corporation.
-- - - - �A�'
• r'�`• 10'tcE D PRC1V0
N01A«6.UkLd..—A.1NN150TA No pry Public
1.11 CQMfn;SfNb SAP.#" 11,19$4
OWNER:
Ka 1 F. Peterson
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoin instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
1982 by Karl F. Peterson
op
• Notary P
„ ErVERLY I CART-%1iy
CCi;:47Y i
My commi«cn Expires Oct. 8,1138
• 1
Allyam- 1
\.,%�� f ��` .r_J � }�j��l I �•� 1 1•�'I 1'I 1 i it •t:. � 1
CID 0
CD
r )-r:)co it
i1F1 �'� �::�i�� .�� =1111'� ��
rn
w ;r':1�. .� i t ff1 � \ ice. :a•
rn
m rn n �• �' - _ � �I rr I'I ' �• -
� ,.}- _
N>
'D� + o
rn
In
O I /
Z rn z
U) ° oco
(n
n
cft
O / • ,
o I ,
n
vo I /•
o ------ -- -----�_ _
i
County Road q '
• Its
M EXHIBIT
0) N�^
1
to
aw.at..MM-Mmftdw,v MaO 4/f�Y ltM�• .rw•0+ v-w�,r
r - Carmelo"
of Real ilN&W Vdw 1 1!Wd t )
Ced+Aesae of s..k VtiR No.
.ri
Own"Auditor
Iby
n TE DEED:A\DUE HEREON: _
Dstg
„ ✓ —(recxved for recording datai
- - q.�Ra....
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDER liTiON. S.Q.B. Investment CiDMPW.--.&minosaotA pazL=nhsp_
N =,plaana_oS-,lbert M*jngn..Carl.Jlalaon. Sid Hart 4011ie ikow - Grantorls►. a„
h
1 �
herey ton%,-%i,i and it w to _-
v LYtY-nf ZJan-Prairie ------ .,-.
__-- _-__—--- •Grantee 0 1.
%O real prolwirty it County.Minnesota,described a.followc
Q Out ry
lot A, Mitchell Lake Estates Second Addition
i
tuttcther with;,;;h.•ri•litani.nt,nmi a;q•urtcnanve,Monging thereto,suhWt to the following exceptions: .'
reserving and excepting therefrom as an easement appurtant to Lot 2, Block 1,
Mitchell Lake Estates Second Addition, a perpetual emseman: for ingress
and agrees over. under and across said Outlot A.
C.O.R. Investment Co.
117; . MIN
_-
STATE OF MINNESOTA
` •. By: Sid Sartman, General Partner
COUNTY OF Hennepin
The forepouy instrument was acknowledged before me this• �,f day of `!� ,19 82. Ate'
_ utfillt Bt�iesfr !id B�a -- rt•eitrL P-•-'---ri of n a_ r..wae�;ws�am ns 6rkitf
MOMMAL STAIR Oa S"L OM OTraa TF=0a RAM
fwa
P.R•ZOLWO
� iw»Oatiriat r.a�i��NFeat..)Y rli latw�w tMda
Ito•.. -w eawtry
w......._..__aawtaa sr:
y• TtresattgseeesatrwasawTaoslresassawwwam
�Y
F gram !. W"ltr
IM Maleft l *mom S.
■WASP as M !!MS '
.r.
t t �
a ,w2 m
�• k.
1 14SOM1
NO RESIDUE r,TF ISSLI'M
v
OFF Ia OF iME neil "3J
OF TITLE'S
HENNEPIN COUNTY.MtlN StWFA
CERTIFIED FILED ON
SEP 9190
•��.5 TITLES
..
j.
1,,.y4�{'
• Minnesota Department of Transportation
District Five
201 Duluth Street
November ,' 1983 Golden Valley,Minnesota 55422
(612)545-3761
Mr. Chris Eager
Director of Planning
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, HN 55344
SP 2701 TH 5
Review of proposed Super America Site
Located in the SW quadrant of ,
Tit 5 and CSAH 4
Dear Christ
Mr. Gregory D. Gustafson dropped oft a site plan of the above referenced
location for our review and comment. He suggested I send our concsnts to you
wi tb a copy to his.
We offer the following ccoments for your considerations
• - The cul-de-sac shown on the plat does not appear to be the same as what
exists in the field. We agree that a connection to the cul-de-sac sbould
be made.
- We agree with tha elimination of one of the driveways to =d 5 and moving
the ousting driveways as for from the existing intersection as possible.
He suggest tse regaining access from Ta 5 be a rigbt turs off or TM 5
only- We also recaoae nd that it be liatted to a 320 widtb or less.
Details for this estraace can be worked out rbee as estraace permit is
applied for.
- The proposed entrance to cs" 4 falls under the jurisdiction of tieanapis
County. We rec osmsod the plan be reviewed by than before approval.,
- As you know, we are presently studying widening plans for TH 5. It appears
-the proposed plan would be compatible with our widening pcoject.
If you have any questions in regard to this review, please feel free to call
see
Sincerely,
Evan R. Green
Project Manager
• cc: Mr. Gregory D. Gustafson
Gustafson o Adams, P.A.
LRG:ba
An Equal Opportunity Employer
4tn Minnesota '
Department of Transportation
District Five
i 5801 Duluth Street
Golden valley, Minnesota 55422
(eu)54S370
May 3• +1984
llr. Gregory D. Gustafson
Gustafson i Adams, P.A.
