Planning Commission - 04/10/1989 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, April 10, 1989
6:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Christine
Dodge, Doug Fell , Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Douglas
Sandstad
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
(6:30) A. Election of Officers.
III. MINUTES
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
*NOTE: THE TIMES LISTED BELOW ARE TENTATIVE, AND MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER,
OR LATER, THAN LISTED.
(6:40) A. PRESERVE SOUTH, by BRW, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres, a Planned Unit
Development District Review on approximately 18 acres with waivers,
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial and
Open Space to Regional Commercial on 9.07 acres, Zoning District
Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 9.07 acres, and Preliminary Plat
of 13 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 25,248 square foot
theatre complex. Location: East of Highway #169, south of Medcom
Boulevard. A continued public hearing.
(7:30) B. CABRIOLE CENTER, by Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc. Request
for Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 10.3
acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,
Preliminary Plat of 10.3 acres into 2 lots for construction of a
65,000 square foot office building. Location: South of I-494 and
West 78th Street, and north of Anderson Lakes. A continued public
hearing. (DON)
(8:05) C. WESLEY E. LANGHOFF RLS, by David Brown. A request for a Registered
Land Survey of 11.6 acres into one tract. Location: 9801 Spring
Road. A public hearing.
(8:15) D. STRAWBERRY HILL, by Dennis J. Wittenberg. A request for Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 3.2 acres, Preliminary Plat
of 3.2 acres into 7 single family lots and road right-of-way.
Location: East of County Road #4, north of BLUE SKY FIRST ADDITION.
A public hearing.
Agenda
April 10, 1989
Page Two
(8:45) E. RED ROCK VIEW ADDITION, by Mark Olsen. A request for Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 5.7 acres, Preliminary Plat
of 5.7 acres into 11 single family lots and road right-of-way.
Location: West of Meadowvale Drive, east of BLUE SKY FIRST
ADDITION. A public hearing.
(9:15) F. RED ROCK SHORES, by Scenic Heights Investment. Request for Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 19.77 acres, Preliminary
Plat of 19.77 acres into 17 single family lots, 2 outlots , and road
right-of-way. Location: East of County Road #4, north and east of
Lake Shore Drive. A public hearing.
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 10, 1989 6 : 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard
Anderson, Christine Dodge, Doug Fell,
Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling,
Douglas Sandstad
STAFF MEMBERS : Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don
Uram, Assistant Planner; Alan Gray,
City Engineer; Deb Edlund, Recording
Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
I . APPROVAL OFAGENDA
MOTION•
Hallett moved, seconded by Dodge to approve the Agenda as
amended.
• MOVE•
Election of Officers moved to Item V.A.
Motion carried 7-0-0 .
II . MEMBERS REPORTS
A. Election of Officers .
III . MINUTES
MOTION•
Ruebling moved, seconded by Fell to approve the minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting held March 27, 1989 as published .
Motion carried 6-0-1 . Hallett abstained .
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. PRESERVE SOUTH, by BRW, Inc . Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres, a
Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately
18 acres with waivers, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
• from Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space to Regional
Commercial on 9 . 07 acres, Zoning District Change from
Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 9 . 07 acres, and Preliminary Plat of
Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 10, 1989
. 13 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 25, 248 square
foot theater complex. Location: East of Highway # 169,
south of Medcom Boulevard. A continued public hearing.
Miles Lindberg presented the following changes made to the
plan:
1. The extension of Medcom Boulevard.
2 . Internal circulation changed to allow passengers
being dropped off to exit the car from the
passenger side of the vehicle .
3. Retaining walls constructed along the road right-
of-way to the north.
4. The configuration of the parking lot changed to
provide a 25-foot setback along the east property
line .
5. The lighting layout changed to reduce lighting to
a 1/2 foot candle at the property lines .
6. Additional berming proposed along the southern
boundary.
7. Due to the change in the configuration of the
parking lot, the proof of parking for Lot 2 had
been increased .
Ron Reed, representing Cinemark, stated that Cinemark
currently operated 80 facilities throughout the Country,
totaling approximately 400 screens . Five locations were
• in the planning stages for the Twin Cities, which would
assure Cinemarks intention for a long term commitment in
this area. Reed emphasized the importance of quality
control to Cinemark and its desire to provide first class
family oriented entertainment.
In response to the residents concerns regarding late
shows, Reed stated that it was Cinemark 's policy to start
the last regular showing by 10 :15 PM and that any special
showing would not start past midnight. Cinemark has
chosen not to run Rocky-Horror films as late show.
In response to the parking problem and traffic issues,
Reed stated that surveys had been conducted throughout the
country which indicated that multi-plex theaters had a
decreased parking load. He added that the peak traffic
hour for the theater would be approximately 9 PM, with the
majority of business generated between 7 to 10 PM.
Computerized ticketing also available at the theater would
help relieve traffic congestion, because customers could
purchase a ticket for any showing throughout the day.
Reed concluded by stating that more theaters required
larger staffs, which in turn produced a cleaner, safer
theater . He added that Cinemark would provide security
• for the parking lot if it became an issue .
Anderson asked Reed if the theater would have a game room.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 10, 1989
Reed replied that the theater would have a game room;
however, there would not be an outside entrance to the
game room and it would be adequately supervised.
