Planning Commission - 07/09/1990 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
• Monday, July 9, 1990
7:30 p.m.
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.
Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
7:40 A. BORUCKI ADDITION, by Jim Borucki. Request for
Preliminary Plat of . 62 acres into 2 single family
lots within the R1-13.5 Zoning District. Location:
6517 Rowland Road. A public hearing.
• 8:10 B. ST. ANDREW'S PARKING LOT EXPANSION, by St. Andrew
Church. Request for Zoning District Change from
Rural to Public on 3 .5 acres, with a variance to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Site Plan Review
on 3.5 acres, Preliminary Plat of 12.4 acres into 2
lots, one outlot and road right-of-way for
construction of additional parking spaces.
Location: Northwest corner of Baker Road and St.
Andrews Drive. A public hearing.
8:40 C. J & L ADDITION, by Frank R. Cardarelle. Request
for Preliminary Plat of .56 acres into 2 single
family lots within the R1-13 .5 Zoning District with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals.
Location: 11081 Blossom Road. A public hearing.
9:15 D. MENARDIS 6TH ADDITION (A TO Z RENTAL) , by Jim Way.
Request for Preliminary Platting on 1. 68 acres into
2 lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board
of Appeals for a retail and service business.
Location: 12450 Plaza Drive. A public hearing.
•
AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, July 9, 1990
Page 2
9:45 . E. R.G. READ OFFICEIWAREHOUSE, by R.G. Read & Company,
Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment and
Site Plan Review within the I-2 Zoning District on
3.79 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5 acres into 2 lots
for construction of a 43,944 square foot
office/warehouse building. Location: Edenvale
Industrial Park. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
AGO709.BS
•
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
•
MONDAY, JULY 91 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: Dodge, Hallett, and Ruebling absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Norman moved, seconded by Bye to approve the Agenda as published.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
1&71II. MINUTES
MOTION:
Bauer moved, seconded by Bye to table the Minutes of the June 25,
1990 Planning Commission meeting to the July 23, 1990 Planning
Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BORUCKI ADDITION, by Jim Borucki. Request for Preliminary
Plat of 0. 62 acres into 2 single family lots within the R1-
13 .5 Zoning District. Location: 6517 Rowland Road. A public
hearing.
Frank Cardarelle, representing the proponent, presented the
plans for a 2-lot plat. The existing garage would be removed
and a new garage constructed. Cardarelle believed that an
additional single-family home would buffer the Carmel project.
Storm sewer and sanitary sewer would be connected. Turn-
around driveways could be provided for each of the lots.
Cardarelle believed that this proposal would be an improvement
for the neighborhood. He added that proponent understood that
Rowland Road needed to be upgraded prior to any development.
•
Franzen reported that the proposal met all R1-13.5 zoning
requirements. Franzen noted that the main question was when
the development should take place. The site distance needed
to be corrected and Staff recommended that no Final Platting
occur until the final alignment for Rowland Road had been
determined and sanitary sewer connections had been made.
Staff further recommended that the plans be revised to reflect
turnaround driveways for both homes prior to City Council
approval.
Bauer believed that turnaround driveways were essential unless
the road design changed drastically. Cardarelle stated that
the proponent was comfortable with the recommendation for the
turnaround driveways and that the Final Plat not be issued
until the completion of the feasibility study. Bauer then
asked if there would be any drainage problems created for the
homes on the other side of Rowland Road. Fanzen replied that
little grading would be required for the building pad.
Bye asked for clarification on when actual construction could
begin related to the Final Plat approval. Franzen replied
that the proponent would have to wait for Final Plat approval
before construction could begin. Bye then asked if the
Feasibility Study showed that problems would arise from this
proposal would there be time to make corrections prior to City
Council review. Franzen indicated that the rise in the road
to the north would be lowered to improve sight distance. The
feasibility study would not be completed before Council
• review.
Bauer asked if the new road alignment would take a large
portion of the proposed property. Franzen replied that the
plat provides additional R.O.W. for Rowland Road Upgrading.
