Planning Commission - 08/26/1991 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING CONEMSSION
Monday, August 26, 1991
7:30 p.m.
CONDUSSION 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
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
M. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. STARING HIGHLANDS 2ND ADDITION(91-21-P) by Tom Lofquist.
Request for Preliminary Plat of one acre into two single family lots within
the R1-22 Zoning District. - Location: north of Ridge Road, west of
Staring Lane East.
B. PRAIRIE COURT AMENDMENT (91-22-Z-SPR) by L. A. Donnay.
Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Neighborhood
Commercial Zoning District on 3.7 acres; Site Plan Review on 3.7 acres
for the addition of a gas pump and canopy facility to the Prairie Court
Shopping Center.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 1991 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: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Deb
Edlund, Recording Secretary
ROLL CALL: Bauer and Kardell absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Hallett to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0-0.
H. MEMBERS REPORTS
o. MINUTES
MOTION:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Hawkins to approve the Minutes of the August 12, 1991 Planning
Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0-1. Ruebling abstained.
MOTION:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Hawkins to approve the Minutes of the Special Planning
Commission meeting of August 19, 1991. Motion carried 5-0-0.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. PRAIRIE COURT AMENDMENT by L. A. Donnay. Request for Zoning District
Amendment within the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District on 3.7 acres; Site Plan
Review on 3.7 acres for the addition of a gas pump and canopy facility to the Prairie
Court Shopping Center. (A public hearing)
Kevin Roetering, leasing and property manager for the proponent, stated that a
neighborhood,meeting had been held approximately a year ago regarding the possible
introduction of gas pumps to this location. Roetering noted that concerns voiced by the
• neighbors had related to traffic, lighting, visualization of the canopy, and maintenance
Planning Commission
eugust 26, 1991 Page Two
of the green space. Roetering presented plans which had been revised after hearing the
concerns of the neighbors. The gas pumps had been moved to the far west end of the
shopping center, the parking area had been realigned, and new planting areas had been
added. Roetering said that the canopy would be constructed of the same material as the
exterior of the building. Roetering showed photos which illustrated that the canopy
would only be visible by one home to the west of the shopping center. The lighting
would be one-foot candles within 24 feet of the site. Roetering reported that a revised
traffic study had been conducted and the results concluded that the increase in traffic
would be minimal from the introduction of a convenience store with gas pumps. He
added that and increase of traffic for Sheldon Avenue would also be minimal. Roetering
believed that the proponent had addressed the major issues of concern by the neighbors.
Roetering noted that Donnay had a reputation for long-term business relationships and had
excellent relationships with neighbors in other existing facilities.
Sandstad asked if a gas tanker would be able to maneuver the turn onto the site.
Roetering replied that this had been checked by Pump &Meter. Sandstad requested that
Staff double check with the City Engineering Department to make sure that a tanker could
make the turn safely.
• Ruebling asked what percentage of the present facility was leased. Roetering replied that
approximately 35%-was currently leased. He added that the 35% did not include the
convenience store.
Norman asked if there was a turn lane onto County Road 4. Roetering replied that there
was not a separate turn lane. Franzen noted that a turn could be made onto Wagner
Way. Norman questioned if this project would not delay traffic even more on County
Road 4. Franzen replied that it would depend on the amount of green time allowed on
the signal light. He added that there was a double left turn lane onto Highway 5.
Franzen reported that when Staff had been approached approximately a year ago the
original proposal for the location of the gas pumps and canopy resulted in the loss of
several parking spaces. The proponent had since revised the plan to include a new
parking lot design and the location of the gas pumps revised to interface with the internal
circulation of the facility. The traffic study had been updated. There was a question as
to how much traffic would use Sheldon Avenue to the north. The results of the new
traffic study indicated that approximately 100 additional trips to and from the center
during peak hours would occur with the development of this project. Franzen noted that
the plan met City Code requirements related to parking, setbacks, etc. Staff was
concerned about the visibility of the gas pumps to the north. Franzen stated that the
canopy would sit at a lower elevation than the homes and the home on the corner to the
. west would have visibility of the pumps and canopy. He added that there would be no
Planning Commission
Wugust 26, 1991 Page Three
physical way to screen the pumps and canopy form County Road 4. Franzen said that
lighting was always a concern; however, with the use of the canopy flat lenses would be
required which reduced the light extensively. Franzen believed that the introduction of
gas pumps and a canopy would impact the existing neighborhood. Franzen reported that
the traffic study talked about minimizing traffic on Sheldon Avenue. He added that Staff
did not have a good handle on the existing traffic from the center. Franzen presented two
options for action; if the Commission believed that the impacts could be mitigated by the
Staff Recommendations A through E, the Commission could recommend approval;
however, if the Commission believed that the impacts could not be mitigated it would be
appropriate for the Commission to recommend denial of the project in its present form.
