Planning Commission - 02/12/1990 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, February 12, 1990
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard
Anderson, Tim Bauer, Christine Dodge,
Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Doug
Standstad.
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael
Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram,
Assistant Planner; Scott Kipp, Assistant
Planner, Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary.
Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
*NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED BELOW ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE
SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER. OR LATER THAN LISTED.
7: 35 A. EDENVALE INDUSTRIAL PARK, 8TH ADDITION, by James
Bergin. Request for Preliminary Platting of 4.7
acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot with lot frontage
variance to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals.
Location: Northwest corner of Corporate Way and
Martin Drive. A public hearing.
7:40 B. EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER, 8TH ADDITION, by Robert Larsen
Partners, Inc. Request for Preliminary Platting of
8.2 acres into 2 lots. Location: East of Highway
169 and north of Prairie Center Drive. A public
hearing.
7:45 C. ALPINE CENTER, by Lariat Companies. Request for
Planned Unit Development District Review on
approximately 18 acres, Zoning District Change from
Office to C-Reg-Ser and Site Plan Review on 3 .58
acres for construction of a 29, 500 square foot
retail center. Location: Northeast corner of
Prairie Center Drive and Commonwealth Drive. A
continued public hearing.
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, February 12, 1990
Page 2
8:15 D. MCDONALDS, by McDonald's Corporation. Request for
Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning
District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning
District on 1.4 acres with waiver for parking
setback, Site Plan Review on 1.4 acres, Preliminary
Plat of 8.2 acres into 2 lots for construction of
a fast food restaurant. Location: East of Highway
#169, north of Prairie Center Drive. A public
hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
•
• AG021290
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1990 7: 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard
Anderson, Tim Bauer, Christine Dodge,
Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling,
Doug Sandstad.
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning;
Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don
Uram, Assistant Planner; Deb Edlund,
Recording Secretary.
ROLL CALL: All members present.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to approve the Agenda
• as published. Motion carried 6-0-0.
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the January 22 , 1990 Planning Commission
Meeting.
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Bauer to approve the
Minutes of the January 22, 1990 Planning Commission
meeting as published and amended.
CORRECTION•
Motion for approval of the Agenda should read:
Motion carried 4-0-0.
Motion carried 4-2-0. Dodge and Anderson abstained.
•
1
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. EDENVALE INDUSTRIAL PARK, 8TH ADDITION, by James Bergin.
Request for Preliminary Platting of 4.7 acres into 1 lot
and 1 outlot with lot frontage variance to be reviewed
by the Board of Appeals. Location: Northwest corner of
Corporate Way and Martin Drive. A public hearing.
Ron Krueger, representing the proponent, was available
for questions.
Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the
project as per the Staff Report dated February 9, 1990.
The proponent would need to appear before the Board of
Appeals to request a variance for a lot width of less
than 200 feet prior to review of the project by the City
Council.
MOTION 1•
Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0.
• MOTION 2 •
Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of James Bergin for
Preliminary Plat of 4.7 acres into one lot and one
outlot, with a frontage variance to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals, for Edenvale Industrial Park 8th
Addition, based on plans dated January 12 , 1990, subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February
9, 1990. Motion carried 6-0-0.
B. EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER, 8TH ADDITION, by Robert Larsen
Partners, Inc. Request for Preliminary Platting of 8.2
acres into 2 lots. Location: East of Highway 169 and
north of Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing.
Kelly Doran, representing the proponent, was available
for questions.
Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the
project based on the recommendations outlined in the
Staff Report dated February 9, 1990.
Sandstad arrived at 7:35 PM.
• 2
A
• MOTION 1:
Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 2 •
Dodge moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Robert Larsen
Partners, Inc. , for Preliminary Plat of 8.2 acres into
two lots for Eden Prairie Center 8th Addition, based on
plans dated January 18, 1990, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 9,
1990. Motion carried 6-0-0.
C. ALPINE CENTER, by Lariat Companies. Request for Planned
Unit Development District Review on approximately 18
acres, Zoning District Change from Office to C-Reg-Ser
and Site Plan Review on 3 .58 acres for construction of
a 29,551 square foot retail center. Location: Northeast
corner of Prairie Center Drive and Commonwealth Drive.
A continued public hearing.
Ed Flaherty, representing the proponent, stated that the
project had been presented to the Planning Commission in
detail at a previous meeting. Changes in the plan had
• been necessary to accommodate the requirement for 150
seats in the restaurant to acquire a liquor license,
which affected the parking requirements. Flaherty added
that easements would be necessary for grading and proof
of parking; however, at this time arrangements to acquire
these easements from the adjacent property owners had not
been possible.
