Planning Commission - 06/25/1990 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 25, 1990
7:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Christine Dodge, Tim Bauer,
Julianne Bye, Robert Hallett, Karen
Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad.
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
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
7:45 A. CHI-CHITS RESTAURANT, by Consul Restaurant
Corporation. Request for PUD District Review with
waivers as part of the overall Preserve Commercial
Park North Planned Unit Development, on 2.23 acres,
Site Plan Review on 2.23 acres for construction of
an additional parking lot for Chi-Chi's Restaurant.
Location: Prairie Center Drive and Crystal View
Road. A public hearing.
7:55 B. HEDOUIST ADDITION, by Don Hedquist. Request for
Preliminary Plat on 3.9 acres into 6 single family
lots and road right-of-way with a variance for lots
without frontage on a public road to be reviewed by
the Board of Appeals. Location: 12900 Gerard
Drive. A public hearing.
8:35 C. EDEN PRAIRIE ASSEMBLY OF GOD, by Eden Prairie
Assembly of God. Request for Comprehensive Guide
Plan Change from Industrial and Public Open Space
to Church on 32 .7 acres, from Industrial to N-Com
on 3 acres, and from Industrial to Office on 2.5
acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on
39.21 acres, Planned Unit Development District
Review on 32.7 acres with waivers, Zoning District
Change from I-Gen, R1-22 and Rural to Public on
32.7 acres, Site Plan Review on 32.7 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 39.21 acres into 4 lots and
road right-of-way for construction of a church and
other commercial and office uses to be known as
Eden Prairie Assembly of God. Location: State
Highway #5 at Dell Road. A public hearing.
Agenda
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, June 25, 1990
Page 2
9:35 D. ANDERSON LAKES CENTER 2ND ADDITION (EDEN PRAIRIE
POST OFFICE) , by William S. Reiling. Request for a
Zoning District Change from Rural to Office and
Site Plan Review on 5.4 acres, Preliminary Plat of
13 .3 acres into 3 lots and 3 outlots for
construction of a 46,598 square foot U.S. Post
Office. Location: West of Highway #169, east of
the Columbine Road/Garden Lane intersection. A
public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
AGO625.BJS
•
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY1 JUNE 25, 1990 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Christine Dodge, Tim
Bauer, Julianne Bye, Robert Hallett,
Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug
Sandstad.
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don
Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary.
ROLL CALL: Bauer and Sandstad absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to approve the Agenda as published.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
•III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to approve the Minutes of the May 29,
1990 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 4-0-
0.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. CHI-CHITS RESTAURANT, by Consul Restaurant Corporation.
Request for PUD Amendment Review and Site Plan Review for
parking lot expansion on 2.23 acres. Location: Prairie Center
Drive and Crystal View Road. A public hearing.
Tom Mitchell, attorney representing the proponent, stated that
the proposal was to enhance the existing parking. Presently
116 parking stalls were provided. A temporary arrangement had
been agreed upon between the proponent and Lariat Companies to
construct a 36 space parking area on the lot to the south of
Chi-Chi's Restaurant. Mitchell noted that the preliminary
bids which had been received to construct the parking lot were
higher than anticipated and Chi-Chi's Restaurant may not
proceed with the expansion.
Hallett was concerned that the decision to proceed was being
based solely on cost and not on need. Mitchell replied that
• Chi-Chi's Restaurant currently met the City Code requirements
for parking without the expansion. Hallett asked Staff if the
City Code should be adjusted to require more parking spaces
for restaurants. Uram replied that from the beginning, Staff
had indicated that additional parking may be necessary;
however, the project did meet City Code. Uram added that 1
parking space per 3 seats might be too lenient and should be
looked at further. Hallett stated that he was concerned about
the parking issue related to restaurants proposing to develop
in the future.
Norman asked what would happen to the parcel if Chi-Chi's
Restaurant did not develop the parking lot. Mitchell replied
that the property was owned by the landlord, Lariat Companies,
which planned to develop the lot in the future.
MOTION 1:
Hallett moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Hallett moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Consul Restaurant Corporation for
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the overall Preserve
• Commercial Park South Planned Unit Development Concept on 2.23
acres for expansion of the Chi Chi's Restaurant parking lot, based
on plans dated June 19, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated June 22, 1990.