Hawkins asked if the facility would be open 24 hours a day. Franzen replied yes.
Norman asked if Little Red still operated gas pumps. Franzen replied that Little Red had
two pumps in operation.
Walt Lusian, 16275 Sheldon Avenue, requested the project be denied. Lusian said that
he had been present when the original plan for the project had been reviewed by the City
Council and the proponent had stated that the facility was to be a professional building
with mainly office facilities. He added that originally retail was only to be presented as
a last resort. Lusian noted that what had been constructed was a strip mall. He believed
that the proposed project would cater mainly to the residents north of Highway 5 and also
that it would be the same residents which were now served by Little Red. Lusian
disputed that traffic study finding and believed that there would be a significant traffic
increase on Sheldon Avenue. Lusian noted that the proponent had not been responsive
to the neighborhoods requests and did not return phone calls related to existing problems
with garbage in the yards and landscaping which had not been replaced as required by
the original proposal. Lusian was also concerned with the environmental impact of gas
pumps in this area adjacent to the pond.
Ruebling asked if an environmental impact statement would be required. Franzen replied
that an environmental impact statement was not required because of the size of the
project.
Todd Slawson, 16176 Sheldon Avenue, requested denial of the project. Slawson was
concerned about traffic. He noted that he had seen people use Sheldon Avenue to access
County Road 4. Slawson added that the intersection had seen many accidents because it
was difficult to see oncoming traffic at Sheldon Avenue and Wagner Way. He believed
that it would be difficult to make a turn onto Wagner Way. Slawson concurred with
Lusian regarding the trash containment. He added that a lot of debris blows throughout
Tanning Commission
,.,Planning
26, 1991 Page Four
the neighborhood from the shopping center. Slawson stated that this was originally
proposed as a profession office development. Slawson questioned the need for this type
of facility at this location. He believed that the Super America station and �Ittle Red
served the neighborhood adequately.
Janet Hipp, 16248 Sheldon Avenue, presented the Commission with a petition with over
100 signatures against the project. Hipp noted that Wagner Way and Sheldon Avenue
was the main stop for the school bus for the elementary children and was concerned for
the safety of the children. She was also concerned about the children going down into
the cul-de-sac area from Sheldon Avenue because the would have to go past this facility.
Hipp was concerned about loitering around the facility late at night if it were open 24
hours a day. Hipp concurred with the previous statements and concerns expressed by the
neighbors which had already spoken.
Jay Bohlen, 16200 Sheldon Avenue, requested denial of the project. He stated that he
• lived at the corner of Sheldon and Wagner Way and he had to pick up trash every night
from the existing facility. Bohlen was concerned about a concrete slab and if a spill did
occur the asphalt would deteriorate quickly. Bohlen noted that the maintenance on the
• current facility had been slow. Bohlen had also believed that the facility would be
constructed as a professional office building. He was concerned about potential car fires
and how the safety of the neighborhood could be insured.
Doug Chesney, 16272 Sheldon Avenue, stated that he also was at the meeting when the
original proposal was reviewed in 1986. Chesney stated opposition to a gas station in this
neighborhood. He added that the Super America station was the largest gas station in
Eden Prairie and questioned the need for another station in the area. Chesney believed
there would be an increase in air, noise, and light pollution. Chesney also believed that
traffic would be increased significantly. Chesney further believed that Eden Prairie
would get an unused gas station in an unoccupied facility in an unhappy neighborhood.
Randy Dertinger, 16370 Westgate Terrace, stated that he would not like to see any pumps
or canopy developed on this site. He believed that making left or right hand turns in this
area would be difficult. Dertinger was concerned about trucks delivering gas to this area.
He added that spills did happen during deliveries and was concerned about the smell of
gas fumes. Dertinger believed that traffic noise would increase in the neighborhood.
Dertinger noted that it was already difficult for pedestrian traffic to cross County Road
4. Dertinger hoped that the Commission would take the neighborhood's concerns to
heart.
• Lee Clark, 16065 Sheldon Avenue, spoke to the Commission via a sign language
interpreter. He said that he had enjoyed living on Sheldon Avenue and was concurred
WTanning Commission
ugust 26, 1991 Page Five
with the concerns expressed by the other neighbors which had spoken. Clark stated that
.he was opposed to gas pumps in this area no matter what.