Richard Waldorski, representing the proponent, stated
that circulation was a major change on the plan. A
service corridor would be provided. A 3-to-1 slope and
a retaining wall would be provided between this project
and the adjacent property. Waldorski stated that this
plan showed 192 parking spaces and added that 193 spaces
could be accommodated if the greenspace were reduced.
Flaherty stated that the patio was only a concept at this
time and was subject to revisions. The patio was
designed to accommodate 80 seats; however, this would
probably be reduced to 50 seats.
Tim Widel, representing the proponent, stated that the
integrity of the project was still in tact. The streets
would be tree lined, historical lighting throughout the
• 3
project, and the architecture would be the historical
prairie design. The parapet would be raised to screen
the mechanical rooftop units. Widel stated that the
patio could be surrounded by a low height brick wall and
added that planting would help to screen the patio from
the street.
Hallett asked if the screening and the wall would create
a noise barrier for the customers from the street
traffic. Flahgerty added that the wall would be
approximately 6 feet high. Widel added that the number
of caliper inches of plantings could be increased to
provide additional screening.
Rick Webb, owner of the proposed restaurant, stated that
he had been in business for over 15 years. He added that
the patio would have the same concept as that of
Windfield Potters. Webb believed that the plantings
would adequately screen the patio.
Hallett asked if the patio area would be lit at night.
Webb replied that the lighting would be low. Webb added
that based on past experience at Winfield Potters the
patio would only be used approximately 91 day a year.
Webb believed that the parking requirement would not be
affected by the patio because when the weather was nice
• customers preferred to sit outside instead of inside;
however, the number of customers at any given time did
not necessarily increase. Flaherty concurred with Webb
that when the outdoor seating would be full the inside
of the facility would not be as busy.
Dodge asked how the proponent would handle the parking
if both locations would fill to capacity. Flaherty
replied that based on past experience this would happen
on very rare occasions.
Hallett stated that he believed that the restaurant would
be filled to capacity often. Flaherty replied that once
Chi Chi's was constructed the competition in the area
would reduce the likelihood that the restaurant would
fill to capacity. Hallett believed that the restaurant
would be very busy on numerous occasions and was
concerned that customers would be parking on the streets.
Flagherty replied that he had tried to acquire proof-of-
parking rights from the adjacent property owner; however,
at this time the owner was uncooperative. Flaherty added
that he was relying on Webb's experience in the
restaurant business.
Anderson believed that if parking were a problem the
• customers would choose to go to another restaurant.
4
• Sandstad stated that he was familiar with the quality of
Webb's establishments in Golden Valley and added that in
this location the parking would be overflowing into a
commercial area and not a residential area and,
therefore, was not as concerned with the parking.
Flaherty presented a sample of the brick material to be
used for the exterior of the building and added that the
grouting would match the brick.
Uram reported that the major issue yet unresolved was
that of the parking situation and added that Staff
anticipated a potential parking problem. Uram stated
that with the addition of the patio the parking
requirements would be increased by 18 spaces. Staff
recommended that the seating be limited to 150 seats at
any given time for both the inside and the patio area.
Hallett asked if the parking requirements would be the
same for the restaurant as a business. Uram replied that
the requirement was 1 parking space for every 3 seats;
however, a more realistic requirement would be for 1
parking space for every 1.5 to 2 seats.
Anderson stated that he believed the parking problem
would be a short term problem as the City develops more
restaurants the competition would lessen the parking
issue.
Bauer believed that this area was being developed to
maximum capacity and also that the restaurant business
would operate at a capacity level.
Anderson believed that the restaurant would be a positive
amenity for the community and should not be denied
because of a parking problem.
Bauer believed that other options were available to the
proponent to solve the parking issue.
Hallett asked Uram if this would set a precedent. Uram
replied that outdoor patios for restaurants was becoming
more popular and believed that other requests would be
made in the future.
Bye believed that the main problem with parking would be
during the lunch period.
Anderson asked Flaherty what the average turn around was
for a restaurant. Webb replied that the customers did
• approximately 1.5 turns during the lunch period and 2
5
turns during the supper period. Anderson added that he
believed that the market would solve the parking problem.
Dodge stated that Bloomington had many restaurant
choices, yet there were still some which had parking
problems.
Ruebling asked if the building could be reduced in size.
He believed that more development was planned for this
site than could be comfortably handled. Ruebling added
that he believed that to approve a parcel which was being
developed beyond its capacity would be poor planning.
