Planning Commission - 11/25/1991 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
}Monday, November 25, 1991
'407 30 p.m.
COMNIISSION 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
H. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. TACO BELL (91-27-SPR) 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.
B. BRAXTON POND (91-29-Z-P) by Westar Properties, Inc. Request for Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 3.6 acres; and Preliminary Platting of 3.6 acres into
six single family lots and road right-of-way to be known as Braxton Pond. Location:
south and west of the terminus of existing Braxton Drive.
C. LORENCE 3RD ADDITION (91-30-Z-P) by Peter Knaeble. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 0.07 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 0.87 acres
into two single family lots and one outlot to be known as Lorence 3rd Addition.
Location: southeast corner of Valley View Road and Hames Way.
D. DEVAAN PROPERTY (91-32-Z) by Herbert DeVaan. Request for Zoning District
Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 0.58 acres for construction of a single family home.
Location: Lot 7, Block 2, Lake Trail Estates.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, NOW-AMER 259 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: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Deb Edlund,
Recording Secretary
ROLL CALL: Bauer absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Hawkins to approve the Agenda as published.
Motion carried 6-0-0.
H. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Norman moved, seconded by Hawkins to approve the Minutes of the October 28,
1991 Planning Commission meeting with the following correction:
The time of the meeting should be changed to begin
at 8:00 PM.
Motion carried 3-0-3. Hallett, Kardell and Sandstad abstained.
MOTION:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Kardell to approve the Minutes of the November
4, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 4-0-2.
Hallett and Hawkins abstained.
Planning Commission
November 26, 1991 Page 2
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. TACO BELL (91-27-SPR) 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. (A continued public hearing)
Franzen reported that the proponent had requested a continuance to the
December 9, 1991 Planning Commission meeting.
Ruebling noted that this had been the third request for a continuance.
Hawkins asked why there had been so many requests for continuance.
Franzen replied that Staff had been working with Taco Bell for several
months on the project. He added that the site plan was tight because of
the size and shape of the site. Franzen noted that the proponent would
• either have a plan available at the next meeting or would withdraw their
request.
Hawkins was concerned that possibly residents had attended that last 3
meetings regarding this issue and had been inconvenienced by the requests
for continuance. Franzen replied that the property was with a commercial
area and Staff had not received any inquiries on this project.
MOTION:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Hawkins to continue to the December 9,
1991, Planning Commission with the understanding that this will be the
last opportunity for a continuance of this item, if plans are not available
for review the item will be returned to the proponent without prejudice.
Motion carried 6-0-0.
B. BRAXTON POND (91-29-Z-P) by Westar Properties, Inc. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 3.6 acres; and
Preliminary Platting of 3.6 acres into six single family lots and road right-
of-way to be known as Braxton Pond. Location: South and west of the
terminus of existing Braxton Drive. (A public hearing)
Planning Commission
November 26, 1991 Page 3
Ron Bastyr, representing the proponent, stated that the proposal was for
6 single family lots. The proponent concurred with the Staff
recommendations.
Franzen reported that the proposed site had been guided low density for
several years. Braxton Drive would become the access to the elementary
school. The proposal was in compliance with the R1-13.5 zoning
requirements. Franzen noted that the timing of the project had to be done
in conjunction with the Braxton Drive construction and Westar Lane would
be a temporary cul-de-sac. Staff recommended approval of the project
subject to the Staff recommendations.
Sandstad asked if Braxton Drive existed currently north of the proposed
site. Franzen replied that Braxton Drive would run from County Road 1
to Scenic Heights Road and added that Braxton drive did not exist north
of the site at this time.
iRuebling asked if Westar Lane aligned with School Drive. Franzen
replied no. Bastyr added that Westar Lane was approximately 500 feet to
the north of School Drive.
Ruebling noted that 1 of the homes would have access directly onto
Braxton Drive and asked if there would be other in the future. Franzen
replied that Braxton Drive would be a local collector which can
accommodate a limited number of driveways.
MOTION 1:
Norman moved, seconded by Hallett to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Norman moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Westar-Properties, Inc., for Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 3.6 acres, to be known as Braxton
Pond, based on plans dated November 15, 1991, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 22, 1991. Motion
carried 6-0-0.
Planning Commission
• November 26, 1991 Page 4
MOTION 3:
Norman moved, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Westar Properties, Inc., for Preliminary Plat of
3.6 acres into six (6) single family lots and road right-of-way to be known
as Braxton Pond, based on plans dated November 15, 1991, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 22, 1991. Motion
carried 6-0-0.
