Planning Commission - 01/13/1992 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING CONBMSION
Monday, January 13, 1992
7:30 p.m.
CONDIISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Charles Ruebling, Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett,
Karen Norman, Doug Sandstad, James Hawkins and
Katherine Kardell
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen,
Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund,
Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
U. MEMBERS REPORTS
in. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. WYNDHAM KNOLL 2ND ADDITION by Joseph Dolejsi. Request of Joseph
Dolej si for Preliminary Plat of 1.7 acres into 2 single family lots to be known as
Wyndham Knoll 2nd Addition. LOCATION: East of Dell Road, south of
Pleasantview Road.
B. VICTORY LUTHERAN CHURCH by Victory Lutheran Church. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Church
on 5.9 acres; Zoning District Change from R1-22 to Public, and Site Plan Review
on 5.9 acres; Zoning District Amendment within the R1-22 District on 3.5 acres,
and variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals; Preliminary Plat of 10
acres into 5 lots for construction of a 7,600 square foot church and 4 new single
family lots to be known as Victory Lutheran Church. LOCATION: East of Eden
Prairie Road, west of Red Oak Drive and north of Bergen Drive.
Agenda
Planning Commission
January 13, 1992
C. PRAIRIE GREEN OUTDOOR STORAGE by Birchwood Labs. Request of
Birchwood Labs for Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 District on 3 acres
with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Site Plan Review on
3 acres for construction of an outdoor storage facility to be known as Prairie
Green Outdoor Storage. LOCATION: Southwest of Fuller Road, south of
Birchwood Labs, east of Lincoln Drive.
D. TACO BELL by Taco Bell Corporation. Request for Site Plan Review within
the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 0.56 acres with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals for construction of a restaurant to be known as Taco Bell.
LOCATION: Joiner Way, south of Goodyear Tire.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
AGN113.BS
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 1992 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, James Hawkins, Katherine
Kardell,Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad.
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary
ROLL CALL: Ruebling absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Norman moved, seconded by Kardell to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0-0.
H. MEMBERS REPORTS
•III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to approve the Minutes of the December 9, 1991 Planning
Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 4-0-2. Kardell and Hawkins abstained.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. WYNDHAM KNOLL 2ND ADDITION by Joseph Dolejsi. Request of Joseph Dolejsi for
Preliminary Plat of 1.7 acres into 2 single family lots to be known as Wyndham Knoll 2nd
Addition. LOCATION: East of Dell Road, south of Pleasantview Road.
Joseph Dolejsi, the proponent, stated that the 2 single family lots were platted with the
Wyndham Knoll project. He added that the request for a change in the platting was due to the
tax system. Dolejsi said that he was now being taxed $2000 on the lot and could not afford to
keep the property and, therefore, had decided to plat the property into two lots. The lot frontage
would not change. The Dolejsi residence would be located on Lot 2. Dolejsi stated that the
access would remain in its present location and an application had been filed to maintain the
easements.
• 1
Bauer noted that the Staff Report had indicated that the access would come off Pleasantview
Road. Franzen replied that the current access would remain in place and an additional driveway
access would be added from Pleasantview Circle.
Dolejsi questioned the need for a Cash Park Fee. Franzen replied that he would check with the
Park & Recreation Department regarding a credit already given.
Hawkins believed that a vacation of certain easements would be the cleanest approach but
questioned whether the utility easements should also be vacated.
Norman asked how many homes were located on Pleasantview Circle. Dolejsi replied 4 homes.
Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the project based on the recommendations
outlined in the Staff Report dated January 10, 1992.
MOTION 1:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Joseph Dolejsi for Preliminary Plat of 1.7 acres into two single family lots to be known as
• Wyndham Knoll 2nd Addition, based on plans dated December 6, 1991, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 10, 1992 with the understanding that Item
1 could be removed if after Staff investigation the current credit was found to be adequate.
Motion carried 6-0-0.