Dodge asked Reed what the reason was for having a game
room. Reed replied that Cinemark wanted to create a non-
threaten environment in which the whole family could have
fun, it also provided entertainment while waiting for the
movies to start. Dodge asked if it was a prerequisite to
purchase a ticket to obtain entry to the game room. Reed
replied that Cinemark was not selling the game room as a
separate entity. He added that he could not guarantee
that everyone would purchase a ticket. Reed stated that
it would not be in Cinemark 's best interest to have
children loitering in the lobby. He said the equipment
was the state of the art and that Cinemark had an interest
in maintaining its property.
Hallett asked what type of signage would be provided to
help customers find the theater . Flaherty replied that a
sign was being proposed for Prairie Center Drive. He
added the sign would advertise both Applebees and the
theater .
Fell asked if Cinemark had ever had a complex and sold it
or changed the use of the building. Reed replied no.
• Fell asked Reed if Cinemark had experienced any daytime
usage . Reed replied that the theater could be rented for
classes or slide presentations . Reed added that Cinemark
would prefer to have daytime use; however it was difficult
to develop because of the auditorium type seating. Fell
asked if a traffic study had been done regarding potential
daytime traffic . Flaherty replied that a study had not
been conducted for daytime use; however, he believed the
traffic would be nominal .
Uram reported that the major question before the Planning
Commission was if this development was an appropriate land
use for this location. Staff had compared various land
uses and the traffic generated, with the conclusion that
an office building of 50,000 square feet would generate
the least amount of traffic. Uram stated that any office
building that would be developed on this property would
probably contain more than 50,000 square feet. He added
that the current PUD could allow the development of a 5-
story office complex, which could generate approximately
2000 daily trips . The movie theater offered an inbetween
use . Uram stated that Staff was not recommending approval
or denial of the project at this time; however, if the
Planning Commission believed that the proponent had
demonstrated a compelling argument for a Comprehensive
Guide Plan change, the Staff would recommend the
conditions as outlined in the Staff Report dated April 7,
Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 10, 1989
• 1989 .
Tom Walters, 12490 Porcupine Court, stated that the
neighborhoods position was to not develop the theater .
The plan should be rejected for the following reasons :
1 . Concern for Lake Eden and the surrounding
watershed area.
2 . Loss of open space and wooded area.
3. Loss of wildlife .
4 . Land use incompatible with residential development
because the peak hours of operation would be at
the time when residents would be home and trying
to enjoy their yards and homes.
Walters stated the above objections followed the intent of
the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He said that the neighbors
had tried to work with the developer and the BRW.
Sandstad asked Walters what type of land use he would
propose. Walters replied that he could not give a
specific use; however, he would like to see a less intense
development. Walters added that he was not opposed to
development of the property.
Richard Jensen, 8680 Grier Lane, stated that he was
concerned about the potential for a drainage problem. He
• added that the water drained very slowly in the area
currently and was concerned about the addition of 5 acres
of asphalt and its affect on the drainage . Jensen
believed that the land use proposed was incompatible with
a residential neighborhood due to the noise, light and
late night hours of operation. Jensen added a concern
regarding potential traffic congestion on Medcom
Boulevard, especially with traffic wishing to make a left
hand turn.
John Simacek, 8662 Grier Lane, stated that he had bought
his property based on the understanding that the southern
portion of the property in question was guided for Open
,Space on the City's Master Plan. Simacek was concerned
about the location of the parking lot at the end of the
development and about the kids using the theater game room
as a hang out.
Ray Hoveland, 11924 Joy Circle, stated that he was
concerned about the drainage issue because the land
between his property and the proposed development was low.
Hoveland said that when he had considered buying his home
in Eden Prairie he had been impressed by the high priority
the City placed on land usage . He added that he would be
disappointed if the Planning Commission voted to allow the
theater development. Hoveland believed that the traffic
would be at the worst possible time for residents . He
believed the parking lot would be desolate and expressed a
Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 10, 1989
• concern about the security of the parking lot since it was
far away from any major street.
Hallett asked Hoveland what he would suggest as the
appropriate use of the land. Hoveland replied office use .
Hoveland added that the developer had tried to be co-
operative with the neighbors to make an incompatible
project compatible .
Flaherty stated that the key issue was the designation
between Neighborhood Commercial or C-Regional Commercial .
He believed there was a significant distance between the
existing neighborhood and the proposed development and
that a natural boundary was created . All of the technical '
issues raised by the residents and Staff had been
addressed. Flaherty said that he had compared the
proposed land use to other land uses and believed this use
to be less intense and the best use of the property. He
added that a 50, 000 square foot office building on this
property would not be economically feasible . The theater
would provide a needed service to the community. The
police department pointed out that management was an
important issue and he believed that Cinemark had the type
of quality management necessary for a successful project.
Flaherty said that a single user facility was much easier
to control than a multiple tenant complex. He believed
• that the other possible uses proposed would add to the
traffic problems especially on Prairie Center Drive and
Highway # 169, this use produced no morning traffic.
Flaherty concluded by stating that development would come
to this area and he believed this project to be the least
intense use . He added that he too lived in the community
and desired to produce a quality development. He believed
this was an opportunity to produce a landmark development .
Fell asked Flaherty if the building were converted to an
office how many square feet would it be . Flaherty replied
it could be converted to a 2-story office building of
50, 000 square feet without any expansion of the building.
Fell stated that he liked the project, but believed this
was not the appropriate location. He said the property
would be developed ultimately and the neighbors should be
aware of this . Fell was encouraged to see the neighbors
working together . The Guide Plan change may be
inappropriate because of the nature of the traffic, not
the magnitude .