Suite 911
7400 Metro Boulevard
Edina, Minnesota SS43S
RE: S.P. 2710-24 T.H. 5
Proposed Revisions to Access
for Superamerica Station located
In the SW Quadrant of T.H. S and
_ _ C.S.1►.H. �
-- -
Dear Mr. "Gu eta fsene -'
NO have further reviewed the proposed access changes for the
Superamerica site and recommend that the access be constructed
as shown •on the attached drawing. Please note that there are
two designs. One is for an entrance to fit the existing highway
and the other shown how the driveway will stave to be modified
rIV when. T.N. :S ;ia reconstructed.
It will- be necessary to have an approved entrance permit from our
District Office in Golden Valley before any construction may begin
within the existing highway right of way.
• :1
The design does allow for two-way traffic howevert we will require
signing to prohibit the movement from the property, through this
entrance, to northbound C.S .A.H. 4. It is also 11sportant for the
site to have access to Terry Pine Court,
if you •have any questions in regard to this matter please feel free
to call me..
Sincerely# cc:
Chris Engage Director o' _.
City offEden Prairie
8950 Eden prairie
Evan R. Green Eden Prairies. Mn 55344
Project Manager
Enclosure: Map
An Equal Opportunity Entpbysr
�f C KH IT' /T
STAFF REPORT
•
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: September 21, 1984
PROJECT: SuperAmerica Gas Station
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: Greg Gustafson, Gustafson and Associates
BE-QUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Highway for 1.35
acres.
2. Preliminary Plat of 1.35 acres into one lot.
3• Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Commercial .
Background
In March of 1967, Sun-Ray DX was
• granted a special use permit to
construct a service station in the
southwest corner of the intersection
of State Highway #5 and County Road
#4. The zoning of the property at
that time was "general multiple
dwelling/limited commercial".
With the passage of the Ordinance
135, in 1969, the property was
transferred to the Highway/-
Commercial Zone and subsequently
placed in the plan study district.
In 1974, the property was purchased
by Q Petroleum.
In July of 19779 SuperAmerica
purchased the property.
SuperAmerica applied for rezoning in
December of 1977 to allow an 800
square. foot expansion existing
building for a convenience food
store. Planning Commission re-
commended denial of the request on
• January 8, 1978 with a five to one
vote. The primary concerns were
SuperAmerica Gas Station
• 2 September 21, 1984
traffic congestion and the additional commercialization of the #5 intersectio
n.
n May 12, 1980, the Planning Commission entertained a rezoning request from
SuperAmerica to C-Highway. The item was continued at the Plannin COmmi
several meetings until August 11or
, 1980 when the
withdrawing their application and would submit apnewoapplicationcfordr thatez n ng i nwthe
future. rezoning in the
The site is currently designated as an office land use in
Plan and is currently zoned Rural-(Plan Stud Area the Comprehensive Guide
eliminate the current nonconforming use status designationrforeatgas station ao would
site. to on this
Site a Plan
SuperAmerica proposes an upgrading and expansion of it's
will require the demolition of the existing buildings and pump islands
construction of a new building located closer to the south Present facility, which
Pump islands with a canopy, and a
property line and three
SuperAmerica proposes to build a 3,908 square foot building, at a floor
of 0.07. The building is located on site meeting minimum setback requirement
C-Highway Zonin area ratio
Additional g' A total of 15 permanent parking spaces are s for
parking spaces will be provided on site.
• islands. Code currently requirespravminimumnofateneperrmanentmporary asis between the pump
Provided for service stations. parking spaces be
Access and Internal Circulation
In 1980, when the Planning Commission last entertained a rezoning request from
SuperAmerica for this site, access to State Highway #5 and County Road #4
the major issues. At that time, SuperAmerica was to share a right-in/right-outwas one of
access jointly with CDR Property to the west of this site. This would involve relocation of
the western most driveway entrance farther to the west and Vethe
elimination of the eastern most driveway entrance on State Highway #5.
involved a relocation of the driveway on County Road #4
hat
time, the COR Property Y Access also
P y to the west, was platted with a cul-de-sac swhich touches outh. Since the
southwest corner of this site. SuperAmerica will have an access from that
sac. Access on State Highway #5 will be a right-in/right-out condition
for
SuperAmerica only- cul-de-
The proponent will be required to obtain a permit from the State
Highway Department for work within the right-of-way. A drivewa access permit from
County Road #4 will also be necessary.
Y
Internal circulation has changed from the
building closer to the south property line pand�audifferen
island$ in a north/south direction as o proposal with a relocation of the
t orientation of the pump
It appears that � Opposed to the current
Will be appears
that
egiven the maneuver stacking these east/west direction.
es cars at the pump islands, that there
Gr=Q parked vehicles.
• Since the site
is relativelystern level
lr of tht ti shte time
minimalth the amounteofeption gradingfwork willing
be
necessary to accommodate the new building and gas pump configurations.
Some
SuperAmerica Gas Station 3 September 21, 1984
•
regrading will occur to provide berming for screening of parking areas from State
- Highway #5 and a recontouring of the dry pond in the northeast corner of the site.
The proponent should obtain a grading permit works from the State Highway Department
for grading work within the Highway right-of-way.
Storm water runoff will drain in a northerly to southerly direction into the
existing open ditch system within State Highway right-of-way.
Landscaping
The landscape plan depicts the type, size and arrangement of proposed plant
materials on site. Because of the visibility of this site from Highway #4 and
Highway #5, it will be necessary to screen the parking areas and the pump islands
from view. Berming will provide some screening of the parking and pump island areas
however it will be necessary to supplement this with additional plant material.