Hawkins asked Clark what he had noticed about the changes in the residential area traffic
on Sheldon since the development of the shopping center. Clark replied that many more
people were making u-turns. Hawkins then asked if there were many children in the
Sheldon Avenue area. Clark replied that there were several children in the neighborhood.
Michael Smith, 16056 Sheldon Avenue, believed that the neighbors concerns were valid.
Smith was also concerned about the property values in the neighborhood and hoped that
the Commission took into consideration these values in lieu of trying to help out a
developer which can not lease the existing facility. �.
Linette Koralewski, 16158 Sheldon Avenue, stated that she lived in the 2nd house in
toward the east and the patio doors faced the east. She believed that the only way to stop
the visual impact for her home would be to build a two-story wall. Koralewski said that
there were three licensed day care centers in this area and was concerned about the safety
• of all the children in the neighborhood.
Hawkins asked Koralewski what part of the facility she would be able to see from her
home. Koralewski replied that she would be able to see the entire parking lot.
Steve Herrmann, 16395 Sheldon Avenue, stated that his home would be directly behind
the gas pumps. He noted that it was already impossible to get to the neighborhood park
and believed that the same will happen on Sheldon Avenue with the increase in traffic.
Herrmann was concerned about the safety of the children in the day care centers.
Herrmann stated that he had complained about the styrofoam on the back of the building
to both the proponent and the City with no results. He added that he also has to pick up
garbage continuously from the existing shopping center.
Hawkins asked if the day care centers were licensed and how many children were
involved. Hipp replied that each of the centers was licensed for 10 children each.
Rhonda Lewis, 16128 Sheldon Avenue, stated that she lived on the cul-de-sac and traffic
had even picked up in the cul-de-sac since the construction of the existing shopping
center. Lewis was concerned about truck traffic in the area.
Hawkins asked what Lewis believed was the cause of the increase in traffic. Lewis
replied that the light was very long at the intersection and the shopping center itself.
WTanning Commission
ugust 26, 1991 Page Six
Nancy Rossberg, 16227 Sheldon Avenue, stated that the apartment building across from
the shopping center was for the elderly and she was concerned about the increase in noise
and its impact on the elderly residents. Rossberg said that she had built a fence to help
reduce the trash which blew into her yard. She noted that it was already noisy in the
neighborhood and traffic had increased.
Paul Scheper, 16299 Sheldon Avenue, stated opposition to the project. He was
concerned about traffic backing up from Wagner Way onto County Road 4. Scheper was
also concerned about the tanker traffic and the ability to make the turn.
Ruebling reviewed the concerns voiced by the neighbors as the following: noise,
lighting, two issues related to traffic; volume and stacking problems, trucks being able
to negotiate the turns into the facility, possible spillage of gasoline, potential car fires
(need information from the Fire Marshall), trash containment from the existing facility,
slow response from the proponent related to complaints from neighbors, landscaping not
replaced as per original proposal, difficulty of pedestrian traffic crossing County Road
4, traffic light at Wagner Way and County Road 4 not timed well, decrease in property
values, concern for the safety of the children in the neighborhood and the three day care
centers, and the question of a need for another gas station in this area.
Sandstad asked Franzen where a screen wall would be located and how tall it would be.
Franzen replied that the wall would extend from the property line to the north and would
need to be approximately 15-18 feet high to be effective. Sandstad questioned if this
would block most of the view. Franzen replied that Staff believed that the wall would
mitigate most of the view; however, definite site line studies would be necessary.
Norman stated that it was already difficult to get to the high school and community center
because of the light on Wagner Way and County Road 4. Ruebling added that the traffic
lights were closer together than in any other area in Eden Prairie. Ruebling noted that
there were construction problems which enhanced the problem currently.
Slawson questioned if the screen wall would obstruct the sight line going onto County
Road 4.
Lusian stated that the senior citizens are already having a difficult time crossing County
Road 4. Lusian hoped the Commission would take into consideration the 160 signatures
on the petition in opposition of gas pumps in the area.
Koralewski stated that she lived in a split level home and would still be able to see over
• the screen wall.
lanning Commission
ugust 26, 1991 Page Seven
Ruebling advised the Commission of the three possible options; approval, denial, or
continuance.
Hallett stated that he had been on the Planning Commission during the original proposal
in 1986 when the proponent had proposed an office-professional building with limited
retail space. He questioned if the plan would have been approved if the potential of gas
pumps had been mentioned at that time. Hallett noted that at one time a walkway over
County Road 4 had been considered for the senior citizens. Hallett stated that he would
have difficulty approving any project would increase traffic in this area. Hallett believed
there were enough gas stations in the area.