Ruebling asked Gray to address the drainage issues . Gray
stated that this property was within the Eden Lake
Watershed District. Gray said that development of the
• property had been anticipated and believed that adequate
ponding was provided. Gray noted that the problem was
relying on a large storage space and a small hydraulic
Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 10, 1989
system. Gray introduced Bob Obermeyer of Barr Engineering
to explain further details .
Bob Obermeyer stated that the Watershed District had not
taken any formal action regarding this project as it was
the Watershed District's policy not to take action until a
project had gone through the full City process; however,
he was here tonight at the request of the City Staff to
answer any questions . A re-analysis of this area had been
conducted and the finding was that the current system was
adequate . He said that the system was designed to handle
a 100 year storm. The flood elevations were based on
ultimate development conditions consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Guide Plan. Lake Eden was a man-made pond
developed in 1973 to provide storm water storage. A 15"
pipe drains to Neil Lake marsh and ultimately drained into
Purgatory Creek . Obermeyer said that the homes adjacent
to the pond were required to be 2 feet above the flood
elevation.
Ruebling asked how this project compared related to water
run off with other possible land uses . Gray replied there
would be no significant detectable difference .
Ruebling asked if 350 parking spaces would be adequate for
a capacity of 1500 seats and if there would be a problem
• with overlapping traffic for show changes . Reed replied
that several firms confirmed by independent studies that 1
space for every 3 to 4 seats was adequate . Reed said that
the theater would never sell out 1500 seats for each
seating and that multi-complex theaters actually decreased
the parking demand.
Ruebling question the residents statement regarding this
area being designated for open space . Uram replied the
City was trying to protect the water; however, the City
would want to protect the ponds and trees with any
development of the property.
Ruebling stated that his major concern was with the
parking lot; its location, the timing of the traffic, the
light and the noise produced.
Hallett asked Uram if the proposed lighting for the
parking lot would be offensive to the neighbors and if he
could use another similar project for comparison. Uram
replied that while he could not speak for the residents,
the lighting would be downcast and that a similar project
would be the Crosstown Tennis Club's southern parking lot
which was adjacent to residential .
• Hallett questioned the 300 to 400 foot buffer . Uram
replied that this was measured to the lot lines and
believed the distance to be substantial . Hallett asked if
Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 10, 1989
a different proposal would change the buffer zone . Uram
replied that the rear lot line setback could be as close
as 10 feet to the southern lot lines, the proposed project
was proposing a 60-foot setback . Franzen stated that no
matter what the proposed use of the land, a buffer zone
would be necessary. Franzen added that there would still
be lighting and traffic for any use and that the hard
surface would probably remain the same for another use .
Hallett stated that there seemed to be a lot of trees
between the development and the neighbors . Uram noted
that the area to the southeast had no vegetation; however,
the area to the southwest did have significant vegetation.
Hallett believed that this vegetation should reduce the
effect of the noise and light. Hallett questioned how
much noise would actually be heard by the residents
considering the distance between the development and the
residents.
Ruebling asked if there could be additional development on
Lot 2 . Uram replied that proof of parking for 130 spaces
was required on Lot 2 and that development of Lot 2 could
only occur if a cross-parking agreement was obtain. Uram
believed that use would have to be for an office complex
and added that Staff would be concerned about the buffer
zone if Lot 2 were developed.
• Hallett asked if it would be possible to install a fence
to separate the proposed development from the residents .
Uram stated that a 6 to 8 foot berm was being proposed at
the southern boundary. Uram added that originally a trail
was proposed to the elementary school; however, the Parks
& Recreation Department had withdrawn its request because
of the neighborhoods concerns about pedestrian traffic
through their yards .
Hallett believed it was important that a movie ticket be
purchased in order to gain entry to the game room.
Dodge stated that she believed this to be a well thought
out project . She was not concerned with the intensity of
the use, but the type and hours of use for this project.
Dodge said that she was not comfortable supporting the
project because it was not allowed under the Neighborhood
Commercial designation.
Sandstad believed that the parking lot design was not
realistic because the walking distance from Lot 2 would be
too great. He was concerned about the land use
compatibility issues raised by the residents and had not
been convinced of the need for a Guide Plan Change.
• Anderson stated that a 1/2 candle foot lighting would not
be excessive and that the noise generated by this project
would not be any greater than other possible uses .
Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 10, 1989
Anderson commented that the neighbors were probably
already experiencing traffic noise from Highway #169 .
Anderson believed the visual impact from this project
would be less than other possible developments .
Bye stated that office use would create limited travel
after 7 PM.
Ruebling stated that the noise would be later at night and
asked why the building was placed in the proposed
location. Flaherty replied that he had wanted to keep the
building as far away from the lake as possible because of
the inconsistency with the residential homes . Flaherty
added that to minimize the visual impact he had decided to
tuck the building into the hillside as much as possible
and then to provide additional berming.
Hallett stated that he was not ready to vote for or to
deny the project at this time . Hallett asked if it would
be possible to walk the area with the proponent and a few
of the neighbors to get a better feel for how the project
would layout in its relationship to the residents .
Anderson asked how the effect of noise could be measured.
Sandstad stated that a noise impact study would probably
not show anything that Staff had not already pointed out.
• Bye commented that the noise issue was a judgement call,
what was offensive to one individual would not be to
another . Gray replied that this type of noise study would
be difficult to conduct and analysis.
Fell stated that his main concern was the transient nature
of the traffic and its direct reflection on the proposed
regional land use .
Bye concurred with Hallett 's recommendation to visit the
site . Flaherty stated that he did not object to a
continuance and would be available to provide a site visit
at the Planning Commission's convenience.