B. VICTORY LUTHERAN CHURCH by Victory Lutheran Church. Request for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Church on 5.9 acres; Zoning District
Change from R1-22 to Public, and Site Plan Review on 5.9 acres; Zoning District Amendment
within the R1-22 District on 3.5 acres, and variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals;
Preliminary Plat of 10 acres into 5 lots for construction of a 7,600 square foot church and 4 new
single family lots to be known as Victory Lutheran Church. LOCATION: East of Eden Prairie
Road, west of Red Oak Drive and north of Bergen Drive.
Scott Kipp introduced Pastor Mundahl and architect, Steve Ervin.
Ervin complimented Staff on a very thorough job. He added that he and Staff had worked on
this project for over a year. Ervin noted that the Church had requested the residential character
in architecture. An earth berm had been added along County Road 4 for both acoustical and
aesthetic purposes. The parking lot had been developed to provide close access from County
Road 4 and to allow for space to provide for future parking needs. Ervin questioned the need
for 8 to 10 foot evergreens on the West side of the lot. Ervin added that he would like to work
• 2
with sight lines to accomplish the screening. Ervin noted that Item 1 related to the storm water
run-off had been resolved after a meeting with the Church, Staff, and the DNR.
Sandstad asked if Item 1C would be discussed further. Ervin replied that the Church would
prefer to use earth berming.
Norman asked Ervin to comment on Item 4 in the letter dated December 23, 1991 from the
DNR. Ervin replied that this item was not applicable. Kipp replied that the project could be
with the 1000 feet of Red Rock Lake. He added that the impervious surface and be calculated
at less than 25% and was far away from Red Rock Lake. Kipp noted that there would be no
visual impact.
Hawkins asked if the 25% was calculated on the proposed site or 25% of all land within 1000
feet of the lake. Kipp replied that the figure was 25% per lot around the entire lake.
Sandstad asked if Phase H was taken into consideration to determine the percentage of
impervious surface. Kipp replied yes.
Kipp reported that the project would have little impact on the surrounding areas. Approximately
only 1/3 to 1/2 of the property would be disturbed. Kipp believed that the plan worked well
with the topography. He added that maximum distances would be maintained from residences.
Kipp stated that the traffic would be minimal. .The residential character of the architecture
blends well with the existing neighborhood. Kipp said that the new access onto County Road
4 would provide for better sight vision and bypass lanes would be added. Staff recommended
that the N.U.R.P. pond be developed to the north. Kipp stated that Staff would be comfortable
to work with the developer to eliminate the requirement for trees.
Hawkins asked to what extent N.U.R.P. ponds had been adopted by Eden Prairie. Kipp replied
that Eden Prairie had chosen to develop N.U.R.P. ponds on commercial, industrial, and public
property developments over 5 acres. Franzen added that this was not a completely new policy.
He stated that water could not be directly discharged into wetland areas.
Sandstad noted that he had not seen a tree inventory. Kipp replied that several of the trees
would remain and the majority of the trees were boxelder. Sandstad asked if this was part of
an agreement with the developer. Kipp replied that he did not regard this as a major issue; he
believed it would be in the developers best interest to save the significant trees.
Kipp noted that a variance would be required for Lot 4 related to road frontage of 50 feet.
Hallett asked if Staff was comfortable with the sidewalk system proposed. Kipp replied that the
Park & Recreation Department had reviewed the plan and had accepted the trails as proposed.
Hallett asked if the sidewalks would extend further south. Kipp replied yes. Hallett asked if
the trail system went completely around Red Rock Lake. Kipp replied that due to the low areas
the trail system could not be connected to extend completely around the lake. Hallett asked if
• 3
• the proposal would be reviewed by the Park & Recreation Department and if they would
consider the possibility of a complete trail system around the lake. Hallett requested that this
be reviewed further. He said that this was a very beautiful area which residents could not get
to. Kipp replied that the plan would be reviewed by the Park & Recreation Department.