C. LORENCE 3RD ADDITION(91-30-Z-P)by Peter Knaeble. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 0.07 acres; and
Preliminary Plat of 0.87 acres into two single family lots and one outlot
to be known as Lorence 3rd Addition. Location: Southeast corner of
Valley View Road and Hames Way. (A public hearing)
Peter Knaeble, the proponent, presented to subdivide a 1 acre lot into 2
lots. He added that a home presently existed on the western portion of the
iproperty and the plan was to subdivide the property to create a buildable
lot to the east.
Norman asked how close the existing home was to Round Park. Knaeble
replied the park was approximately 75 to 80 feet from the back of the
existing home. He added that the existing driveway actually went through
park property.
Hawkins asked if the existing home was considered an historical building.
Knaeble replied that the home was constructed in the early 1900's and
would be maintained in its current state.
Ruebling asked-if there would be enough room to provide a turn-around
on the property. Knaeble replied yes.
Ron Harvey, 7335 Hames Way, stated that he lived adjacent to the
proposed site and stressed the need to be sensitive to the trees on the site.
He added that after seeing the plans he believed that Knaeble had
addressed the issue adequately. Knaeble replied that only one 11" cedar
tree would be removed from the site.
Norman asked if it would be possible to have the existing driveway
iremoved and use a combined driveway for the two lots. Knaeble replied
Planning Commission
November 26, 1991 Page 5
that the City's engineering department had recommended that the existing
driveway be left in place. Norman believed that to go west from the
driveway would be almost impossible and questioned the use of a joint
driveway. Franzen added that the critical issue was where the driveway
was in relation to Hames Way intersection. Knaeble replied that the drive
would be approximately 145 feet from the intersection. Franzen added
that the provision for a turn-around was a good recommendation.
Sandstad asked if a turn-around would be provided on the second lot.
Knaeble replied that he wouldn't know that until an exact builder had be
determined.
MOTION 1•
Hallett moved, seconded by Kardell to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Hallett moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Peter Knaeble for Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-13.5 on 0.07 acre, to be known as Lorene 3rd Addition,
based on plans dated November 22, 1991, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated November 22, 1991 with the addition of
Recommendation#3 for the provision of a turn-around on Lot 2. Motion
carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Hallett moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Peter Knaeble for Preliminary Plat of 0.87 acre
into two (2) single family lots and one outlot to be known as Lorence 3rd
Addition, based on plans dated November 22, 1991, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 22, 1991 with the
addition of Recommendation #3 for the provision of a turn-around on Lot
2. Motion carried 6-0-0.
D. DEVAAN PROPERTY (91-32-Z) by Herbert DeVaan. Request for
Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 0.58 acre for
Planning Commission
November 26, 1991 Page 6
construction of a single family home. Location: Lot 7, Block 2, Lake
Trail Estates. (A public hearing)
Herbert DeVaan, the proponent, stated that he had a signed purchase
agreement for the property if the property could be rezoned for single-
family use. He noted that there was another single-family lot adjacent to
this lot.
Sandstad asked if there were duplexes to the east of the proposed site.
DeVaan replied that there were 2 duplexes in the cul-de-sac and the
balance of the homes were single-family.
DeVaan stated that he had originally planned to construct a double home
on the lot; however, the present builder planned to construct a single-
family home.
Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the proposal based
on the Staff recommendations. He added that the lots needed to be
combined and the existing utilities needed to be abandoned.
DeVaan stated that he had already gone through the process to combine
the lots.
Sandstad asked if there was a berm to the east of the site. DeVaan replied
that the berm was constructed by the original developer.
Richard Kettler, 7790 Carnelian Lane, stated that according to the City
another berm could not be placed on the property because of the close
proximity to the highway. Kettler believed that the noise level was too
high for construction of anything on this lot.
Sandstad asked Kettler where he lived. Kettler replied that he lived in the
duplex to the east, approximately 50 feet from the existing highway.
Hawkins asked Kettler if it was highway noise that he was concerned
about. Kettler replied yes.
DeVaan stated that he had talked with another resident in the neighborhood
who had indicated that the noise level was not a major issue.
Planning Commission
• November 26, 1991 Page 7
Hawkins asked Kettler if the noise level had increased recently. Kettler
replied that the noise had increased in the past few weeks since the
highway had been opened up.