Anderson asked Flaherty to comment on the possibility of a
fence . Flaherty stated that he would consider fencing off
the property if the Planning Commission could give
compelling rationale, he added that at this time he could
not justify the need for a fence .
NOT I ON r
Hallett moved, seconded by Anderson to continue this item
to the April 24, 1989 Planning Commission meeting and that
within one weeks time the Planning Commission, one Staff
• member and 4 to 5 concerned neighbors meet to examine the
proposed development site . Staff to co-ordinate the
meeting. Motion carried 7-0-0.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 10, 1989
B. CABRIOLE CENTER, by Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc.
Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Office
District on 10 . 3 acres with variances to be reviewed by
the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 10 .3 acres into
2 lots for construction of a 65, 000 square foot office
building. Location: South of I-494 and West 78th Street,
and north of Anderson Lakes . A continued public hearing .
Franzen reported that this item had been continued at the
Planning Commission' s March 13, 1989 meeting and that no
major changes had been made to the plans . The proponent
had withdrawn the zoning request; however, would like to
proceed with the request for approval of the Preliminary
Plat subdivided into 2 lots .
Joe Ryan, representing Lexington Company, stated that the
request for the subdivision of the property between the
lot lines for Phase I and Phase II . The proponent was not
prepared to address the neighbors and Planning
Commission's concerns related to the building design for
Phase II . The rationale for the subdivision was to allow
adequate time to study Phase II and to re-evaluate the
design of the building proposed for Phase II . The
subdivision of the property would allow financing
alternatives . Ryan stated that the major concern raised
against the subdivision of the property at the last
. Planning Commission meeting was the parking lot
requirements. Ryan proposed a cross-parking easement
agreement . Ryan concluded by stating that he was not
requesting a revision to the Developers Agreement, only to
separate the property into two lots .
Anderson asked Ryan if the proponent had met with the
residents since the last Planning Commission meeting to
discuss the concerns regarding the commitments not upheld
with the development of Phase I related to landscaping.
Ryan replied that the proponent had not met with the
residents at this time . He added that Phase I had been
developed approximately 10 years ago and that Lexington
Company had only been involved for the past 4 years .
Lexington Company had not addressed the issues created by
the former developer .
Franzen stated that the question was whether the Planning
Commission was comfortable with approving the Preliminary
Plat with the Site Plan to be worked out in the future.
There were several open-ended questions which remained
unresolved. . Franzen questioned if the Preliminary Plat
were approved for subdivision would the City necessarily
be working with Lexington Company in the future or would
the property be sold to another developer . Franzen
• questioned what controls the City might lose if the
subdivision was approved.
Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 10, 1989
Sandstad asked if it would be appropriate to include a
time frame condition to bring Phase I into compliance with
the Developers Agreement . Franzen recommended that Staff
consult the City Attorney. Franzen commented that the
proponent wished to keep all its options open. The
proponent did not have definite plans for the property at
this time, while Staff would be more comfortable having
more control.
Ruebling stated that he was hesitant to ask the proponent
to correct problems created by the former developer in
order to receive approval for the Preliminary Plat.
Ruebling was more concerned with the loss of control over
the implementation of the City's policies . He believed a
decision was complicated because of the cross-parking,
cross easements, and the fact that Phase I would have no
parking.
Anderson asked exactly what controls would the City lose .
Franzen replied that with the current Site Plan Ordinance
the City would have more control than in the past.
Ruebling asked if the City could take steps to require
compliance with the Developers Agreement. Franzen replied
that the City could state specific conditions under which
the second site could develop; the Developers Agreement
• could be rewritten to require that the concerns of the
neighbors and the Planning Commission be addressed to
bring both sites into compliance with the Developers
Agreement.
Dale Hubred, 8056 Ensign Road, Bloomington, stated that he
was concerned about the property being subdivided and
Phase II being sold to another developer, which would not
work with the Phase I developer . The building location
could be changed. The neighbors were afraid because of
the past history of this project. Hubred said that the
site had been graded for the building to be constructed
together . Hubred asked if there was any way for the City
to keep the two lots tied together and require that the
developer work with the neighbors.
Sandstad stated that the two lots would be legally
connected through easements .
Franzen suggested asking the City Attorney if it would be
appropriate to have the Developers Agreement run with the
property, which would make the owner of the property
responsible to uphold the City's conditions .
Ruebling stated that the cross-parking easement would tie
the properties together . He added that the Planning
Commission and Staff historically requested all developers
to work with the neighbors and that major issues were
Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 10, 1989
resolved before the Planning Commission would approve a
project . .
Anderson stated that it would be difficult to enforce the
consistency of the architectural design if the property
was subdivided .
Hubred stated that the Environmental Quality Control Board
had worked on the original project and was concerned that
the City not lose anything already established by that
Board.
Ryan reiterated that the main reason for the request was
for the flexibility of financing.
Fell stated that he was concerned about the control being
lost by the City, that the Planning Commission was
possibly overlooking some aspect. He encouraged review by
the City Attorney before proceeding.
Ruebling asked if the PUD would change. Franzen replied
no. Ruebling concurred with Fell that the Planning
Commission needed to review this carefully before
proceeding and supported the recommendation for
clarification by the City Attorney.
Dodge stated that the Planning Commission should not
proceed if there was concern about losing control of the
project.
Fell asked Franzen if Item 1 of the proposed Motion 2 in
the Staff report was specific enough in reference to the
wording "to the degree possible" . Franzen noted that the
building for Phase I was not in compliance with City Code
and would require a variance . He added that the City
needed to look at its legal controls without creating
other problems .