Staff feels that the landscape plan will need further modification to provide for
effective screening. Along the northern property line, Staff would recommend that
deciduous hedge be replaced with coniferous plantings which would provide for more
effective and year around screening. Additional coniferous trees will be necessary
along the eastern property line. Coniferous materials should be planted along the
western property line to screen those parking stalls from view.
There will be a considerable amount of foundation plantings around the building
contained within landscape timber edging. Staff would suggest that a brick material
• be used which is compatible with the color and texture of the building. In a
similar manner the proposed screening of the outdoor refuse area should also be
constructed of a similar material. This will provide for greater continuity on
site.
Architecture
Building elevations indicate that the primary building material will be face brick.
The front portion of the building will also include a considerable amount of glass.
Around the perimeter of the building will be a four foot wide exposed aggregate
panel band.
The size of the canopy in plan view is actually larger than the building itself.
Staff would expect that this canopy will very large when viewed from State Highway
#5 and County Road #4. Staff would suggest that the canopy be redesigned in a
similar manner to the SuperAmerica station proposed in City West. (See Attachment
A) This design helps break up the total mass of the canopy. Staff would also
suggest that the canopy be architecturally compatible with the building. Continuity
could be achieved by applying the exposed aggregate panel around the sides of the
canopy. The canopy is considered as an above ground structure per City Code and
will be required to meet the minimum 35-foot front yard setback requirement. The
site plan indicates compliance with this setback.
Li htin
• A number of lighting fixtures are proposed on site. Lighting fixtures should be a
downcast cut-off luminar with a maximum height of 20 feet.
Si na e
There are two signs proposed on site. One will be the existing trademark sign
SuperAmerica Gas Station 4 September 21, 1984
•
located in the front yard along State Highway #5. The other will be a wall mounted
sign. The proponent should submit details of proposed signage for review. Signs
shall be limited to one free-standing sign per street frontage with the larger size
not exceeding 80 square feet in area or 20 feet in height, and the second sign shall
not exceed 35 square feet or eight feet in height. The pump canopy shall not have
signage and signage on the building shall be in compliance with City Ordinance.
Pedestrian Systems
In order to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian access to the store, an eight-foot
wide bituminus pathway should be placed within the property along the west side of
County Road #4. This will connect with the future pathway required of the property
to the south and to the existing pathway adjacent to the Prairie Village Mall north
of Highway #5. In addition, a sidewalk leading directly from the store to County
Road #4, should be added. All sidewalks, with the exception of the County Road #4
trail, shall be five feet wide and five-inch thick concrete.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to
Commercial, a Preliminary Plat of 1.35 acres into one lot, and a rezoning from Rural
to C-Highway based on plans dated August 10, 1984, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated September 21, 1984, and subject to the following conditions:
• 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall :
A. Modify the building plans to provide a modified canopy in a manner
similar to Attachment A.
B. Revise the landscape plan to provide for screening of parking and
gas pumps from public roads.
C. Modify the site plan to provide an eight-foot wide bituminus walkway
along the west side of County Road #4 and an internal five-foot ►vide
concrete sidewalk connection from the store to this bike trail .
2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water runoff and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed erosion control and grading plans to the City
Engineer for review.
3. Prior to Building Permit issuance, proponent shall :
A• Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of
• grading.
C. Stake the grading limits with a snow fence.
D. Obtain access permits for driveway access within State Highway and
County Highway right-of-ways.
SuperAmerica Gas Station 5 September 21, 1984
•
E• Obtain grading permits from the State Highway and Hennepin County
for grading work and highway right-of-way.
F• Submit signage details for review.
4• Operation of the store must be in compliance with the City Ordinance
including limitation of outdoor display areas to no more than ten percent of
the buildings square footage area.
•
r
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF FIENNEPIN ) ss.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE)
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of
the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have care-
fully compared the attached Minutes of a meeting
4f the Planning COMMission of said City held on the date thereof indicated
• with the original minutes thereof on file in my office and that the same
is a full, true and correct transcript September 24, 1984
h'ITNESS my hand officially and the official seal of the City
this 5th day of May 19 87 .
AA
SEl� Cite Clerk
•
f
D. SUPERAMERICA. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-
Hwy and Preliminary Plat of 1.35 acres for Service
Station/Convenience Store. Location: Southwest quadrant of County
Road '#4 and Highway #5. A public meeting.
Mr. Greg Gustafson, representing SuperAmerica, reviewed the site plan and
site characteristics of the project with the Planning Commission. Planner
Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of * the Staff Report of
September 21, 1984.
Acting Chairman Torjesen asked that the letter received from Mr. Steven
Beck, Eden Prairie Family Physicians, be included as part of the permanent
. record for this project. Mr. Beck's letter expressed concern regarding the
potential of -the landscaping to block view of the sign for their property to
the south of the proposed SuperAmerica site.
• Gartner asked if the landscaping proposed would possibly block sight lines,
or cause traffic . difficulties for Highway #5 or County- Road #4. Planner
Enger responded that the Planning Staff would need to review the landscaping
very carefully at the time of. its final submission prior to building permit
issuance for this purpose.