Hallett asked Staff how the parking requirements had been calculated and if it would be
adequate. Kipp replied that Staff used the standard method of calculation; 1 space for every 3
seats. Hallett questioned if the City's method was workable for all Churches and was enough
land available on this site to provide for additional parking if needed. Franzen replied that when
a church has a regional use the calculation was based on 1 space for every 2.5 seats. Franzen
added that this was a small church. Kipp replied that Staff believed that parking provided was
adequate but, additional spaces could be provided if necessary.
Norman asked if there were other Missouri Synod Churches located in Eden Prairie. Pastor
Mundahl replied that this was the only Missouri Synod Church in all of the surrounding cities.
Kipp noted that Staff could work with the developer to provide parking based on the 1 space for
every 2.5 seats if necessary. Ervin replied that the current membership of the Church was 55.
Ervin added that additional proof of parking had been provided and the Church was very aware
of the importance of adequate parking. Ervin believed that the topography of the land would
discourage parking on Berger Drive and County Road 4.
Hawkins noted that the Planning Commission was pointing out that past history had proved that
the 1 space for every 3 seats ratio had not always provided for adequate parking. Ervin replied
that the proponent had provided proof of parking for additional parking above the required
amount.
Hallett stated that a question had merely been raised as to the current policies ability to provide
adequate parking and if that policy should be updated.
Bauer concurred that the current policy for calculations might not be adequate.
Ervin stated that he wanted to go on record that it might be in the Church's best interest to go
with the ratio of 1 parking space for every 2.5 seats and that space has been made available for
expansion if necessary.
Sandstad asked Hallett if he were concerned about trails to the north of this project closer to the
marsh area. Hallett replied yes. Kipp believed that it would be a good idea to have a
representative from the Parks &Recreation Department attend a Planning Commission meeting
to update the Commission on the trail system.
Hawkins recommended that all of the Staff recommendations not only include the request for
review but also for approval. He requested that the wordage be changed for clarity.
• 4
. Norman asked when the Church anticipated to begin construction. Pastor Mundahl replied as
soon as possible.
Allen Nicklay, 16011 Lake Shore Drive, stated that he was speaking for his wife and himself.
He said that they were not in opposition to the project but were concerned about the possible
vacation of Lake Shore Drive. Nicklay stated that his driveway would go from the existing 55
feet to over 330 feet. Nicklay was concerned about the upkeep of the driveway. Nicklay said
that their property would increase by 1/4 of an acre with no advantage to them except to increase
the length of the driveway and pay additional taxes. Nicklay believed that with the County Road
4 upgrade to 4 lanes with a median cut that traffic would be forced to use Berger Drive more
extensively. Nicklay stated that he had met with Staff to request that Lake Shore Drive be left
in place and terminate in the Church parking lot or curve to the south and intersect with Berger
Drive. Nicklay asked that Staff look at this further.
Hawkins asked Nicklay if he had talked with the present property owner to obtain their views
on these issues. Nicklay replied yes.
Nancy Nicklay, 16011 Lake Shore Drive, stated that the plan as proposed would create personal
problems for them. She added that they had asked Mr. Rogers not to sell the property to the
church; however, he so declined. Nicklay said that she was not opposed to having a church
developed on this property.
Hawkins asked if Nicklay if they were co-owners of the property. Nicklay replied that they
owned Lot 4. Nicklay was concerned about the possibility of a significant increase in taxes with
the increase of 1/4 of an acre.
Sandstad asked Nicklay if she would prefer to see a cul-de-sac. Nicklay replied that their first
preference would be a through street and the second would be a cul-de-sac. Nicklay said that
during a meeting with Al Gray from the Engineering Department he had said that Lake Shore
Drive as a through street was a possibility however, a cul-de-sac was not. She added that at a
later meeting with another member from the Engineering Department the first recommendation
was a cul-de-sac. Nicklay hoped that the Planning Commission could understand their
frustration. Sandstad asked why Lots 2 and 3 could not cul-de-sac to serve the 3 homes. Kipp
replied that one of the recommendations made to the Nicklay's was to have Lots 2 and 3 face
Lake Shore Drive; a flag lot was considered as well as a through street. Kipp stated that Staff
had requested that the Church and the landowners meet and agree on a solution. Kipp noted that
a through street would involve extra costs.