MOTION 1:
Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Jim Borucki for Preliminary Plat of 0.62
acre into two single family lots within the R1-13.5 Zoning
District, based on plans dated June 29, 1990, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 6, 1990 with the
addition of turnarounds as per plans presented to the Planning
Commission on July 9, 1990. Motion carried 4-0-0.
B. ST. ANDREWIS PARKING LOT EXPANSION, by St. Andrew Church. Request
for Zoning District Change from Rural to Public on 3 .5 acres, with
a variance to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Site Plan Review
on 3 .5 acres, Preliminary Plat of 12.4 acres into 2 lots, one
• outlot and road right-of-way for construction of additional parking
spaces. Location: Northwest corner of Baker Road and St. Andrew
Drive. A public hearing.
Pastor Rod Anderson, representing the proponent, stated that the
church was experiencing congestion in the parking area. Anderson
• noted that the current parking lot did meet City Code requirements.
Anderson explained that the congregation was also investigating
relocation of the church and had looked at over 25 sites to date.
The church was requesting permission to use the recently acquired
property adjacent to the church for a temporary parking facility
for 37 spaces.
Sandstad asked Anderson if the church had acquired Outlot A.
Anderson replied yes. Sandstad then asked for clarification on the
reference to temporary use. Franzen replied that City Code
required that a hard-surface be provided and a variance would be
necessary to proceed with a gravel surface. Sandstad asked if the
land use approval for parking would be permanent. Franzen replied
yes.
Bye asked what time frame the church was proposing. Anderson
replied that the church would like to arrive at definite
conclusions related to relocation in 1990, but would like the
temporary parking to accommodate members now.
Bauer asked Anderson to present the rationale for the change in the
Comprehensive Guide Plan. Franzen replied that a notice for a
hearing on the change to the Comprehensive Guide Plan had not been
published and, therefore, this item would need to be continued.
Bauer recommended that the proponent be prepared to address this
issue at the July 23, 1990 meeting. Anderson stated that the
• church's compelling reason for the change would be to utilize the
parking for a special rally scheduled for the 2nd Sunday in
September. Bauer stated that the compelling reason for the request
should result in the benefit to the entire community.
Franzen reported that Staff was initially concerned how the parking
lot would fit in with surrounding uses and recommended that a
neighborhood meeting be held. Staff further requested that the
plans be revised to provide adequate screening of the parking area.
Anderson stated that the church had invited residents to a meeting
to discuss the proposal; however, no one attended. The church had
also extended an invitation for neighborhood residents to stop in
at the church office if they had any questions.
Bye asked if the overall long-term plan was to acquire additional
adjacent land for further expansion. Anderson replied that the
church wished to eliminate on-street parking and to accommodate
members. Franzen noted that the approval at this time was for a
parking lot use. Bye then asked if the use could be considered a
temporary use exclusive for the church.
Bob Smith, representing the proponent, presented plans for the
parking lot area. He noted that the parking lot was 8 feet lower
than the street and proposed a 4-foot high berm. Smith stated that
pine trees would also be planted.
• Sandstad asked Smith if this plan had been revised in response to
Staff's request for additional screening of the parking area.
Smith replied yes; however, Staff had not seen the plans prior to
this evening. Franzen replied that plant material alone would not
screen the parking lot adequately and added that Staff would need
time to review these plans further before a recommendation could be
made.
MOTION:
Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to continue the public hearing to the
July 23, 1990, Planning Commission meeting pending revision by the
proponent of the grading and screening plans in accordance with
Attachment A of the July 6, 1990, Staff Report, and pending receipt
from the proponent of substantiation of the Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment for the Property. The proponent should be prepared
to present compelling reasons for the request for the Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment. This item should be published for City
Council review for the first meeting in August. Motion carried 4-
0-0.
C. J & L ADDITION, by Frank R. Cardarelle. Request for Preliminary
Plat of 0.56 acre into 2 single family lots within the R1-13.5
Zoning District with variances to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals. Location: 11081 Blossom Road. A public hearing.