Hallett asked if there would still be full access available to this site
Planning Comnission.Minutes _ 10 September 24, 1984
from Terry Pine Drive. in view .of the fact that-direct access from the south'
from County-Road #4 wou-ld be eliminated in the future. Staff responded that
them would..be-full access from-Terry Pine -Drive.-
Mr. Steven '. Beck,: Eden .Prairie Family Physicians; � located. south of the
project, stated that he would be willing to- work with the; proponents
regarding this -concern. . of potential blockage -of- their. _sign : :due- to
landscaping. : Mr. Gustafson responded that he, too, felt. the matter could be
handled privately between two individuals.-
Marhula, asked if Terry Pine Drive had been completely constructed. Planner
Enger responded that the .cul-de-sac had been completed. Marhula asked if
site plans were available on any of the other sites within this vicinity, in
particular within the commercial Planned Unit Development to the west. He
stated that he was concerned that the driveways and access situations for
the properties involved be appropriately planned. Planner Enger responded
that this site plan for the entire area had been previously reviewed and
that access questions had been answered. The Superamerica site, as
proposed, fit in well with the other commercial uses in the vicinity with
respect to access.
Acting- Chairman Torjesen asked if access to the cul-de-sac had been shown in
the original Superamerica plan. Planner Enger responded that it had been
shown. Acting Chairman Torjesen asked about parking on the site. Mr. Steve
Amik, representing Superamerica, responded that the parking shown on the
east side of the site had been designated for employee purposes. Acting
Chairman Torjesen suggested that parking could be located closer to the
building for customers.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Superamerica for Zoning District Chancre
from Rural to C-Highway for 1.35 acres for a service station/convenience
store, based on plans dated August 10, 1984, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated September 21, 1934, with the following additions:
Under recommendation #lb, add the following "and not to conflict with sight
lines from County Road #4 or Highway #5;" and add a recommendation v1d
stating, "Meet with property owners to the south to mitigate issues
regarding visibility of the signage for the property to the south."
Motion carried-6-0-0
MOTION 3: -
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Schuck, to recommend to the City
• Council approval of the request of Superamerica for Preliminary Plat of 1.35
Planning Commission Minutes 11
September 24; 1984
acres into-.'one- lot- for a service station/convenience store, based -on. plans
- dated August .10, 1984, subject'to the. recommendations of the Staff Report
dated' September 21; 1984, with. '. the- 'following additions: Under
recommendation. #lb, add the following and .not to conflict with sight lines'
from County .Road #4 or 'Highway' #5; and* add a recommendation #1d - stating;
"Meet with property owners .to the south to ''mitigate issues regarding
visibility 'of.the signage for 'the. property -to 'the south."
Motion carried--6-0-0
l•
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION �;'`"
320 Washington Av. South _ ` .
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 -
NENNEPIN hEs.
935-3381 September 25, 1984
Mr. Chris Enger 935-6433
Director of Planning
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear M.r. Enger:
RE Proposed Plat - "Superamerica"
CSAH 4 SW Quadrant of TH 5
Section 8/117, Township 116, Range 22
Hennepin County No. 1226
Review and Recommendations
Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of
Proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and found it
acceptable with consideration of these conditions:
-For future improvements to the CSAH 4/TH 5 intersection the developer should
dedicate an additional 10 feet of right of way along CSAH 4 making the right of
• way 50 feet from the centerline of CSAH 4.
-Hennepin County supports relocating the access onto CSAH 4 to near the south
property line.
-Any revision to an existing access requires an approved Hennepin County entrance
Permit before beginning any construction. See our Maintenance Division for
entrance permit forms.
-At this time, the proposed plans for CSAH 4 include channelization at the TH 5
intersection which would make the access onto CSAH 4 a right-in/right-out access.
-This this plat abuts TH 5 it must receive full Mn/DOT approval.
-Any proposed construction within County right of way requires an a
Permit prior to beginning construction. This includes but is not limited to,lity
drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact
our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms.
-The developer must restore all areas within County right of way disturbed during
construction.
Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt.
Sincerely,
&/
ames M. Wold, P.E. HENNEPIN COUNTY
Chief, Planning and Programming
JMW/LDW.pl an equal opportunity employer
•
k SIT (0
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss, r
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE)
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting
Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY
that I have carefully compared the attached Minutes
of a meeting of the City Council of said City held
on the date thereof indicated with the original minutes thereof
on file in my office and that the same is a full, true and correct
• transcript October 16, 1984
WITNESS my hand officially and the official seal of the City
this 5th day of May 1987 .
(SEAL) De
rk
•
City Council Minutes -6- October 16, 1984
Crook said they would like. to`have approval from`th.e Council this evening..
He said they would- like to.meet with' the Homeowners' Association; he .said
they felt these were two separate matters.
Floyd Si.eferman, -6997 fdgebrook Place, asked if the parking spaces were
sheltered. .Crook said there is one space. per unit of "detached" parking
and one sheltered space (garage).. Sieferman noted that there are more.
buildings than shown on the 'plan as the garages are not shown.-
MOTION: Bentley moved; seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing
and give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 118-84, rezoning. . Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION: t Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to adopt Resolution No. 84-274,
Preliminary plat approval . Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to direct Staff to prepare a
Developer's Agreement taking into consideration the recommendations of Com-
missions and Staff and noting that plantings on the north property .line
should include large size evergreens as well as barberry and prickly ash
so the Library parking lot is not used by residents and guests of the Eden
Commons development. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to recommend strongly that the
proponent meet with The Preserve Homeowners' Association prior to 2nd
Reading of the Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously,
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Penzel , to direct Staff to prepare
a feasibility study for Preserve Boulevard (to widen Preserve Boulevard
to a two-lane facility with storm sewer -- with an improved, soil corrected
roadway. ) Motion carried unanimously.
B. SUPERAMERICA. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Hwy
and preliminary plat of 1.35 acres for Service Station/Convenience Store.