Sandstad believed that the plan would create negative impacts to the Nicklay property.
Norman asked if there were existing homes on Lots 2 and 3. Kipp replied no. Norman asked
why a cul-de-sac could not be developed. Kipp replied that a cul-de-sac would only serve 1 lot
and there was the question as to who would absorb the cost; was it to be entirely absorbed by
the Church. Kipp added that at the time of the drafting of the Staff Report it was believed that
• 5
• an acceptable solution had been reached between the landowners and the Church.
Bauer stated that he did not feel comfortable approving a project that has such a negative impact
on an existing property owner.
Kipp noted that Lake Shore Drive was a dirt road and was unimproved to this point.
Hallett asked where the Church and Mr. Rogers were at regarding this issue. Kipp replied that
Staff had not met with Mr. Rogers; the Nicklays had been relaying information from Mr.
Rogers.
Hawkins asked Nicklay if during the procedures if they were acting as legal representatives for
Mr. Rogers or simply communicating information. Nicklay replied they were only conveying
information.
Ervin stated that he and the Church had been in contact with the Nicklay's during the
proceedings and believed that the current plan had been acceptable. Ervin added that he was
surprised at the events tonight. Ervin asked Nicklay what the exact problem was. Nicklay
replied that the problem was with the additional taxes that they would be responsible for for the
rest of their lives and the maintenance of the extra driveway.
Franzen stated that alternative plans for access were being discussed and Staff was not in a
position to resolve these issues in a public meeting tonight.
Bauer recommended a continuance. Ervin stated that the Church had believed that all issues had
been resolved. He added that the Church would not be comfortable with proceeding until these
issues were resolved. Ervin said that a 30 day continuance would be acceptable.
Sandstad believed that the land use for Church was acceptable.
Bill Gilk, 8485 Red Oak Drive, representing Red Rock Shores, questioned the statement by Mr.
Nicklay related to a median on County Road 4. Kipp replied that it would be a median cut for
Lake Shore Drive. Gilk asked if you would be able to access to Berger Drive. Kipp replied
there would be an access point. Bauer noted that the plan for County Road 4 was a County plan
and not a City plan. Gilk questioned potential traffic problems. Kipp stated that he would
forward a copy of the correspondence from the County to Mr. Gilk.
Gilk stated that he supported the project with reservation. He noted that he owned property to
the north and requested consideration of a double row of evergreens along the northern property
line to screen his property. Gilk added that he would like to see the evergreens planted at the
beginning of the development process and not as a finishing touch.
Mark Olsen, Meadowvale & Berger Drive, stated that he owned development property to the
south of this proposal. Olsen was concerned about the traffic flow and how close the parking
• 6
• area would be to the residential area and what type of screening would be provided to the south.
Sandstad asked Olsen if were opposed to the project or only concerned with traffic and screening
issues. Olsen replied that he was not opposed but had concerns.
Steve Wagner, 8430 Eden Prairie Road, stated that he was surprised by comments on expansion
of County Road 4. Wagner said that his driveway would be impacted and believed the
comments to be premature. The County Road 4 expansion will also impact the trails. Kipp
replied that as part of the County Road 4 plan trails were proposed for both sides. Kipp added
that the contract had just been awarded.
Sandstad requested that the Planning Commission be provided with a concept plan regarding the
road and intersections.
Hawkins requested additional information also be provided on the trails.
Kipp stated that the screening issues would be addressed at the next meeting also.
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to continue this item to the February 10, 1992 Planning
Commission meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0.
• C. PRAIRIE GREEN OUTDOOR STORAGE by Birchwood Labs. Request of Birchwood Labs
for Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 District on 3 acres with variances to be reviewed
by the Board of Appeals and Site Plan Review on 3.0 acres for construction of an outdoor
storage facility to be known as Prairie Green Outdoor Storage. LOCATION: Southwest of
Fuller Road, south of Birchwood Labs, east of Lincoln Drive.