Anderson stated that this was a financial issue on the
part of the proponent and added that this was not an
uncommon request.
Dodge requested clarification; if the Preliminary Plat was
approved Phase I would require off-site parking and the
building height for Phase II would require a variance,
which would not be required if the property remained as
one parcel . Franzen replied that the Board of Appeals
would have to approve the height variance in order for
Phase II of the project to proceed .
NOTION Ig
. Anderson moved, seconded by Ruebling to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0.
Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 10, 1989
MOTION 2g '
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to accept, without
prejudice, the withdrawal of the zoning district amendment
of Cabriole Center at this time . Further, to recommend to
the City Council approval of the request of Lexington
Properties for preliminary plat of Cabriole Center, based
on plans and written materials dated March 6, 1989,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
March 10, 1989, and subject to the following conditions :
1. Developer shall move immediately to bring the
existing plan into conformance with requirements
of the existing Developer 's Agreement on the
property to the degree possible .
2. Develo,per shall begin discussions immediately with
the residents in Bloomington to mitigate their
conce"rns regarding this proposed development.
3 . Developer shall agree to site plan review
according to City Code requirements prior to any
building permit issuance for Phase II of the
Cabriole Center .
4. Developer shall draft all necessary cross parking
and cross access easements prior to final plat
review by the City Council .
5. Developer shall agree to a restriction on the
vacant lot created to provide for all necessary
• permanent parking for the existing Phase I
building and to provide all necessary parking for
Phase II in a parking structure.
G. Developer shall proceed immediately to the Board
of Appeals for review of variances for setback to
lot line, parking off-site, and height variance
for the building on Phase I .
7. Developer shall agree to return to the Planning
Commission with a Development Proposal in
compliance with the current PUD or an amendment to
the PUD.
8. Prior to City Council action Staff request the
City Attorney to review this proposal and to
identify any other restrictions necessary to
maintain the normal amount of control for the
City.
Anderson asked if any Eden Prairie residents would be
affected by this project . Uram replied no.
Motion carried 7-0-0 .
C. WESLEY E. LANGHOFF RLS, by David Brown . A request for a
Registered Land Survey of 11 . 6 acres into one tract.
Location: 9801 Spring Road . A public hearing.
• Franzen reported that this item was a housekeeping item
related to a technical title clarification. There was no
Planning Commission Minutes 13 April 10, 1989
zoning change request .
Staff recommended approval of the request for an RLS,
based on plans dated February 24, 1989 .
MOTION 1
Dodge moved, seconded by Anderson to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0.
MOTION
Dodge moved, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of David Brown for
approval of a Registered Land Survey for the Wesley E.
Langhoff RLS, based on plans dated March 7, 1989, subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 7,
1989 . Motion carried 7-0-0.
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING THREE PROJECTS WERE PRESENTED
TOGETHER.
Uram reported that the Strawberry Hill, Red Rock View, and
Red Rock Shores project were connected due to the
• extension of utilities . The water service will come from
the west side of County Road 4 . The holding pond will
require an outlet to Red Rock Lake. All of the projects
are requesting a zoning district change from R1-22 to Rl-
13 . 5. Uram noted that each project would require separate
public hearing and motions.
Frank Cardarelle, representing the Strawberry Hill
project, stated that the sewer had to go through the
Strawberry Hill subdivision to service the other projects
and that 1/2 of a holding pond was on the Strawberry Hill
property. The request for a zoning change was due to the
problems to meet lot requirements due to the topography of
the land. Cardarelle stated that the proponent concurred
with the recommendations presented in the Staff Report of
April 7, 1989 . He added that this property was a
transition parcel with the average lot size being
approximately 17, 000 square feet. Some of lots were
smaller and some were larger due to the topography of the
land. The street layout had been approved by the City
Engineering Department to maintain an adequate traffic
flow. Cardarelle stated that the request for the zoning
change was important due to the changing times and
economy, roads, utilities, and storm sewer .
. Bob Smith, representing the Red Rock Shores project,
stated that Bill Gilk had acquired the Strawberry Hills
project . Smith did not believe it to be the best plan to
Planning Commission Minutes 14 April 10, 1989
have the driveways on County Road #4 and; therefore, had
changed the lot configuration to remove two lots and
enlarge one lot . This was a transitional piece between
the Blue Sky First Addition and the development to the
north. Utilities would come from the Strawberry Hills
project.
Cardarelle, representing the Red Rock View project, stated
that the proponent concurred with the Staff Report dated
April 7, 1989 . Cardarelle stated that if one lot was
dropped as per Staff recommendations the average lot size
would be approximately 24, 800 square feet, which was
similar to the average size in the Red Rock Lake area.
Cardarelle stated that 12 to 25 % of the lots in the Blue
Sky First Addition and the Red Rock Lake subdivision had
front footages of 100 feet.
Smith, Red Rock Shores, stated that this property was
divided into four parcels, with existing homes . Smith
presented two alternate proposals with the .recommended
proposal consisting of 15 lots and 4 outlots . Variances
would be required for the lot with the existing home and
one additional lot due to the front footage requirement.
The proponent would initially grade in the streets to save
trees and in addition some wetland grading would be
required. Smith said that two temporary lift stations
. would be installed . He believed that the proposed road
alignment would afford the best public safety protection.
A tree replacement plan would be submitted prior to review
by the City Council .
Uram reported that the Strawberry Hills subdivision was a
transition piece with the revised plan for 5 lots, which
would meet the Staff recommendations . Staff was concerned
about the placement of the road onto the Harry Rogers
property. Uram added that Staff wanted to assure that the
Rogers property would remain developable . Staff
recommended approval of the project based on the revised
plan submitted tonight.