Location: southwest quardrant of County Road 4 and Highway 5. (Ordinance
No. 119-84 - rezoning from Rural to C-Hwy and Resolution No. 84-275 -
preliminary plat)
City Manager Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing had been published
and property owners within the vicinity had been notified.
Greg Gustafson, attorney for Superamerica, addressed the proposal .
Director of Planning Enger indicated this request had been reviewed by
the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 24, 1984, at which
time the Commission voted to recommend approval subject to the recommen-
dations included in the September 21, 1984, Staff Report and with the
addition that landscaping not interfere with sight lines and not
obstruct signs which have been constructed b;• r;cr=rty owners to the south.
Enger noted that the September 21, 1984, Staff Report suggests that approval
be based on plans dated August 10, 1984.
There were no issues of concern to the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
Commission.
City Council Minutes -7- '
October 16, 1984
Redpath inquired about the access to `this-.site. - Enger stated that
the only full access would be via .Terrey. Pine Drive;' .in the. future
there will. be a. right-in, right-out access off of-Cou
nty Road_4 and a right-in entrance off.of Highway 5.
Penzel noted. a letter which .had been received from Dr. Alston Lindgren
regarding the sign situation.
Dr. Alston Lundgren, owner of *adjacent .property,..said .the. issue had been
adequately addressed and his objections had been satisfied.
Gerald Anderson, 16506 Terry' P.ine Drive, said he was concerned about the
median and the increased amount of traffic which might be put onto'Terrey
Pine. Enger explained the road system which will be used and the traffic
patterns; he noted the road system was planned with this development in
mind. Enger said signs could be put up which would indicate "children
playing" and there would be directional signs. Director of Public Works
Dietz concurred.
Gerald Anderson said he would like to see traffic into the residential
area discouraged.
Bentley asked what type of screening is proposed. Enger said none is
proposed other than what was put in between Terrey Pine Court and the area
immediately adjacent. Bentley said he felt some should be included.
Patricia Pidcock, 8379 Red Rock Road, asked the size of the Superamerica
sign. Enger reviewed the sign ordinance; Gustafson noted they would comply
with the sign ordinance.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing
and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 119-84, rezoning. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 84-275,
approving the preliminary plat of Superamerica. Motion carried with Penzel
voting "no."
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct Staff to prepare a
Summary Resolution of Approval as per Commission and Staff recommendations
including consideration of .reduction in the size of the canopy (this would
be returned to the Council prior to 2nd Reading) , including signs to
mark the residential area along Terrey Pine, and cut-off luminar lighting.
Motion carried unanimously.
�r►NESp,,
�o 9 do
Minnesota
Department of Transportation
• '� Di2055 strict 5
oF TaP`'��o Golden .Valley, Minnesota 55422
(612) 545-3761
November 6, 1984
Superamerica
Gustafson & Adams, P.A.
% Mr. Gregory D. Gustafson
Suite 411
7400 Metro Boulevard
Edina, Minnesota 55435
In reply refer to:
Access Permit 5AD-84-70
T.H. 5: C.S. 2701
Loc: Superamerica Station in the S.W. quadrant of T.H. 5 & Henn. Co. Rd. 4
Dear Mr. Gustafson:
I am writing you to restate the conclusions reached at a meeting held
November 5, 1984 to discuss present and future access for the Super-
• america station on T.H. 5 at Hennepin County Road 4 in Eden Prairie, Mn.
This meeting was also attended by Steve Amick and David Kirscht for
Superamerica,and by Ellen Gavlinski; Hydraulics Engineer; Charles Hudrlik,
Assistant District Traffic Engineer; and Evan Green, Project Manager; all
of Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Our department had reviewed the site plan, and grading and drainage plan
submitted with the Access Permit application, and wanted to discuss addi-
tional construction that would be required if we approved your proposal .
Our inplace storm sewer system and traffic signal electrical system would
have to be revised to conform with your plans at a cost of approximately
$2,000.00. These revisions would likley be temporary, and be changed
during our reconstruction project on T.H. 5, State Project No. 2701-24,
scheduled for letting in February 1986. We discusses several alternatives
to your proposal and agreed to the following:
1. ) The easterly access onto T.H. 5 shall be removed at this time, and the
State's right-of-way shall be restored to match surrounding and approved
grades, contours, and turf. MN/DOT will authorize this work in Access
Permit 5AD-84-70.
2. ) The westerly access onto T.H. 5 shall remain at its present location
temporarily. This access shall be widened to 32 feet, and the easterly
turning radius shall be reconstructed to a minimum 30 foot radius. Super-
amercia shall submit revised plans to MN/DOT within one week, for o
• final approval . This work will also be authorized in Access Perrmitur
5AD-84-70.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
November 6, 1984
/ Page 2
Superamerica
/ 3. ) During the State Project No. 2701-24 on T.H. 5, the State shall re-
locate and reconstruct the westerly access. The final design and location
of this access will be determined by MN/DOT, but will be similar to your
original proposal shown on plan sheet P4159-1. The State will
rform
all necessary construction within our right-of-way. Superamericae
shall
perform all construction required within their property.
Our department will not complete the processing of your permit application
until we have had an opportunity to review and approve your revised plan.
We will notify you, by letter, when the Access Permit is approved and
what amount of bond is required.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, feel free to
contact my office.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Anderle
Senior Permit Technician
TJA:re
•
«i
•
• I �.� I -tom-` , /(, �� /
If
C
It
fill
•A•
:tli i i! i
,
_*,_COUNTY_ROAD NO.4
cl _� X
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk
of the City of Eden Prairie hereby certify that the attached and fore-
going is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Eden Prairie at its meeting on the 6th day of
November , 1984 as the same is recorded in the minutes
of the -meeting of such council for said date, on file and of record in
• my office.