Hallett asked if there would be any problem by approving the
proposal when the proponent had indicated that it may not proceed.
Uram replied that Staff had understood that the proponent would
proceed immediately with the project; however, since the project
currently met City Code requirements it would not make a difference
if the proponent did not proceed.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Hallett moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Consul Restaurant Corporation for Site
Plan Review for the Chi Chi's Restaurant parking lot expansion,
based on plans dated June 19, 1990, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Report dated June 22, 1990.
Bye concurred that the parking requirements per City Code should be
given further consideration for future developments.
• Motion carried 4-0-0.
B. HEDQUIST ADDITION, by Don Hedquist. Request for Preliminary
Platting on 3 .9 acres for single family residential. Location:
• 12900 Gerard Drive. A public hearing.
Frank Cardarelle, representing the proponent, presented 3 proposals
for the Planning Commission's consideration. The alternate plans
were presented because of the topography of the property and its
affect on the development. Cardarelle presented the original plan
with 6 lots and a public street. He noted that with this plan, the
tree loss would be severe. The second plan showed the removal of
the existing home. Cardarelle stated that the existing home could
not be moved and would have to be destroyed. He added that the
second plan resulted in grading problems, excessive tree loss, and
a retaining wall would be required. Plan 3 proposed a private
road, similar to the private road at Boulder Point. The impact on
the trees and the hills would be reduced with Plan 3 . Cardarelle
believed that Plan 3 would satisfy the majority of the concerns of
the neighbors. This proposal would allow the Hanson's to utilize
the road if they wished to develop their property in the future.
Cardarelle said that the major concern was the grading for a public
street and the resulting tree lose. The plans depicted actual
floor plans currently being constructed by builders. The price
range would be $250,000. Cardarelle noted that Don Hedquist was
present to answer any questions. Cardarelle believed that the
existing home could be remodeled to fit it with the 5 new homes
proposed.
Uram reported that the proponent had been working with Staff for
approximately six months on this project. He stated that the
difficulty with the project resulted from the existing home and the
topography of the property. Staff recommended the use of the
private road to save trees and reduce grading. Uram noted that the
plan depicts 50-foot building pads and if the size of the pads were
increased from those shown additional grading would be required.
Uram stated that the value of the existing home was estimated at
$75,000 and the new homes plan would be valued at approximately
$250,000. Uram questioned the compatibility of the existing home
with the new homes proposed.
Uram reported that several options existed to change the plan. One
lot could be eliminated. He added that the original plan had been
for 4.5 lots. The reduction of one lot could save an additional
100 of the trees. Uram stated that Staff did not make a specific
recommendation for this project, but was requesting direction from
the Planning Commission.
Ruebling arrived at 8:05 PM.
Floyd Siefferman, 6997 Edgebrook Place, believed that the proponent
was asking for special treatment because they had developed the
front two lots first. Siefferman read portions from the City Code
referencing the requirement for a lot to have frontage on a public
street. Siefferman also believed that lot 6 was not 120 feet deep
and did not meet the 25-foot rear lot setback requirement.
Siefferman was concerned that emergency vehicles would not be able
to turn around in the smaller cul-de-sac. Siefferman believed that
the law was applicable to everyone and was not above that of one
individual. Siefferman recommended a plan with 4 lots and a public
street. Siefferman noted that the engineering report had reversed
• the directions. Siefferman believed that the plan as proposed
would not be consistent with the existing neighborhood. He
concurred that removing the constraint of the existing home would
improve the plan. Siefferman believed that a large portion of the
3.9 acres was actually part of the road right-of-way.
Uram reported that City Engineer, Alan Gray had requested that he
apologize for the error in the report and concurred that the
directions were backwards.
Howard Kaerwer, 12800 Gerard Drive, stated that the neighbors had
tried to keep the property as natural as possible. NSP had
dedicated 18 acres and he had dedicated 2 acres for a wildlife
preserve area. Kaerwer was concerned about the effect of drainage
during and after the construction of the new homes and the effect
of the project on the creek. Kaerwer also voiced a concern
regarding the density of the project and recommended a reduction in
lots. Kaerwer concurred with Staff's concern related to an
increase in the size of the building pads and the effect on
grading.