Franzen reported that the major question for consideration was if this type of development would
make sense in this location.
Brian Klutz, representing the proponent, stated that this property did not have street frontage;
the only access was from the end of the cul-de-sac. Klutz said that the adjacent property owner
believes that the current access is crossing his property. Klutz believed that the most sensitive
area was between the property and the residential area. He noted that the residential
homeowners had been contacted on 2 separate occasions and no response had been received.
Hallett asked if correspondence was sent to all property owners. Klutz replied that there were
only 5 to 6 homeowners who received the letters and plans.
Klutz noted that the security lighting would be minimal. Klutz stated that he had looked at the
possibility of increasing the setbacks as recommended by Staff; however, it would reduce the
amount of useable area approximately 30% and would impact the viability of the project. Klutz
recommended an increase in the setbacks bordering the residential area to 75 feet and leaving
the setbacks along the commercial area as proposed.
Sandstad asked how a lot was platted without street frontage. Franzen replied that there was no
information available on the history of this parcel.
Hawkins asked the possible height of the tallest vehicle which could be stored on the site. Klutz
replied that the main use would be recreational vehicles. He added that sailboats could be stored
but it would only be the mast that would be excessive in height.
Hallett asked if it was true that there was not other facility in the area for this type of storage.
Franzen replied yes.
Hallett asked if the City was asking for problems because of the requirements made for Frank's
Nursery. Franzen replied that it was a potential can of worms; however, the sections of City
Code are different for retail areas and commercial areas. Franzen stated that the question of this
type of use on this property if a first for this area. Staff believed that because the use was
strictly for storage visibility was not an issue. Hallett believed that this was a unique site and
that the use could very well be appropriate.
Bauer believed that this type of land use would be needed more and more in the future because
of the restrictions on the storage of recreational vehicles on private property. Bauer concurred
that this was a unique parcel and the use could be appropriate. Bauer was inclined to favor the
• project because of the lack of any objections from the neighbors.
Norman asked Klutz to describe the fence proposed. Klutz replied that the fence would be a 6-
foot high exterior fence.
Sandstad believed that just because there had been no feedback from the neighbors that this could
not be necessarily mean approval for the use. Sandstad further believed that if the project could
be effectively screened from the residential area that it could be an acceptable use.
Hawkins asked Klutz if he were in contact with Mr. Hay and if he had received any responses
from the letters. Klutz replied that as of today Mr. Hay had not received any responses.
Norman questioned security. Klutz replied that a caretaker lived on the Prairie Green facility.
Sandstad asked if the Police Department had voiced any concerns. Franzen replied that he
would contact the Public Safety Department for an opinion.
Norman asked exactly what the Commission would be voting on. Franzen replied that the
variances and the determination of a hardship case would be determined by the Board of
Appeals. The Planning Commission should consider if the land use if appropriate and if the
unique circumstances should allow for the use. Franzen noted that Prairie Green had approached
8
• the Board of Appeals in the past and transition had been an issue.
Sandstad stated that he would like to see screening focused to the west and south. He added that
the setback to the east was not as an important an issue as the screening.
Klutz noted that the area to the south was industrial.
Hallett asked if the plan would be affected if the driveway had to be moved. Franzen replied
that there were utility easements; however, the driveway could be shifted 20 feet to the north
if necessary.
Norman asked if fire access was available. Franzen replied yes.
MOTION 1:
Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Birchwood Labs for Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 District on 3.0 acres, with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for construction of an outdoor storage facility
to be known as Prairie Green Outdoor Storage, based on plans dated , 1991, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 10, 1992 and subject further to provisions
for screening to the west and south; nominal screening to the north and east, and determination
of the setbacks and road access. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Bauer moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request
of Birchwood Labs for Site Plan Review on 3.0 acres for construction of an outdoor storage
facility to be known as Prairie Green Outdoor Storage, based on plans dated , 1991, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 10, 1992, and subject further to
provisions for screening to the west and south; nominal screening to the north and east, and
determination of the setbacks and road access. Motion carried 6-0-0.