Dated this 5th day of May 19 87
Deputy Clerk
r
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 84-291
A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
OF COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
FOR A CONVENIENCE/SERVICE STATIONRRICA ONE1.35 ACRES
BE IT RESOLVED that the proposal for a Superamerica service center on 1.35 acres,
located in the southwest quadrant of Highway #5 and County Road #4; is herein
approved subject to the following specific conditions:
I. The development plan, preliminary plat, and erosion control and grading
plan, all dated August 10, 1984, and attached hereto shall apply.
2. Prior to final plat, developer/owner shall :
A. Revise the landscape plan to provide for screening of parking and
gas pumps from public roads.
B. Modify the site plan to provide an eight-foot wide bituminus walkway
along the west side of County Road #4 and an internal five-foot wide
concrete sidewalk connection from the store to the bituminus
walkway. -
C• Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for
review by the City Engineer.
D. Dedicate the necessary right-of-way for County Road #4 to Hennepin
County concurrent with the plat.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, developer/owner shall :
A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours prior to
grading.
B. Stake the grading limits with snow fencing.
C. Obtain access permits for driveway access within State Highway and
County Highway right-of-ways.
D. Obtain grading permits from the State Highway and Hennepin County
Highway Departments for grading work within the respective right-of-
ways.
• E. Pay the required Cash Park Fee.
4• Operation of the store must be in compliance with the City Ordinance
including limitation of outdoor display areas to no more than ten (10) per
cent of the building's square footage area.
ADOPTED by the City Council on November 6, 1984.
Wo gang H. enzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
)Johrave, City Clerk
P.
H
� � Crhrom C '� rl�i OD � a " —' A cmi w N o m
> c#
g ct m m I v y �` s '
O �' D i E w
C15S ;wtl
C m I - > Vf m f�D mmO ; c'Fml z C+
mmm = -1< (D
Vf fD (D
�T n f'h
\g3 c d m ro G 3
L3 C � �- N
C � -$ � S I OZ C
o o CD
G Z I m c)
O
w s (D 4' > M > y y c
a o �. 11
o
c
d = Q C iw O
♦ (D p m 1 pr z
l - d rT O
3� H 8 1 m m pp �
OSQ
r S + 0
(D . M c
>E o z g 2 m
m 7m0
q a- >
m I O > �
s
° > om �
c z mw
0 3
ic
mg m
z �o m + uz, z`
rgm 0 1 i� m m
m3 �l ° oo A o
cor O O < � m
>o v 00 g ,o mm Co m
rr mx V s ° m 1 O \ p00
_
O
r- > O n m m z W
O w C C ~ C ~ V
cM o O I'' m m � m ¢e C rNo
o' x m s y Z N
t Gl 1 W
�► N X
W
!7
f�l1 f�tl C D n n n ; m > T A(AC p Z m C 1 ~ m ; A
Z I..j D ik 1 i- m > D C V m �T7 c C
c m m N r 1 c z
C4N O O 8 cZi m y n c� ra 00 T m
A� m CL + D g D 9 D D
?� c aml a a z
O
cn Qom, Q_ Fw �n u� rw �n u► fn v� a e� to ~ o ., i
7C IP n w T z
�, tD N Ul OD m ( y
C Q a A O A O
�" �' O Ln O
7 ,
• CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
FROM: David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician
DATE: February 27, 1985
SUBJECT: ASHLAND OIL ADDITION
PROPOSAL:
The developer, Ashland Oil , Inc., has requested City
Council approval of the final plat of Ashland Oil Addition
located south of West 78th Street (T.H. 5) and west of Eden
Prairie Road (Co. Rd. #4) in the South 1/2 of Section 8.
This platting will eliminate a lengthy meets and bounds
description presently covering the 1.35 acre parcel and
provide right-of-way dedication.
HISTORY:
• The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on
October 16, 1984, per Resolution 84-275.
Zoning to C-Hwy District was finally read and approved by
the City Council on November 6, 1984.
Resolution 84-291, approved by the City Council on November
6, 1984, summarizes specific conditions of approval for the
proposal .
VARIANCES:
All variance requests must be processed through the Board
of Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
The developer will install walkway improvements as required
through Resolution 84-291.
Permits covering access to the property have been obtained
by the developer from Mn/DOT and Henn/DOT. An access to
Terrey Pine Court will also be installed by the developer
• in conformance with City standards.
PARK DEDICATION:
The requirements for park dedication are covered in
• Resolution 84-291.
Page 2, Final Plat Ashland Oil Addition
zf27/s5
BONDING: .
Bonding shall conform to City Code requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend .approval of the- final plat of Ashland Oil
Addition subject to the requirements of this report,
Resolution 84-291 and the following:
1. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of
$468.00.
2. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $250.00.
DLO:sg
cc: Gustafson b Adams
•
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting clerk
of the City of Eden Prairie, hereby certify that the attached and
foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted
by the City Council of Eden Prairie at its meeting on
19 6�r, as the same is recorded in the minutes of the meeting of
such Council for said date, on file and of record in my office.
7
Dated this �i% day of 19 � .