Barbara Kaerwer, 12800 Gerard Drive, stated that she was proud of
the way Eden Prairie had developed. Kaerwer noted that the land
which had been dedicated by them and NSP was used by the local
schools to study nature. Kaerwer was concerned that nature would
. be destroyed by this proposal. She believed that the homes would
be much too close together as proposed. Kaerwer recommended that
the existing home be removed. Kaerwer also recommended the
development of a proposal which would result in less grading and a
reduction in the impact to nature. Kaerwer was concerned about the
watershed in the area.
Karen Hanson, 13008 Gerard Drive, stated that she would prefer that
this remain as one lot. Hanson noted that the other lots in the
neighborhood were very large. Hanson stated that they had no
intention of developing their property further at this time or in
the future. She was concerned about emergency vehicles being able
to access the homes because of the narrower road.
Jerrold Miller, 7120 Gerard Drive, questioned the statement made by
the proponent regarding the need to develop the project because the
property was part of an estate settlement. Miller noted that Mrs.
Beckman was still alive. Miller believed that Hedquist was simply
a developer which wanted the City to allow him exceptions from the
rules which applied to other developers. Miller believed that for
public safety reasons the road should be developed as a public
road.
Don Hedquist, proponent, stated that he was the nephew of Mrs.
Beckman and had purchased the property from his aunt.
. Hallett believed that it did make sense to propose a private road
to save trees and reduce the amount of grading needed. He added
that 6 lots was too many and believed that the maximum lots should
be 5. Hallett concurred that the existing home needed to be
removed. The plans should be changed to depict 70-foot building
pads in lieu of the 50-foot pads as presently shown. Hallett
• believed that even with a private road 6 homes were too many.
Bye stated that she could be persuaded to approve a private road if
long-term benefits to the community could be shown.
Norman believed that Eden Prairie had been forced into too many
variances in the past, that the smaller cul-de-sac would be a
public safety hazard, and that respect should be given to the long-
term residences.
Cardarelle stated that the original plan did show the use of a
public road and did meet all City requirements for lot size and
setbacks. Staff had recommended the consideration of a private
road. There would be a 16-foot differential over the site for the
development of a public road and a retaining wall would be
required.
Uram did not believe that this was the time to discuss exact
details for the road location.
Hallett concurred that the benefits of a private road versus a
public road needed further consideration.
Dodge concluded that the Planning Commission concurred that the
item needed to be continued.
• Uram stated that the original plan presented did meet City Code;
however, it would probably not be approved due to the severe tree
lose. Uram requested direction from the Planning Commission.
Dodge asked if the Public Safety Department should review the plan.
Uram replied that this private road was exactly like that used in
the Boulder Point project.
Norman asked who would maintain and plow the private road. Uram
replied that a homeowners association would need to be established
and that the residents would pay for the maintenance and plowing.
Ruebling stated that he would prefer a plan with a public road and
4 lots. Ruebling believed that the houses were too close together
with the present plans and believed that with 4 lots, more open
space would be provided.
Uram stated that the road would be public to the Hanson property.
Norman concurred that the maximum number of lots should be 4.
MOTION 1:
Bye moved, seconded by Hallett to continue the public hearing to
the July 23, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. The direction of
the Planning Commission was a reduction in the number of lots,
further discussion as to the benefits of the private road versus
the public road and the relationship to the tree inventory, the
removal of the existing home, and the building pads should be shown
as 70 feet. Motion carried 5-0-0.
•
8:35 C. EDEN PRAIRIE ASSEMBLY OF GOD, by Eden Prairie Assembly of God.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendments from Industrial and
Public Open Space to Church on 32.7 acres, from Industrial to
Neighborhood Commercial on 3.0 acres, and from Industrial to Office
on 2.5 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept on 39.21 acres;
Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers, on 32.7
acres; Zoning District Change from I-Gen, R1-22, and Rural to
Public on 32.7 acres; Site Plan Review on 32.7 acres; and
Preliminary Plat of 39.21 acres into four lots and road right-of-
way for construction of a church and other commercial and office
uses. Location: North of State Highway #5, east of Dell Road.
Location: State Highway #5 at Dell Road. A public hearing.
Jim Basser, representing the proponent, reviewed the main points
outlined in the application. Basser requested that the Planning
Commission look at the parcel as a whole unit.