Sandstad asked what type of control the City had over the operation of the facility. Franzen
replied that operation would be dealt with under the Noise Ordinance. Bauer added that for
insurance reasons storage only would be allowed. Franzen added that the City Ordinance did
not allow for work on a vehicle outside of a building.
Franzen stated that the screening recommended by Staff for the area to the west talked of a berm
and fencing and asked Klutz if this was acceptable. Klutz asked if it would be acceptable to
allow for growth of plant screening and not require 100% coverage from day one.
• 9
Bauer recommended 100% coverage immediately.
Norman believed that 100% coverage was restrictive.
Franzen believed that it would make a difference as to how close the vehicles were parked to
the berm and the fence how much screening would be necessary.
Sandstad believed that 100% coverage immediately for the area to the west was important.
Franzen noted that the Board of Appeals and the City Council could have very different views
on these issues.
The Planning Commission concurred that solid screening was necessary to the west.
D. TACO BELL by Taco Bell Corporation. Request for Site Plan Review within the C-Reg-Ser
Zoning District on 0.56 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for
construction of a restaurant to be known as Taco Bell. LOCATION: Joiner Way, south of
Goodyear Tire.
John Ruggieri, representing the proponent, complimented Franzen on the Staff Report and the
amount of time Staff had spent on this proposal. He said that the request was for Site Plan
Approval with 3 variances. Ruggieri noted that the site was very small. Two of the variances
were required to allow for parking and the drive-thru. The third variance related to the trash
• enclosure. Ruggieri noted that additional landscaping was being provided and the proponent did
not have a problem with addition of 7 conifers as noted on Attachment C. Ruggieri stated that
the request for 17 feet of landscaping on Page 3 of the Staff Report would not be possible. The
proponent could provide 10 feet and if the sidewalk along Joiner Way were moved an additional
5 feet could be provided. Ruggieri said that if the entire 17 feet were required the drive-thru
would not be possible. He added that the proponent did not want to get any closer to Highway
169. Franzen replied that the drive-thru could be constructed without setbacks or the facility
could be moved closer to Highway 169. Franzen noted that Joiner.Way was a private road and
the sidewalk was on private property.
Franzen noted that a lot of the Taco Bell's used to be Zantigo's and adequate parking was not
available. Taco Bell wanted the drive-thru to go through the parking area and not on the street.
Ruggieri stated that Taco Bell was comfortable with only 1 entrance and exit. He added that
Taco Bell had questioned. if the drive-thru should be on the right or the left of the building.
Ruggieri stated that the plan as proposed allowed for the maximum amount of stacking for the
drive-thru.
Norman noted that the current plan would have cars coming from 2 separate areas to the drive-
thru location. Ruggieri replied that directional signs would be posted.
• 10
• Franzen believed that it was human nature for customers to not pay as much attention coming
out of a drive-thru. Franzen stated that 35 parking spaces were being provided. Franzen asked
Ruggieri how Taco Bell would deal with only 1 in and 1 out. Rorgery replied that the entrance
would be to the north and the exit would provide only an 18-foot area. He added that 2 parking
spaces would be lost. Ruggieri stated that Taco Bell would prefer to keep a 24-foot entrance.
Ruggieri noted that if 4 parking spaces were removed the single entrance and exit could work;
however, Taco Bell would prefer not to lose the parking spaces.
Ruggieri stated that the exterior building material would be 75% brick. The color of the brick
would match that of the Goodyear or Wendy's facility or would fall somewhere inbetween to
provide consistency. The mechanical units would be located on top of the building. Ruggieri
stated that this area was with the NSP easement which would require that 1.5 feet needed to be
cut from the roof deck of the building. The parapet would be 5 feet high.
Ruggieri stated that Staff was requesting a large trash enclosure based on past experiences from
other facilities within the City. He noted that the requirement would be approximately 30%
larger than any other Taco Bell site within the Twin City area.