Frank Cardarelle stated that he would like to continue with the
subdivision as originally proposed; however, the existing home does
not fit in with the present neighborhood. Cardarelle recommended
that the existing house be removed and the property divided into
two lots. He added that he had a potential buyer for the property
if the lot could be subdivided. Cardarelle proposed that deed
restrictions be placed on the property to only permit the
construction of a maximum 2200 square foot home with a two-car
garage.
Uram stated that the main question for consideration was if the
variance requests for a reduction in lot size from the minimum
13,500 sq. ft. were justified. Uram noted that the actual tree
loss would need to be calculated on actual building pad sizes. He
reported the request for variances would be heard at the July 12,
1990 meeting of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments.
Steve Scriver, 9936 Windsor Terrace, believed that Cardarelle had
only made half an effort to sell the property as it currently
existed. Scriver was concerned about a reduction in the property
values in the neighborhood. Scriver stated that because there
wasn't a park in the area, the neighborhood depended on the larger
yards for recreation areas and was concerned that if the current
lot was divided into two lots, the yard area would be too small.
Scriver supported a proposal to remove the existing home, but would
like the lot to remain as a single lot.
Patrick J. Finnegan, 9925 Bennett Place, stated that he lived
adjacent to the proposed property and was in opposition to the
request for variances. Finnegan stated that the property had not
. been maintained and was an eyesore to the neighborhood. Finnegan
said that he had been told that an existing shed would be torn
down; however, this had not been done. Finnegan believed that if
the property were properly landscaped, the home could be sold.
Finnegan stated that he was not opposed to the home being removed,
but recommended that the lot remain as one single lot.
• Sandstad asked if the property lines were modified if the lots
could meet the requirements. Uram replied that Staff had tried to
have both of the lots come as close as possible to meeting the
R1-13.5 lot size requirements.
Finnegan asked for an explanation of the process for the variance
request and the remainder of the process for approval.
Commissioner Bye explained the process.
Bauer stated that while he would rather see two nice homes on this
property, he believed that property owners should be able to rely
on what was proposed when they purchased their property. Bauer
further believed that it was the Planning Commission's
responsibility to protect the majority.
Bye was concerned about the tree loss.
Cardarelle stated that he would complete the grading in the front
year and upgrade the exterior of the house; however, he believed
that two houses of equal size would be preferable.
Jane Kelly, 9900 Windsor Terrace, stated that she had purchased her
home approximately 3 years ago and had been assured that the home
would be brought up to the standards of the neighborhood. Kelly
added that she was not disappointed with the home, but with the
upkeep of the property. Kelly was opposed to the subdivision of
the lot. Kelly presented a petition to the Planning Commission
signed by 12 residents which passed by the Cardarelle property
several times a day. Kelly was concerned about the tree removal on
the property.
The petition will be forwarded to the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments.
MOTION 1:
Bauer moved, seconded by Bye to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Bauer moved, seconded by Bye to recommend to the City Council
denial of the request of Frank R. Cardarelle for Preliminary Plat
of 0.56 acre into two single family lots within the R1-13 .5 Zoning
District, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,
for the J & L Addition, based upon the following findings:
1) The variances created by the subdivision are not justified and
are self-imposed by the land owner.
2) The lots created are significantly smaller than those of the
existing surrounding lots in the area.
3) The impact of the proposed subdivision is severe on existing
natural site features, causing 144 caliper inches of trees to
• be removed for the addition of one unit.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
D. MENARDIS 6TH ADDITION (A TO Z RENTAL) , by Jim Way. Request for
Preliminary Platting on 1. 68 acres into 2 lots with variances to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals for a retail and service business.
Location: 12450 Plaza Drive. A public hearing.
Roman Roos, representing the proponent, stated that Phase II and
III had now been completed and the owners proposed a commercial lot
split. Variances would be required for the zero lot line setback
to building and parking. A common resolution for the parking
variance would be a cross parking easement. Roos said that because
Eden Prairie was such a young community, zero lot line setbacks had
not been done; however, several of the older surrounding
communities did allow for this type of splitting of commercial
property.