Franzen reported that Staff was comfortable with the church and
office land uses in this location, but did question the use of
commercial development. Staff recommended consideration of
alternate uses to serve the needs of the residents in the adjacent
neighborhoods. Franzen believed that a neighborhood commercial
project, such as a PDQ, would be more appropriate for the area.
• Franzen noted that Attachment B recommended a shift of the
commercial development further to the north. He added that the
proposal as per Attachment B would also solve the access problems.
Attachment C showed how the parking would be screened from the
residential areas. Franzen reviewed the alternatives outlined in
the Staff Report. Franzen reported that Staff was most comfortable
with the 2nd Alternative and Attachment B.
Norman asked if a traffic light would be located at the
intersection of Highway 5 and Dell Road. Franzen replied yes.
Norman then asked if the residents in the adjacent neighborhoods
had been notified. Franzen replied that the standard notices had
been mailed.
Mary Hoff, 2657 Shenandoah Way, Plymouth, stated that she sold
real-estate in the area adjacent to this project and was concerned
about the view and about the protection of the wetlands. Hoff
asked what the impact would be to traffic in the area. Basser
replied that the Church also had the same concerns. The wetlands
were protected by government agencies. Basser added that the
Church intended to plant more trees to adequately screen the view
to the north. Basser believed that the Church would be much more
pleasing to the residents than an industrial project. Franzen
replied that there would not be any grading in the wetland area.
He added that the view would be open beyond the trees and a
transition would be needed.
• Brion Roberts, 20411 Ruth Meadows Lane, Rogers, supported the
project. Roberts believed that the traffic patterns would be
different from the industrial developments in the neighborhood and
in Chanhassen and the use would be compatible.
Dodge requested that the Planning Commission first decide if a
Comprehensive Guide Plan change would be acceptable.
Hallett asked Basser if the church was presently located in Eden
Prairie. Basser replied yes, the church had a 20,000 square foot
facility. Hallett then asked what the church intended to do with
the present facility. Basser replied that the church had been
placed on the market for sale. Hallett stated that he was
concerned that 40 acres of property was being taken from the tax
roll. Basser replied that the seller did not wish to sell only a
3 to 4 acre portion of the parcel. Basser added that the church
would only be developing approximately 20 acres of the parcel.
Ruebling asked how the property to the north of Dell Road was
guided. Franzen replied that the property was fully developed and
was guided low-density residential. Ruebling then asked about the
property to the east of the proposal. Franzen replied that a small
portion to the east was not developed, but was also guided low-
density residential. Ruebling believed that the neighborhood
commercial and office facilities should be developed further to the
north as recommended by Staff on Attachment B and further
recommended that the location of the office and the neighborhood
commercial facilities be switched.
Bye concurred that the commercial and office facilities be moved to
• the north.
Hallett stated that because the location of the property was the
entrance to Eden Prairie it was important to screen the facilities
adequately. Basser replied that the City was in control regarding
the requirement for screening and the church would comply with the
City's requests.
Hallett asked why the church wanted to develop a private walkway
rather than having the city develop the path. Basser replied that
this did need further discussion. Dodge believed that the City
preferred dedication of the property. Franzen replied that the
location of the trail had not been determined.
Norman concurred with the Staff recommendation on Attachment B and
also believed that screening of the rear of the facility was
important for the residents in the area.
A discussion regarding the affect of the project on the tax roll
took place among the Commission members.
Franzen noted that the church had enough parking on the property to
meet City Code and in addition the church would retain the right to
use a shared parking area.
Dodge summarized that the Planning Commission approved of the
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change for the church and office but felt
that the change to commmercial was not justified.
Franzen requested direction from the Planning Commission as to site
plan issues.
• Bye requested clarification on the Condition Use Permit. Franzen
replied that Eden Prairie did not issue Condition Use Permits, the
church is a specific use, but zoned public.
Norman asked if this proposal was contingent on the sale of the
existing church. Basser replied no.
Dennis Batty, architect for the proponent, stated that there would
be a 200-foot setback from Highway to the commercial buildings.
Phase I will provide 170 parking spaces and will only cover
approximately 17% of the site. The entire development will cover
only 37% of the site. There will be 3 levels of parking. The
proponent concurred with the Staff recommendation regarding
screening.