Franzen noted that the possible closure of Heritage Lane would be
discussed at the December 3, 1991 City Council meeting.
Norman questioned why anyone would want to construct a home on this
parcel. DeVaan replied that the property was being sold for approximately
half of any other parcel in Eden Prairie.
Sandstad stated that there were many things during the construction of a
new home which could reduce the noise problem.
Hawkins asked if either Kettler or DeVaan had been contacted by the State
regarding condemnation for Highway 5. DeVaan replied no, the only
thing that was offered was $100 for egress damage.
Ruebling stated that road noise traveled a long way.
Hallett believed that DeVaan had the right to develop his property.
Kardell believed that the buyer had to be aware of the problem.
Sandstad believed that the price of the property reflected that a problem
existed.
Mrs. Kettler, 7790 Carnelian Lane, stated that they were not opposed to
development of the property. She added that they had tried to sell their
home 3 times unsuccessfully.
MOTION 1•
Kardell moved, seconded by Hawkins to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Kardell moved, seconded by Hawkins to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Herbert DeVaan for Zoning District Change
• Planning Commission
November 26, 1991 Page 8
from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 0.58 acre, to be known as DeVaan Addition,
for construction of a single family house, based on plans dated October
25, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
November 22, 1991. Motion carried 6-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
Hallett believed that the Viking Center was extremely large, highly visible and
looked like a tin shed.
Franzen stated that the building had been moved further back from Washington
Avenue to save trees and the developer had been held responsible for full tree
replacement on the property. Franzen believed that the building was more visible
than originally expected.
Hallett believed it would help if the front of the building were dressed up a little.
Hallett questioned the use of 2 different color bricks on the post-office. Hallett
added that the screening was done poorly.
Franzen noted that the Post Office had informed the City that they would go
through the process as a formality but the Federal Supremacy Act overruled any
City requirements.
Hallett believed that the project had not been done in the usual Eden Prairie
quality.
Norman questioned if the Planning Commission had actually seen the brick
samples used on the Cub Food building. She had not remembered the salt and
pepper color. Norman was also concerned about the close proximity to the road.
Franzen replied that the close proximity to the road had been discussed during the
meeting. It was due to the enclosed loading area.
Norman asked if more of the major roads could be marked on the maps to help
identify the proposed site locations.
Franzen reported that the City had been asked to consider the possibility of
student members on the various commissions and what role they might play in the
process.
Planning Commission
November 26, 1991 Page 9
Norman asked if the students would be able to vote. Franzen replied that would
not be allowed to vote, but would participate openly in the plan discussions.
Ruebling stated that the School Boards had 1 to 2 students attend their meeting.
Hallett believed it would be a great experience.
Norman believed that it would be a large commitment for a young adult and
recommended that the terms be short or have several students rotate.
Ruebling concurred that it would be a good opportunity.
Kardell asked if this would be part of a specific class requirement. Franzen
replied that it could be a special credit project.
Hawkins asked if the students would participate during the summer months.
Franzen replied that he was not sure at this time. Hallett believed that the
students should participate during the summer and accept full responsibility and
run for a full term to see all the ups and downs of the job.
Hawkins recommended two members for six month terms.
Franzen stated that a new Wetland Conservation Act was under consideration.
This would affect the review of plans adjacent to wetland areas. He added there
would be additional requirements on projects adjacent to the wetlands. Franzen
noted that the City had already considered the possibility of a Wetland Ordinance.
The main problem was the different agencies arriving at a concurrence on the
exact definition of a wetland. One of the requirements'would be that if fill was
done in a wetland area an equal amount of wetland area would need to constructed
within that Watershed District. Franzen noted that the wetland property could go
down in value. Franzen reported that the Planning Commission would be briefed
after the first of the year on how to review plan in accordance with the new State
Regulations. He added that basically in Eden Prairie the development had stayed
away from wetland areas. Franzen stated that the new NX.R.P. ponds created
cleaner water going into the wetland areas.
Sandstad believed that this was important for Eden Prairie because of the number
of wetlands in existence.
Planning Commission
November 26, 1991 Page 10
Hawkins asked about the wetland next to Flagship. Franzen replied that at one
time the entire area had been agricultural.
Franzen believed that the 90's would bring about many environmental issues for
City Staff to review. These new laws would help to preserve the natural character
of the land.
VI. PLANNER'S REPORTS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION•
Hallett moved, seconded by Sandstad to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 PM. Motion
carried 6-0-0.