Dodge asked how many total seats had been planned for
originally. Flaherty replied that 130 seats were
originally proposed for the restaurant, but the City
required 150 seats to acquire a liquor license.
Jullie Skarda, representing the proponent, stated that
the proponent had tried to negotiate the rights for
proof-of-parking. Skarda added that the property was for
sale at this time and further believed that the new owner
would likely want to rent the parking spaces. The
proponent planned to continue negotiations when the
building was sold to a new owner. Skarda stated that
the number of seats required for a liquor license was
arbitrarily set by the City and there would be the
possibility to petition for a reduction; however, the
proponent did not wish to pursue this option at this
time. Skarda believed that the restaurant would be an
asset to the community and that parking would not be as
much of an issue because the property was next to other
commercial development and not to a residential area.
Bauer believed that the other businesses in the area
would feel the impact of the parking problem. Flaherty
replied that Lariat Companies was one of the adjoining
property owners. Flaherty added that because of the
tight economic situation, it would not be possible to
reduce the size of the building.
Webb stated that if this facility were designed to be a
drinking establishment, the parking ratio should be
approximately 1 space per seat; however, the intent was
to create a family restaurant atmosphere and believed
that the parking being provided would be adequate.
Ruebling stated that he was still uncomfortable with the
overcrowding of the project. He asked if the grading plan
could be changed to avoid the need for the retaining
wall. Uram replied that the wall is approximately 18
• feet high, permits would be needed and an inspection
6
• conducted upon completion. Ruebling then asked if public
safety had been consulted regarding the alley way in the
rear of the facility. Uram replied that this had been
done in the past.
Hallett stated that the entrance on Prairie Center Drive
had originally had an island with a green space area and
questioned why this had been changed for this plan.
Waldorski replied that the island was originally planned
to direct traffic; however, it was determined upon
further study that it would create more traffic problems.
Uram added that the island had been eliminated based on
Staff recommendations.
MOTION 1:
Anderson moved, seconded by Ruebling to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0.
Uram stated that if the Planning Commission was going to
recommend approval of the outdoor patio, a limit should
be set for the seating capacity.
Anderson believed that any limit should be flexible.
• Dodge questioned the ability of the City to enforce a
limit. Anderson replied that he believed it would be
very difficult to enforce.
Bye encouraged the proponent to continue the negotiations
for proof-of-parking.
MOTION 2 •
Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Lariat Companies
for Planned Unit Development District Review on 18 acres,
with waiver for front yard setback, for construction of
a 29,551 sq. ft. retail center to be known as Alpine
Center, based on plans dated February 6, 1990, subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February
9, 1990, and further that the patio area shall not be
enclosed or covered and recommend a PUD Waiver for 9
parking spaces, setting a maximum seating capacity for
the outdoor patio at 26 seats until proof-of-parking was
established and the seating be limited to a total not to
exceed 52 once 18 proof-of-parking stalls were obtained.
• 7
Ruebling stated that he was uncomfortable with the 18
foot high retaining wall. Ruebling believed that even
though the site had constraints that the proponent should
be required to meet the City's standards.
Bauer concurred that the restaurant would be an amenity
to the community; however, located on this site, too much
development was being proposed for this property. Bauer
further believed that the proponent had other options
which could be considered.
Hallett believed that the major issue was the patio
related to parking.
Bye asked if it would be possible to add the patio at a
later date when proof-of-parking had been obtained.
Flagherty replied that the cost would be too high if
added after the main construction.
Hallett asked Flaherty how many additional seats had been
added to Applebees for outdoor seating. Flaherty replied
30 seats. Hallett believed that it was important to
provide a rationale for the number of outdoor seats
allowed.
• Anderson believed that if the proponent could acquire the
additional parking required that seating should be
allowed to be increased without return to the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Flaherty stated that they had done everything possible
to try to obtain proof-of-parking. He added that he
would be willing to limit the number of outdoor seats
allowed to 25 until additional parking was provided and
when further proof-of-parking was available the number
of seats could be increased. Flagherty emphasized that
the optimum time to construct the patio was at the time
of building construction for cost efficiency.
Dodge asked if the proponent would build the patio as
originally planned to seat 60 to 80 and then only
provided seating for 25. Flaherty replied yes.
Uram stated that the patio would be a popular amenity in
the summer months and believed that alternatives were
available to resolve the parking issue.
Flaherty noted that the alternative to reduce the
building size would not be an acceptable compromise.
. Hallett recommended that the outdoor seating be limited
to 25 at this time.
Bye recommended a limit of 26 outdoor seats at this time
and that a maximum of 52 seats be set when additional
proof-of-parking was available.