Batty stated that the spire height was restricted to 30 feet.
Batty questioned where the 30 feet would be measured from due to
the 60-foot slope on the site. Batty noted that the proponent had
attempted to build the church into the side of the hill. The
building needed to be higher than the 30 feet allowed. Batty noted
that a portion of the existing hill would remain for screening and
that a 5-foot high berm could be constructed along the entire
portion of Highway 5.
Franzen reported that Staff was not recommending a sausage berm,
. but was recommending a variable height berm.
Dodge asked if an agreement on the traffic restrictions would
prohibit the church from developing a daycare center in the future
if it so desired.
Bye asked when the church would like to open for services. Basser
replied that it was difficult to project. The church would like to
sell the present site first.
Hallett believed that the homeowners across the wetlands should be
notified of the next public hearing.
Basser believed that the gas station, restaurant, office, and
church were compatible uses. Basser did not believe that
Attachment B would accomplish the goals the Staff wished to
accomplish. The gas stations which had indicated interest in the
location were interested in the west bound traffic and would not be
interested in being located 2 blocks from the intersection.
Ruebling stated that what Basser had described for the gas station
was not a neighborhood commercial zoning use, but a regional
commercial development. Ruebling stated that he favored a
neighborhood commercial development. Basser replied that what was
being discussed was a gas station at an intersection versus a
station 3 blocks away from the traffic.
Franzen added that a neighborhood commercial use to serve residents
• to the north does not rely on Hwy. 5 traffic as would a pumper gas
like Amoco. Franzen noted that the Jamestown neighborhood
commercial with gas was located 1000 feet south of Hwy. 5.
MOTION 1:
Bye moved, seconded by Ruebling to continue the public hearing to
the July 23, 1990 Planning Commission meeting.
Dodge summarized the Commission's recommendations that the church
and office use were acceptable. A neighborhood commercial gas
station/convenience store would be acceptable, but a regional
commercial (large restaurant and pumper gas) use would not be
acceptable. The height of the spire was within appropriate limits.
Parking requires better screening in order to provide better
transition to the residential areas to the north. Notices of the
next public hearing should be mailed out to residents across the
wetland area.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
9:35 D. ANDERSON LAKES CENTER 2ND ADDITION (EDEN PRAIRIE POST OFFICE) , by
William S. Reiling. Request for a Zoning District Change from
Rural to Office on 5.4 acres, Preliminary Plat of 13.3 acres into
• three lots and 3 outlots, and Site Plan Review on 5.4 acres for a
United States Post Office. Location: Northwest quadrant of
Anderson Lakes Parkway and U.S. #169. A public hearing.
Brian Marshall, representing the Postal Service, stated that the
facility would be a full-service post office with 51 employees to
begin operating. Parking would be provided for 64 employees, 30
customer vehicles and 6 government cars. Property is available if
expansion would be necessary in the future; however expansion is
not expected for at least 10 years. Marshall explained the site
selection process. The facility is expected to be completed in
March 1992 .
Ruebling asked if the building would fit in with the existing
buildings. Marshall replied that the building would be a standard
proto-type, but there would be flexibility in the brick color and
the landscaping.
MOTION 1:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Norman to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of William S. Reiling for Zoning District
Change from Rural to Office on 5.36 acres for construction of the
Eden Prairie Branch of the United States Post Office, based on
plans dated May 24, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated June 22, 1990. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of William S. Reiling for Site Plan Review
on 5.36 acres, within the Office District, for construction of the
Eden Prairie Branch of the United States Post Office, based on
plans dated May 24, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated June 22, 1990.
MOTION 4:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of William S. Reiling for Preliminary Plat
of 5.36 acres into one lot for construction of the Eden Prairie
Branch of the United States Post Office, based on plans dated May
24, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
June 22, 1990.
V. OLD BUSINESS
Franzen reported that there was no discussion at the City Council
meeting regarding the letter to Kelly Doran.
Ruebling asked if any action had been taken regarding the parking
on the lawn at the Rueter Facility. Franzen reported that the
• management of the Rueter Facility had directed the Staff to park on
the lawn. He added that plans were being made to enlarge the
parking area.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNERIS REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Norman moved, seconded by Bye to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 PM.
Motion carried 5-0-0.