?DEP4UTYCLK
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
SEAL
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-71
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
ASHLAND OIL ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Ashland Oil Addition has been submitted in a
manner required for : platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and
under. Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been
duly had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan
and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota
and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE:
A. Plat approval request for Ashland Oil Addition is approved
upon compliance with the recommendation of the City
Engineer's report on this plat dated February 27, 1985.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a
certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and
subdivision of the above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City
Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on March 5, 1985.
ary eterso Mayor
ATTEST SEAL
A
Ja n-D: Frane, Clerk
Lap-Am
OFFICES/8950 EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD/EDEN PRAIRIE.MN 55344-2499/TELEPHONE 16121937.2262
September 26, 1986 V
D
- -
Gustafson b Tyson, P.A. OCT 2 uses
7400 Metro Boulevard, Suite 411
Edina, MN 55435
Attention: Mr. Daniel Tyson
RE: DRIVEWAY ACCESS FOR SUPERAMERICA STATION AT 16425 WEST 78TH
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA _ STREET,
Dear Mr. Tyson:
The Planning Department has received a c opy• Proposal to Terrey Pine Drive. I have reviewed of
he Planthemost againstcCity Codeeand
find that the driveway as proposed does not meet the minimum
from a property line. City Code requires minimum distance betwe nk end 1of
driveway return and property line to be 10 feet.
To install the driveway as proposed will necessitate SuperAmerica seekinga
variance. I have enclosed a variance application.
is November 13, 1986. A completed application. must be returned y meetingle office,
no later than October 9, 1986. nay face,
Should you have any question, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
City of Eden Prairie
Steve Durham
Assistant Planner
Enclosure: Variance Application
SD:bs
•
j
EXHIBIT V C
• TO: Variance Board
FROM: Residents of Terrey Pine Drive, Eden Prairie
DATE: May 14, 1987
After meeting at length with the representatives of'- iowv& /
Ashland Oil and SuperAmerica, and being unable to reach a
solution that is satisfactory to all parties concerned, the
residents of Terrey Pine Drive askthe Board to allow their
original decision to stand: that is, to deny the variance
to SuperAmerica for an access at the rear of their station
(on Hwy 5 & CR 4) routing traffic to Terrey Pine Drive and
Terrey Pine Court. We unanimously oppose a rear driveway
under any circumstances that allow heavy commercial traffic
to be routed through a residential neighborhood.
However, the residents support SA in asking the City
of Eden Prairie to represent us along with SA in petitioning
Hennepin County to remove the median planned for the Hwy.
4 expansion project. If this change were made, there would
no longer be a need for a rear access at SA. We hope the
City and County will give this th 'r most sincere and objeC-
tive onsideration.
i
E X hi Ui �1
LAW OFFicEs
• HOPP S ALLEN
250 SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
GEDRGE C. HOFF^ 300 PRAIRIE CENTER ORIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNEDOTA 65344.5301 TED A. ALLEN RED WING OFFICE
DAVID M. ANDERSON (6 1123 941-9220 (612)388-3867
RATRICIA E. KUDERER
JORUN E. GROE
'also admitted in Wisconsin
May 14, 1987
Board of Appeals & Adjustments
Eden Prairie City Hall
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Re: SuperAmerica Variance
(Variance Request No. 87-17)
Dear Board Members:
As you are aware, this office represents Alston Lundgren and Eden
Prairie Family Physicians with offices at 7800 Eden Prairie Road,
• Eden Prairie, Minnesota. I have been present at the last two
hearings on the matter and presented testimony for your
consideration. In connection with our representation, we have
been provided by the City Staff with copies of memoranda
including one by Richard F. Rosow and Diana P. Massie of the City
Attorneys office concerning an estoppel issue. he
se of
this letter is to address issues raised therein. We previ
T ously
wrote to the Board on November 10, 1986, with regard to Variance
Standards. That letter (which was distributed to you prior to
the meeting of April 9th again) outlines our position on those
issues.
Apparently, by inclusion of the memo in with meeting materials,
the Board and its staff feel that "estoppel" is an issue which
must be addressed with reference to the variance request. A
review of the facts which have been laid before you shows that
estoppel is not a proper issue bearing upon the variance request.
Estoppel will lie against municipalities in rare circumstances
when a City has improperly dealt with a specific issue. In this
case, SuperAmerica is claiming that the City is estopped from
denying the variance necessary to create the driveway access.
The issue of the variance has never been before the City before.
Therefore, because the variance issue has not been decided
previously nor any actions taken by the City on it, there is
nothing upon which to base an estoppel. This, of course, means
• that the variance must rise and fall on its own merits. The
Board of Appeals & Adjustments
• Eden Prairie City Hall
May 14, 1987
Page Two
extensive testimony shows that there is simply no undue hardship
(they will lose income - clearly not sufficient when a reasonable
use of the land remains) and if granted there will be a radical
alteration in the character of the area.
Even if the Board of Adjustments were to consider estoppel, the
Minnesota test for estoppel cannot be met in these circumstances.
Mr. Rosow and Ms. Massie in their memorandum cite the case of
Ridaewood Development Co vs State. A later case (which also
cites the Ridgewood case) is that of Jasaka Co. vs. City of St
Paul, 309 N.W.2d 40 (1981) . In that case, the City of St. Paul
issued a building permit for the construction of a radio tower in
an inappropriate zone. The radio tower was 90% complete before
action was taken to stop it. The Plaintiff argued to the court
that the actions of the City in issuing the permit granted him a
vested right to continue to develop (i.e. estoppel) . The court
rejected the argument requiring that the tower be dismantled.
The court found that the work was not accomplished in conformity
with the zoning ordinances. Therefore, the issuance of the
• building permit itself did not grant them the right to complete
the work.