Sandstad requested that the Planning Commission be allowed
to review the revised plans before taking action. Smith
stated that Gilk had just acquired the property this week
and that the only change was to drop 2 lots .
Ruebling asked if the Rogers property was platted and
zoned . Uram replied that the Rogers property was
unplatted, but was zoned R1-22 .
Ruebling asked what the lot width requirement was for R1-
22 zoning. Uram replied 90 feet .
• Bye read a petition submitted by the residents of Red Rock
West, which requested that the zoning remain at R1-22, the
Planning Commission Minutes 15 April 10, 1989
lots be visually consistent with adjacent properties at a
125 foot minimum lot width, not the 100 feet proposed,
setbacks be consistent at 50 feet not the 35 feet
proposed, and that the proposed development be required to
adhere to covenants similar to adjacent neighborhoods .
Bye noted that 40 of the 44 neighbors signed the petition.
A second petition submitted by the residents of Red Rock
West requested that the road planned in the development
north of their subdivision end in a cul-de-sac as
originally planned by the developers, instead of
connecting to Red Oak Drive . The neighbors believed the
extension of Red Oak Drive would drastically change the
character of the neighborhood from one with no outside
traffic to one with heavy traffic flow.
Allen Nicklay, 16011 Lake Shore Drive, stated that the
zoning should remain at R1-22 . He believed that the
Southwest Area Study recommendations should also pertain
to these three developments . Development in this area
should be limited until County Road #4 was upgraded.
Nicklay believed that the 100 lot limit was already
exceeded with the approval of the Cedar Ridge Estates
project and the Phase I Fairfield project and that these
three developments would add 35 more lots . He added that
all of these developments would utilize County Road #4,
which already was heavily used. Nicklay requested that
• the proposal be denied and current zoning remain in order
to uphold the recommendations of the Southwest Area Study.
Jack Van Remortel, 16051 Summit Drive, stated that he had
not been able to attend the neighborhood meeting, but
would like to add his name to the petition to support the
requests . Van Remortel recommended that the pace of
approval for these projects take into consideration the
need for the total area requirements for utilities and to
install all the utilities at one time . He was concerned
that his property had the potential to be under
construction for 3 to 4 years before all utility
connections were complete . Van Remortel said that one
week after he had put in sod after the trunk watermain was
installed the City came out and put in stakes to tear up
the property for sanitary and storm sewer .
Gary Ernst, 15851 Summit Drive, stated that by extending
Red Oak Drive the character of the neighborhood would
change . The neighborhood would be used as a short cut to
Scenic Heights Road to avoid the congestion on County Road
#4 . Ernst was concerned about the affect of the increased
traffic . He did not believe that a third entrance to the
neighborhood was necessary.
• Don Harasyn, 15811 Summit Drive, stated that this area had
been zoned R1-22 for several years, the existing homes are
zoned R1-22 and could not see the justification for a
Planning Commission Minutes 16 April 10, 1989
• zoning change now.
Fred Purcell, 8610 Red Oak Drive, believed that the
temporary road proposed with the Strawberry Hill project
to the north would create traffic problems . The lots
proposed for Red Rock View had small lots abutting to
large lots, with the potential for small houses to be
constructed on the back portion of the lots . Purcell
believed the zoning should stay R1-22 for both Red Rock
View and Red Rock Shores . Red Oak Drive currently had a
poor design and did not want to see the road extended .
The streets should be kept at a 60 foot width. Purcell
wanted to see the intersection upgraded. Purcell said
that the area had had water problems for 17 years and was
concerned about affect of the new development.
Larry Lewis, 8681 Meadowvale Drive, stated that the lots
along Meadowvale Drive had front footages of 125 feet and
believed the new subdivision should maintain that front
footage. He said that the reason he bought his home in
this location was because of the closed road system.
Lewis believed that two accesses to the neighborhood would
destroy the character . Lewis supported the use of a cul-
de-sac rather than a through street. He wanted the
setbacks to be maintained at 50 feet .
• John Hoffer, 8711 Meadowvale Road, believed that the
houses would be too close together . He added that 100
foot frontages with $200, 000 homes would be too close .
Hoffer believed that the proposed developments would not
be compatible with the existing neighborhoods .
Sandra Russer, 8731 Summit Drive, stated that she would
like to see the zoning remain R1-22 to maintain the
aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood . She believed that
these three developments would destroy the integrity of
the neighborhoods . Russer supported only one additional
entrance to the neighborhood, because of the concern
regarding increased traffic and the amount of young
children in the area. Russer believed that the majority
of the land in the Red Rock Shores addition was swamp land
and believed that the natural swamp lands in Eden Prairie
were becoming endangered.
Steve Wagner, 8430 Eden Prairie Road, stated that his
property would be affected by the Scenic Heights Road
alignment and believed that traffic on County Road #4 was
substantial now. Wagner requested that Staff and the
Planning Commission give careful consideration to the
traffic patterns in this area.
Hoffer commented that he did not see where a transition
• was being made . He could only see smaller lots being
mixed in with larger lots .
Planning Commission Minutes 17 April 10, 1989
Larry Moos, 8651 Red Oak Drive, asked what the City was
transitioning to . He believed that the Gilk project would
be a nice development. Moos was concerned about the
potential increased traffic generation with the proposed
extension. Moos asked how the City could control the
traffic.