Sandstad asked Roos if the proponent was familiar with the
condominium split recommended by Staff. Roos replied that the
proponent was aware of the condominium process; however, did not
wish to pursue this avenue because a separate property
identification number would not be created by this process.
Uram noted that Eden Prairie would require the same type of
• documents to be filed for the plat that would be filed for the
condominium procedure.
Roos stated that in Richfield, multiple ownership of strip malls
was common and did not see anything wrong with an owner wanting to
sell a portion of the building. Roos noted that in two surrounding
communities, the splitting of the building was accomplished with a
PUD Amendment. Roos stated that he could not see any reason why
Eden Prairie should not allow the splitting of commercial property.
Uram stated that a split in the building had not originally been
anticipated by the proponent or Staff. Uram reported that Staff
recommended that the proponent file a condominium plat. Staff
believed this process to be the cleanest method for the City and
still accomplished the goals of the proponent.
MOTION 1:
Norman moved, seconded by Bye to close the public hearing.
Bauer did not believe that what took place in other communities was
necessarily right for Eden Prairie. Bauer believed that other
methods were available which would accomplish the goals of both the
proponent and the city. Bauer noted that the method proposed by
the proponent did not meet City Code. He added that if the
• proponent chose to file for a condominium plat, the process would
not require a review by the City.
Jim Way, owner, stated that he understood that the condominium
process could be done; however, both methods accomplished the same
• results and the bankers had recommended the splitting of the
property. Way added that he did not understand why the City was
having a problem with this request. Sandstad replied that the
proposal did not meet City Code and required variances. Uram added
that a total of 5 variances would be required.
Roos asked if there was a possibility that the present City
Ordinance had some loose ends related to this type of request.
Uram replied that the City Code was continuously being reviewed and
updated when determined necessary.
Motion to close the Public Hearing carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council
denial of the request of Jim Way for Preliminary Plat of Menard's
6th Addition (A to Z Rental) represented by plans dated May 24,
1990, based upon the following findings:
1) The proposed plat creates the need for variances which did not
previously exist.
2) The proponent's purpose for the platting request, to split the
property for mortgage financing purposes, can be accomplished
through a condominium process, which would not produce the
need for variances.
3) The platting of the property would create a precedence for
such plats within multi-tenant buildings, many of which may
not have been designed for such purposes.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
E. R.G. READ OFFICE/WAREHOUSE, by R.G. Read & Company, Inc. Request
for Zoning District Amendment and Site Plan Review within the I-2
Zoning District on 3 .79 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5. 0 acres into
2 lots for construction of a 43,944 square foot office/warehouse
building. Location: Edenvale Industrial Park. A public hearing.
Wayne Jeskie, representing the proponent, stated that the same
building plan was review last winter, but would now be constructed
on twice the amount of land.
Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval of the proposal
based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report.
MOTION 1:
Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 4-0-0.
• MOTION 2:
Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of R. G. Read & Company, Inc. , for Zoning
• District Amendment within the I-2 Zoning District on 3.79 acres for
construction of a 43,944 sq. ft. office/warehouse building, based
on plans dated June 26, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated July 6, 1990. Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of R. G. Read & Company, Inc. , for Site
Plan Review within the I-2 Zoning District on 3 .79 acres for
construction of a 43,944 sq. ft. office/warehouse building, based
on plans dated June 26, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated July 6, 1990. Motion carried 4-0-0.
MOTION 4:
Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of R. G. Read & Company, Inc. , for
Preliminary Plat of 5.0 acres into two lots for construction of a
43,944 sq. ft. office/warehouse building, based on plans dated June
26, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
July 6, 1990. Motion carried 4-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
• Bye recommended that the estimated times be eliminated from the
public agenda.
Bauer stated that it was frustrating to wait for the proponents
when the meeting was progressing faster than anticipated.
Sandstad believed that it was important for the estimated times to
be made available for the Planning Commission.
Franzen stated that it was typical for more residents to come to
meeting during the fall and winter. He stated that the times would
only be printed in the letter of transmittal.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 PM.
Motion carried 4-0-0.
Is