In the matter before the Board, the SuperAmerica site plan was
"arguably approved" in 1984 . However, as approved it did not
conform to the ordinances of the City in that the driveway
violated dimensional requirements. Therefore, like Jasaka, the
City is not estopped from denying the variance.
Another case, Hawkinson vs County of Itasca, 304 Minn. 367, 231
N.W.2d 279 (1975) , denied a "vested right" claim from a property
owner despite the fact that the property owner had dug a
foundation for a specific building allowed under the pre-existing
zoning ordinance. The court indicated that the foundation and
other excavation on the site could be used equally well for a
conforming use.
Similar to the Hawkinson rationale, Mr. Rosow and Ms. Massie
in their memorandum cite a test from the Ridgewood case. Part of
that states that the applicant "must demonstrate expenditures
that are unique to the proposed project and would not be
otherwise usable." There has not been an argument advanced (nor
could one be) that the expenditures made in 1984 are in any way
"not usable" if a variance is not granted. What is sought is for
SuperAmerica to reap greater profits, not usability of the
• development of the property in 1984 .
Board of Appeals & Adjustments
• Eden Prairie City Hall
May 14, 1987
Page Three
I again urge that the Board deny the variance request as it fails
entirely to meet the variance standards of Minn. Stat. §462.357
and the Eden Prairie City Code.
Sincere ,
or
HOFF & ALL
GCH:lp
•
EXHIBIT X s
GUSTAFSON & TYSON,P.A.
• GREGORY D.GUSTAFSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DANIEL R.TYSON SUITE 411
WILLIAM M.HABICHT 7400 METRO BOULEVARD OF COUNSEL
DAVID E.FOLIN EDINA,MINNESOTA 55435 HARRY GUSTAFSON
JOSEPH J.DEUHS,JR.
TELEPHONE(612)835-7277
May 9, 1987
Ms. Ann B. Spletzer
16794 Terrey Pine Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Ann:
I am writing to you as I promised at last night's meeting to outline the
proposal of my client SuperAmerica Stations, Inc. ("SuperAmerica"), in connec-
tion with the variance request for the driveway onto Terrey Pine Court.
• 1. Sidewalk. SuperAmerica will install at its expense, along the south
side of Terrey Pine Drive from the intersection of Highway 4 to a point approxi-
mately 25 feet beyond the intersection of Terrey Pine Court and Terrey Pine
Drive. In addition, my client will install at its expense, a sidewalk along the
east right-of-way line of Terrey Pine Court which will run between Terrey Pine
Drive and the new driveway opening. The sidewalk will be built according to
city specifications. The City's and the residents' input into the sidewalk is
requested.
2. Si na e. SuperAmerica will provide, at its sole cost and expense,
directional signage on Terrey Pine Court and Terrey Pine Drive as discussed at
the meeting last night. Signage to be included will include a larger stop sign,
a "dead-end" sign and others which are to be installed pursuant to City specifi-
cations and with City and resident input. SuperAmerica would also have the
intersections of Terrey Pine Court, Terrey Pine Drive striped with yellow or
other appropriate striping to indicate crosswalks.
3. Truck Traffic. SuperAmerica will require its own truck drivers and its
vendors' truck drivers to use the Highway 5 and Highway 4 exits and entrances
and not to use the new driveway opening onto Terrey Pine Court. My client is
also willing to identify the driveway as a "no truck traffic" access.
•
Page Two
Ms. Ann B. Spletzer
May 9, 1987
4. Median Division and Stop Signal. As we discussed at the meeting,
SuperAmerica would be more than pleased to work with the neighbors on a coopera-
tive basis and approach Hennepin County and the City of Eden Prairie for the
purposes of eliminating the requirement for the proposed median within Highway
4. In addition, as we discussed, in the event that our joint efforts fail to
convince the County to eliminate the median strip, my client will cooperate and
work directly with the residents on the installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Terrey Pine Drive and County Road 4.
I want to thank you and the other residents who were in attendance at the
meeting last night for the very positive input. I believe that we made great
strides in meeting both the needs of SuperAmerica and of the neighborhood resi-
dents.
As I also discussed with you, I will be available on Tuesday evening for
further discussion and any other questions with you or other residents. At that
time, I would have a more detailed drawing of the proposal regarding the side-
walk and the silanage. Please advise me of the location for the meeting. I
suggest the time of between 6:00 o'clock p.m. and 8:00 o'clock p.m. to accom-
modate the various schedules.
My client is looking forward to working with the residents of the neigh-
borhood in connection with this variance and in the ongoing common concerns into
the future.
Sincerely yours,
GUSTAFSON & TYSON, P.A.
DRT/j df Daniel R. Tyson
cc: Glenn Hill
Roman Mueller
MTG#82/SA-L1
•
O
n 1
D ?
� m
A
S '
3
m
T
ExOD
at to 0
MAN~ 4 0
a CA
m � v
NO ca
cc TRUCKS p
z
� v �
c
A a
x .�
"♦ C
o m
c
m i —
o
c -< 0 DID
DEAD ; Z co) « Q .7 e
C m END c m _o o «o
r' p 0
m C,6 s= �D
cn co)
cn 0 0
zfn = N
o � > o :
z0co) ca
m
al� TERREY PINE COURT
Or
cc
�. V C
m
w
IT! 3e 3 cc
— �
7TON %c v w
v
OMIT N
• m
ti
>
C.S,A,H
• 4 EDEN PRAIRE ROAD
K
310
o .