Sandstad concurred with Commissioner Hallett's statements and added that there were too
many negative impacts to justify approval of the proposal. Sandstad was concerned about
the potential for an increase in traffic on Sheldon Avenue.
Ruebling asked if the City had any actual traffic counts to verify the amount of traffic
currently. Franzen replied no actual counts; only projections.
• Sandstad questioned if there was anything the City could do to improve traffic in this
area.
Hawkins asked Franzen if the traffic consultant was hired by the City or the proponent.
Franzen replied the consultant was hired by the City. Hawkins believed that the traffic
on Sheldon Avenue would increase more than projected and did not believe that the
proponent had presented adequate proof to overcome the neighborhoods objections.
Hawkins recommended denial of the project.
Norman stated that she would strongly vote to deny any gas station in this area. Norman
said this area was Eden Prairie's old downtown area and believed that it should be
preserved and maintained. She added that this area was very visible.
Ruebling stated that he had also been on the Commission during the original proposal
review in 1986. He said that he did not want this facility to become another Outlet
Center. Ruebling believed that there were several issues which specific answers were not
available at this time and wanted to see further information before making a hard and fast
decision. Ruebling believed that the neighbors had presented valid concerns.
MOTION 1:
Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
W,,,Planning Commission
ugust 26, 1991 Page Eight
MOTION 2:
Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council denial of the
request of L. A. Donnay for Zoning District Amendment within the Neighborhood
Commercial District and Site Plan Review, all on 3.7 acres, for an addition to the Prairie
Courts Shopping Center of a gas pump and canopy facility, with plans dated August 21,
1991, based on the following findings:
1. Increase in traffic on Wagner Way and Sheldon Avenue.
2. - Air and noise pollution.
3. Inability to screen gas pumps from residential areas to the north.
4. Traffic safety on Wagner Way and Sheldon Avenue.
5. Difficulty of access and maneuvering for tanker trucks from County Road 4 to
• Wagner Way.
6. Visibility of lights from canopy could not be screened.
7. Traffic congestion at Highway 5 and County Road 4 intersection.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
Ruebling informed the residents that this item would still proceed to the City Council and
there could be a chance that the City 'Council would approve the project. Ruebling
requested that if the plan were,approved by the City Council that it be brought back to
the Planning Commission.
Roetering stated that many of the neighbors concerns were valid; but, the existing traffic
problems in the area were not a direct result of the shopping center and did not believe
that this proposal should be penalized. Roetering said the proponent would be happy to
provide the Planning Commission with actual traffic counts. He added that the Planning
Commission was taking the word of the residents over that of a profession traffic
consultant. Roetering noted that this would not be a gas station, but rather a convenience
store with gas pumps. Roetering said that he had talked with many of the senior citizens
which were looking forward to a convenience store in this location because of the traffic.
Roetering believed that many of the questions could be verified by more data.
a
WkTanning Commission
ugust 26, 1991 Page Nine
Hallett was concerned about a convenience store being successful in this location.
Norman believed that other uses would bring more business to the area.
B. STARING HIGHLANDS 2ND ADDITION by Tom Lofquist. Request for Preliminary
Plat of one acre into two single family lots within the R1-22 Zoning District. Location:
North of Ridge Road, west of Staring Lane East. (A public hearing)
Tom Lofquist, proponent, presented plans to divide the one acre parcel into two parcels
to construct single-family homes. Lofquist stated that he and his partner were excavators
and builders.
Sandstad asked if two homes would be constructed or if one home was existing., Lofquist
stated that this would be the construction of two new homes.
Norman asked where the driveways would be located. Lofquist replied the driveways
would exit onto Staring Lane. Norman asked if the driveways could exit onto Gopher
. Lane. Lofquist replied that this would not be feasible.
Lofquist believed that this project would be a definite improvement to the area.
Sandstad asked why the home was set so far west on the lot. Lofquist replied that he had
been the builder of the home to the left and in consideration of the existing neighbors
spectacular view had located the home to the west.
Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the project based on the
recommendations outlined in the Staff Report. He noted that the plan would need to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals.
MOTION 1:
Norman moved, seconded by Hawkins to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Norman moved, seconded by Hawkins to recommend to the City Council approval of the
request of Tom Lofquist for Preliminary Plat of 1.01 acre into two single family lots
based on plans dated August 23, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated August 23, 1991. Motion carried 5-0-0.
�lanning Commission
ugust 26, 1991 Page Ten
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS
Norman suggested that the Planning Commission be given better maps to see exactly where the
projects were located.
VU. AD TOURNMENT
MOTION:
Hallett moved, seconded by Norman to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM. Motion carried 5-0-0.