Bauer noted that fast food restaurants were getting away from using styrofoam and, therefore,
generated less trash than before.
Ruggieri stated that the pylon sign could be moved back to meet City Code requirements.
Ruggieri noted that the logo was part of directional signs and if necessary Taco Bell would have
• the signs custom made to have the logo removed. He added that a sign plan would be
submitted to the City. Ruggieri noted that the lighting would match that of the neighboring
facilities. He stated that the civil engineer had concurred that there would be no interruption in
the utilities.
Franzen reported that this was a unique parcel with several limitations due to the irregular shape
and utility lines. Franzen noted that the Board of Appeals has granted similar variances for the
drive-thru window. The trash enclosure location would be more inconvenient for Taco Bell but
would save parking spaces. Franzen noted that the proponent concurred with the Staff
recommendations with the exception of the trash enclosure. Franzen noted that the size required
would be the same as Applebees and Staff would be comfortable with a reduction in the size.
He added that Staff would need to review operational material before a final decision could be
made on this item.
Hawkins recommended that when reviewing operational information the comparison be made
with facilities with the same amount of parking. Ruggieri replied that he did not have this type
of information at this time but it could be obtained. Ruggieri added that Taco Bell was resistant
to having a cover over the trash enclosure area. Franzen replied that when the trash enclosure
area was behind a facility it was not policed as well as when in the front.
Sandstad stated that he would comfortable with flexibility in the size.
11
Hallett was concerned about reducing the size. He added that what was approved was what the
i City had to live with.
Bauer recommended a continuance of the item to see more finalized plans. He recommended
a short presentation on changes only.
Hallett noted that this would be located on a very highly traveled road.
Norman stated that she could not approve the plan without dual entrances. She believed the
design would create traffic problems within the parking lot. Franzen noted that Arby's only had
1 entrance. He added that it was critical to be able to move within the parking area. Franzen
reported that the Taco Bell traffic varied from site to site. Franzen believed that the drive-thru
needed to be reviewed further.
Ruggieri stated that this plan had been worked to death. He added that extra time had been
taken to make the plan the best it could be before bringing it to the Planning Commission.
Ruggieri requested a determination tonight; he didn't know what else could be done. Ruggieri
believed that 50% of the traffic would be drive-thru on this site. Ruggieri believed that no
matter what site we would find there would be a backup problem at the drive-thru.
Bauer recommended a continuance to allow for a conclusion on the size of the trash enclosure
and the location of the drive-thru.
Franzen believed that this was the best plan. He added that the only item which would change
would be whether 1 or 2 driveway entrances would be needed.
Bauer recommended a continuance for 2 weeks with publication for the City Council as
scheduled. Bauer stated that he was comfortable with the landscaping and parking but would
like to know a definite size of the trash enclosure.
Norman was uncomfortable with the congestion in the parking lot.
Kardell believed that the majority of fast food facilities had congestion in their parking lots.
Franzen stated that a minimum of 23 unobstructed parking spaces needed to be provided to meet
City Code.
Sandstad asked if a traffic engineer could be consulted. Franzen replied that he did know how
much more information a traffic engineer could provide. He added that he did not have a
problem going to a consultant.
Bauer believed that due to the small size of the lot the request for a traffic consultant was too
much.
12
Sandstad questioned if too much was being placed in too small an area.
Hallett believed that it would be a restaurant use of some kind on this site.
Hawkins asked if the rectangular design of the building was set in stone. Ruggieri replied yes.
Ruggieri added that he would be comfortable with a 2 week continuance if the timing was kept
on track for the City Council.
MOTION 1:
Bauer moved, seconded by Hawkins to continue the public hearing for 2 weeks and publish for
the City Council. Motion carried 5-1-0. Sandstad voted "NO".
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. PLANNERS' REPORTS
VH. AD TO�NT
MOTION•
Kardell moved, seconded by Hallett to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 PM. Motion carried 6-0-0.
13