Uram summarized the neighbors concerns as the following:
1 . Southwest Area Study.
2. Drainage.
3 . Right-of-way widths.
4. Zoning issues .
5 . Traffic .
6 . Utilities .
Gray stated the upgrade of County Road #4 and Highway #5
was a MnDot project . He added that the contract had been
awarded for the upgrade and should be under construction
this summer . Gray noted that by this Fall the
developments along the west side of County Road #4 would
only have possibly one to two dozen occupancies and that
the upgrading of County Road #4 and Highway #5 would
correlate well with the new home construction.
Gray stated that Staff had not had an opportunity to meet
with the neighborhood regarding utilities; however, the
. City was in the planning process for a storm sewer project
in this area, with proposed construction to begin by the
end of this year . Gray added that Staff would be looking
at the Summit Drive neighborhood for sanitary sewer . Gray
stated that the City Council could authorize a feasibility
study if the neighborhood generated interest and added
that Staff was prepared to proceed with a feasibility
study if the interest was expressed.
Gray stated that the existing street right-of-way in this
neighborhood was 60 feet and that the proposed
developments were planning 50 foot right-of-ways . He said
that 50 foot right-of-ways were adequate for residential
streets. These streets would not be major collectors .
Gray said that there would be no need for sidewalks in
this area. He added that if 28 foot streets were
constructed there would not be a detectable difference
between a 50 foot or a 60 foot right-of-way, the street
width would remain the same.
Gray stated that it was the City's policy to eliminate
unnecessary cul-de-sacs whenever possible . He believed
that when Highway 212 was built and Scenic Heights Road
was realigned, additional traffic would not use Red Oak
Drive . Scenic Heights would be signalized and County Road
• 04 would become a 4-lane road, allowing for a greater
capacity for County Road #4 .
Planning Commission Minutes 18 April 10, 1989
Bill Sauro, 8750 Meadowvale Drive, asked if County Road #4
would be 4 lane south of Scenic Heights Road . Gray
replied that the construction would be done in stages and
that eventually County Road #4 would be 4 lane all the way
to County Road #1.
Gray believed the through connections were justified;
however, the neighbors concerns regarding the speed of
traffic were valid. Gray added that Summit Drive traffic
could decrease with an alternate access to the north. He
believed that the traffic would be dispersed evenly.
Uram reported that the properties could be developed now
as R1-22; however, the change in the zoning to R1-13 . 5
would force the developers to install utilities . The
change in zoning would also give the developers
flexibility in the developments . Uram believed that the
Harry Rogers property which was zoned R1-22 would not be
developed as R1-22 . Currently the standard zoning
district was R1-13 . 5.
Bye asked Uram what the setback requirements were. Uram
replied 30 foot setbacks within the R1-22 zoning. Uram
added that the property to the west could meet the 50 foot
setbacks.
• Hallett stated that he was pleased to see the Strawberry
Hills project drop the two lots and change the road
alignment so that the driveways did not come out onto
County Road #4 . Hallett was concerned that the Harry
Rogers property be protected to avoid land locking his
property. Hallett pointed out that when utilities were
installed as part of a total development package the costs
could be reduced and encouraged the neighbors to consider
this fact. He was pleased to see the through street going
to Scenic Heights Road, and believed it would improve
circulation and provide an internal route for the
neighbors . Hallett asked why sidewalks were not being
considered in this area and suggested that some type of
trail system be established. Hallett asked Uram if there
was a trail system along the lake. Uram replied no.
Hallett stated that Red Rock View should be more
compatible with the existing neighborhood.
Ruebling stated that he favored leaving the zoning at R1-
22 . He would like to see the utilities installed in this
neighborhood and encouraged the developers to install them
now. Ruebling said that the lot lines and setbacks should
match that of the existing neighborhoods . He considered
the through street a plus . Ruebling concurred with
Hallett that sidewalks and/or a trail system should be
• considered.
Fell stated that he concurred with Ruebling and Hallett on
Planning Commission Minutes 19 April 10, 1989
their recommendations . Fell wanted to have the
opportunity to see a set of revised plans showing the
layout of the 5 lots for the Strawberry Hills project .
Sandstad asked Gray if the street would be curbed and
paved . Gray replied that the temporary road would be
bituminous and would have a curb. Gray added that Red
Rock Drive would a permanent.
Sandstad recommended the zoning remain at R1-22 .
Dodge stated that the Red Rock View addition could not
meet the R1-22 zoning on all the lots . Dodge asked if the
setbacks could be mixed with some being 30 feet and some
being 50 feet . Uram replied that Staff would recommend
being consistent and maintain the 50 foot setbacks . Uram
added that 3 lots would have to be removed in the Red Rock
View project to meet the 125 foot lot widths.
Uram reported that on the Gilk property all of the lots on
the east would meet the R1-22 zoning requirements;
however, 2 lots on the west side would not and required
variances .
D. STRAWBERRY HILL, by Dennis J. Wittenberg. A request for
Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13. 5 on 3 .2 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 3 . 2 acres into 7 single family lots
and road right-of-way. Location: East of County Road #4,
north of BLUE SKY FIRST ADDITION. A public hearing.
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to continue this item
to the April 24, 1989 Planning Commission meeting.
Uram asked the Planning Commission if it favored the 5 lot
plan. Fell stated that he needed to see a plan before
approving a proposal . Anderson added that it was
important that the Planning Commission send a message to
the developers to have their plans ready before coming
before the Planning Commission.
•
Planning Commission Minutes 20 April 10, 1989
Bye stated that the plans should maintain the 50 ' setback .