Motion carried 5-2-0. Bauer and Ruebling voted "NO" .
Bauer stated that the original plan had called for 120
seats and by approving this motion the Planning
Commission had just increased the seating capacity to 176
seats.
Sandstad stated that the City regulations was forcing the
increase in seating capacity due to liquor license
requirements.
MOTION 3•
Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of Lariat Companies
for Zoning District Amendment from Office to C-Reg-Ser
and Site Plan Review on 3 .58 acres for construction of
a 29,551 sq. ft. retail center to be known as Alpine
Center, based on plans dated February 6, 1990, subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February
9, 1990 and further that the patio area shall not be
enclosed or covered and recommend a PUD Waiver for 9
parking spaces, setting a maximum seating capacity for
the outdoor patio at 26 seats until proof-of-parking was
established and the seating be limited to a total not to
exceed 52 once 18 proof-of-parking stalls were obtained.
Motion carried 5-2-0. Bauer and Ruebling voting "NO" .
Ruebling and Bauer voted not because of the belief that
this was too much development for this parcel.
D. MCDONALDS, by McDonald's Corporation. Request for
Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning
District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District
on 1.4 acres with waiver for parking setback, Site Plan
Review on 1.4 acres, Preliminary Plat of 8.2 acres into
2 lots for construction of a fast food restaurant.
Location: East of Highway #169, north of Prairie Center
Drive. A public hearing.
Franzen reported that when the PUD was originally
approved a fast food restaurant was anticipated for this
site and added that the requirement was that when a
9
specific tenant was identified they be required to return
through the process for a detailed review. Franzen
stated that the remaining issues to be resolved were a
waiver for parking setback and the location of the roof
sign.
Ray Schleck, representing the proponent, presented the
plans for a standard prototype McDonald's facility. The
architecture would match that of the existing center.
Schulk noted that the proponent proposed to install the
standard facia sign; however, City Code stated that the
sign must be located below the structural roof line.
Dodge asked if a playground area was planned. Schleck
replied that an outdoor play area was not planned at this
time; however, some discussion had taken place regarding
the possibility of an indoor play area, which had become
popular in other facilities.
Franzen noted that a variance would be required if the
proponent wished to have the sign above the roofline.
Franzen stated that the options available would be to
remove the sign from the building entirely or to place
the sign on the mansard within a 2 foot space, which
would be below the roof line. Franzen noted that the
logo as proposed was 4 feet.
Schleck stated that a sign band was not designed into the
building architecture and the proponent preferred to have
the signage centered on the mansard.
Sanstad asked if the mansard extended all around the
roof. Schleck replied yes. Sandstad believed that it
would be difficult with the present design to actually
distinguish where the roofline began with the mansard.
Ruebling asked Franzen if the question was how high the
sign was located on the building. Franzen replied that
it was both an issue of the location on the building of
the sign and the size of the letters to be used. Franzen
added that the PUD has specific requirements for location
of the signage.
Schleck was concerned about the potential for vandalism
of the sign if it were located on the wall of the
building.
Hallett stated that he would prefer to see 2 foot letters
used; however, he was not as concerned about the location
of the sign.
• 10
• Schleck noted that the signage would only face into the
mall area and would not face Highway 169. Kelly Doran,
representing the developer, added that the signage would
not be visible from any thoroughfare. Franzen replied
that the Planning Commission needed to be careful in its
definition of exactly was considered a thoroughfare.
Franzen added that another consideration was just how
much signage should be allowed on the building. He noted
that a pylon sign and a monument sign were also being
proposed.
Hallett believed that the proponent should meet City Code
for signage.
MOTION 1•
Bauer moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0.
MOTION 2•
Bauer moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of McDonald's
Corporation for Planned Unit Development District Review
Amendment to the overall Eden Square Planned Unit
• Development, with waiver for parking setback, for
construction of a fast food restaurant, based on plans
dated February 7, 1990, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated February 9, 1990. Motion
carried 7-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Bauer moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of McDonald's
Corporation for Zoning District Amendment within the C-
Reg-Ser Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 1.4 acres
for construction of a fast food restaurant, based on
plans dated February 7, 1990, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 9,
1990. Motion carried 7-0-0.
MOTION 4•
Bauer moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the
City Council approval of the request of McDonald's
Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 8.2 acres into two
lots for construction of a fast food restaurant, based
on plans dated February 7, 1990, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 9,
1990. Motion carried 7-0-0.
11
. V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to adjourn the meeting at 9:15
PM. Motion carried 7-0-0.
PCMIN212
•
12