Loading...
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