Motion carried 7-0-0 .
E. RED -ROCK VIEW ADD_ITION., by Mark Olsen. A request for
Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13 . 5 on 5 .7 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 5. 7 acres into 11 single family lots
and road right-of-way. Location: West of Meadowvale
Drive, east of BLUE SKY FIRST ADDITION. A public hearing.
MOTION w
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to continue this item
to the April 24, 1989 Planning Commission meeting.
Ruebling stated that the 125 foot lot width was important
to maintain.
Sandstad believed that the density of the project was more
important than the lot width.
Ruebling believed that the width was important to provide
consistency with the existing neighborhood.
Bye asked Uram how many lots would be eliminated to
maintain the 125 foot lot width. Uram replied 3 lots
• would be eliminated, which would be a substantial amount
for a proposed 11 lot development.
Ruebling stated that because of the existing neighborhood
the developer needed to try to maintain the character of
the existing neighborhood.
Hallett believed that the lots did not necessarily all
need to be 125 feet in width, but he would like to see a
different layout.
Bye stated that the Planning Commission was asking the
developer to provide a higher standard than the 90 feet
which was required.
Motion carried 7-0-0 .
F. RED ROCK SHORES, by Scenic Heights Investment. Request
for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13. 5 on 19 . 77
acres, Preliminary Plat of 19 . 77 acres into 17 single
family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location:
East of County Road #4, north and east of Lake Shore
Drive . A public hearing.
•
Planning Commission Minutes 21 April 10, 1989
is
MOTION
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to continue this item
to the April 24, 1989 Planning Commission meeting.
Hallett was concerned that two weeks would not be enough
time for this item.
Smith stated that the developer would be requesting
variances on some of the lots.
Van Remortel asked where the neighbors stood regarding
utilities . Gray recommended the neighbors file a petition
with the City to show the City Council that there was an
interest on the part of the neighborhood . Gray added that
a petition did not obligate the neighbors to anything, it
would simply start the process . Van Remortel asked if a
certain percentage of the neighbors would have to sign the
petition in order for any action to be taken. Gray
replied 35 percent. Gray added that a 4/5 vote by the
City Council would be required to proceed with the
process . He described the formal process to the
residents .
Sauro, asked how the City would determine if a 5 foot
concrete sidewalk or an 8 foot bituminous trail would be
• installed. Gray replied that it would most likely be a 5
foot concrete sidewalk . Gray added that the costs were
basically the same for either system. Smith stated that
the developer had had conversations with the Parks &
Recreation Department and that it was not recommended to
install sidewalks . Hallett stated that the Planning
Commission was recommending sidewalks be installed.
Motion carried 7-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Fell stated that this could be his last term and did not wish
to be considered for any office . Fell said that Chairperson
Bye had done well this year; however, he would like to see a
different person chair the Commission to provide depth to the
Planning Commission, Fell suggested Bye for Vice Chairperson.
Fell recommended Richard Anderson for Chairperson. He
believed this would indicate to the City Council the Planning
Commission support of Anderson for reappointment next year .
Hallett believed that Anderson would do an excellent job as
Chairperson; however, he believed that an individual should
• serve at least two years in the position as chair . He added
that the first year was a learning experience . Hallett
recommended that Anderson .serve as Chairperson after serving
Planning Commission Minutes 22 April 10, 1989
. one more year as Vice Chairperson.
Fell commented that the St. Louis Park Planning Commission
rotated its members to the different offices, which he
believed built strength into the Commission. Fell also noted
that the Commission had lost Bye ' s expertise in making
motions .
Dodge believed that during the last year the Commission
members were all participating more in making motions .
Ruebling agreed that the leadership need to be changed;
however, he did not believe that it needed to change every
year .
Dodge stated that if the officers were just going to rotate,
then what was the purpose of elections.
Ruebling stated that he would not like to go to a rotating
order.
Bye stated that she had learned a lot in the past year and
would like to continue for one more year . She believed that
she could grow and learn even more with one more years
experience.
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to open the nominations
for Chairperson. Motion carried 7-0-0.
Hallett moved, seconded by Dodge to nominate Julianne Bye for
Chairperson. There were no other nominations for Chairperson.
A unanimous ballot was cast for Commissioner Bye as
Chairperson of the Planning Commission for 1989 .
MOTION:
Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to open the nominations
for Vice Chairperson. Motion carried 7-0-0.
MOTION•
Fell moved, seconded by Hallett to nominate Richard Anderson
for Vice Chairperson. There were no other nominations for
Vice Chairperson.
A unanimous ballot was cast for Commissioner Anderson as Vice
• Chairperson of the Planning Commission for 1989 .
MOTION:
Planning Commission Minutes 23 April 10, 1989
• Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to open the nominations
for Secretary. Motion carried 7-0-0 .
MOTION:
Hallett moved, seconded by Fell to nominate Christine Dodge as
Secretary. There were no other nominations for Secretary.
A unanimous ballot was cast for Commissioner Dodge as
Secretary of the Planning Commission for 1989 .
VI . NEW BUSINESS
VII . PLANNER' S REPORT
Hallett asked Staff for updated on the issues of Cemeteries,
height of the buildings versus the required setbacks, and the
traffic study on Pioneer Lane .
Franzen noted the date scheduled for the joint meeting with
the City Council and asked that Commission members check their
schedules and get back to Staff if there were conflicts .
VIII . ADJOURNMENT
Ruebling moved, seconded by Hallett to adjourn the meeting at
. 11: 25 PM. Motion carried 7-0-0.